Wasn’t about the law. Was about trying to look tough on those on boats regardless if it worked or not.
Boris: “It’s fine. We’re only breaking it in a limited and specific way.”
Try the priti Patel defence “im sorry you feel i broke international law”
Does this being targeted at or effecting one gender more than the other not also set up a gender discrimination case also? Gender is a protected characteristic and all.
Britain with its “special anti-migrant shipping operation”. I hate this government
The government has been demonstrated to ignore their own laws, so this is barely a surprise…..
Turns out the UN doesn’t like Priti’s concentration camp idea, who’d have thought
To make it safe for the migrants in Calais , France should offer free flights for them from Paris to Rwanda .
A free flight would be safer than a dangerous journey across the channel in a rubber dinghy
From Adam Bienkov’s substack:
>When Boris Johnson was Mayor of London he claimed to be the most pro-immigration politician in the country.
>
>“I’m probably about the only politician I know of who is actually willing to stand up and say that he’s pro-immigration,” Johnson told the London Assembly in 2013.
>
>“I believe that when talented people have something to offer a society and a community they should be given the benefit of the doubt.”
>
>He even went so far as to [back an amnesty for undocumented migrants](https://www.dailymail.co.uk/video/news/video-1014078/Boris-supports-amnesty-illegal-immigrants.html), saying that politicians should be “honest” about the value of allowing them to remain in the UK.
>
>Faced with a possible early exit from Downing Street, Johnson no longer sees the value in such honesty.
>
>He has instead devised a scheme that will see refugees forcibly removed to detention and ‘processing’ camps in Rwanda.
My own calls for overhauling our immigration system go back decades but I am concerned that in the process of accelerating solutions, the government now risks making serious mistakes.
We have a tendency to conflate immigration with asylum when in fact the two issues are distinct, each requiring unique consideration. Having studied the Nationality and Borders Bill carefully, I feel these lines have once again been blurred and as a result, parliament faces several egregious proposals.
The first is the clause giving the Home Office powers to send asylum seekers to offshore processing centres in another part of the world.
I am the first person to call for tougher measures on migrants who are here illegally, as well as those who have failed to meet the conditions required in their asylum applications.
It is not a question of being tough or soft. It is about creating a system which is, as I described when I was immigration minister, “firm” and “fair”. A system where due process and its outcomes are paramount.
Engaging in a legal process that may end with deportation is one thing. But espousing a policy that begins with deportation? That is fundamentally different, and fundamentally wrong.
It puts the migrants at risk by sending them to places that do not comply with our legal or human rights standards. It would be eye-wateringly expensive for the UK. And, perhaps most worrying, parliament would be ratifying a policy without knowing how it would work, granting executive powers without understanding how they might be used.
At this stage it is not even clear which country would be prepared to take this on. The Norwegians have said no. The Albanians have said no. The government is considering Rwanda and a remote, practically unreachable island off the coast of Africa. Both options abound with problems.
Amid all the unknowns, there is one thing we do know for sure: the Australian model on which this proposal is based was a failure. So why is the UK seeking to emulate a failed strategy?
My second concern relates to the clause that will enable the Home Office to strip people of their UK citizenship unilaterally, secretly, and it appears, with little right of appeal. This is a terrifying prospect. As I understand it, the Home Office would be able to take such decisions solely on the basis of the “public interest” – a definition so vast, with so many permutations, that I despair at where this road could lead.
Once again, this is a policy that the government has not fully explained, but would have a profound impact on the people affected, as well as on British values and the rule of law.
British values and the rule of law, rooted in the past, must guide us forward. The United Nations Refugee Convention of 1951 embodies both and provides us with the criteria to distinguish between asylum seekers and other migrants, and to assist those in desperate humanitarian need.
However, the bill’s asylum provisions fall short of addressing this need. It will create two categories of asylum seeker, differentiating between those who arrive “legally” and those who arrive “illegally”. Only those who arrive legally will have their asylum claims considered. Those who arrive illegally will not.
But here’s the rub: currently there are no proper legal and safe routes available. So essentially, all asylum seekers will be classed as illegal and face criminalisation.
This is punitive and paradoxical. In its determination to keep people out, the government risks losing sight of our obligations to selectively allow people in.
To justify this initiative, therefore, we need to make legal routes a reality. We did this for Bosnian refugees in the 90s. We did it for Syrians. And we are rightly doing it for the Afghans. A global resettlement scheme, which would enable people from different parts of the world to make their case for asylum humanely and legitimately, would surely inject a dose of fairness into the firm measures we must rightly adopt.
It’s like the tories took all the leaves from far right and trump playbooks, threw out anything even remotely palatable and decided to implement the rest while barking “wErE tHe BeSt aNd NoT lAbOuR”. Utterly inhuman, amoral, cunts.
What a shock! If only anyone could’ve seen this coming.
I assumed so. It’s forcibly removing and dumping people somewhere they don’t want to be without any say. It’s inhuman.
Here’s a dead cat. Look! Look at it! (ignore what’s going on over here). Look, dead cat!
I heard a conservative MP (forgot which one) genuinely say that the biggest problem they (the government) are going to face is challenging this in the courts…
If you’re making plans that you know are instantly going to get picked up by prosecutors, why are you making these rules?
It has served it’s purpose. It distracts from the partygate fines. It feeds “red meat” to their new, knuckle-dragging base and when it inevitably turns out that they can’t legally do it, they can blame the judges and the “elites”.
It’s all so fucking depressingly predictable.
Isn’t Australia doing something similar except they are sending people to Nauru?
Since when has the government cared about breaking laws?
So how come Australia have got away with it for years and years then?
How on earth can your country survive when it’s lead by liars and thieves
Since when does the U.K. Govt care about breaking the law???
Can we send the government to Rwanda instead? I feel like they’d fit in quite well
If u wanna discourage refugees just tell them they will be sent to Wales
Surprised the Brexiteer junta hasn’t campaigned to leave the United Nations yet.
Surely Rwanda would welcome the significant boost to its economy that the refugees bring? The fresh, energetic ideas they bring will see Rwanda flourish. Rwanda also has much more space than the UK and won’t need to build on greenbelt land as the UK has been doing for years.
The same international law that stopped Russia invading Ukraine?
26 comments
Wasn’t about the law. Was about trying to look tough on those on boats regardless if it worked or not.
Boris: “It’s fine. We’re only breaking it in a limited and specific way.”
Try the priti Patel defence “im sorry you feel i broke international law”
Does this being targeted at or effecting one gender more than the other not also set up a gender discrimination case also? Gender is a protected characteristic and all.
Britain with its “special anti-migrant shipping operation”. I hate this government
The government has been demonstrated to ignore their own laws, so this is barely a surprise…..
Turns out the UN doesn’t like Priti’s concentration camp idea, who’d have thought
To make it safe for the migrants in Calais , France should offer free flights for them from Paris to Rwanda .
A free flight would be safer than a dangerous journey across the channel in a rubber dinghy
From Adam Bienkov’s substack:
>When Boris Johnson was Mayor of London he claimed to be the most pro-immigration politician in the country.
>
>“I’m probably about the only politician I know of who is actually willing to stand up and say that he’s pro-immigration,” Johnson told the London Assembly in 2013.
>
>“I believe that when talented people have something to offer a society and a community they should be given the benefit of the doubt.”
>
>He even went so far as to [back an amnesty for undocumented migrants](https://www.dailymail.co.uk/video/news/video-1014078/Boris-supports-amnesty-illegal-immigrants.html), saying that politicians should be “honest” about the value of allowing them to remain in the UK.
>
>Faced with a possible early exit from Downing Street, Johnson no longer sees the value in such honesty.
>
>He has instead devised a scheme that will see refugees forcibly removed to detention and ‘processing’ camps in Rwanda.
Linked to though: https://nitter.net/AdamBienkov/status/1514870917352013825#m
RED BOX: [Nationality and Borders Bill](https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/nationality-and-borders-bill-is-inhumane-vn5bk3pnm)
*Timothy Kirkhope*
Wednesday January 05 2022, The Times
My own calls for overhauling our immigration system go back decades but I am concerned that in the process of accelerating solutions, the government now risks making serious mistakes.
We have a tendency to conflate immigration with asylum when in fact the two issues are distinct, each requiring unique consideration. Having studied the Nationality and Borders Bill carefully, I feel these lines have once again been blurred and as a result, parliament faces several egregious proposals.
The first is the clause giving the Home Office powers to send asylum seekers to offshore processing centres in another part of the world.
I am the first person to call for tougher measures on migrants who are here illegally, as well as those who have failed to meet the conditions required in their asylum applications.
It is not a question of being tough or soft. It is about creating a system which is, as I described when I was immigration minister, “firm” and “fair”. A system where due process and its outcomes are paramount.
Engaging in a legal process that may end with deportation is one thing. But espousing a policy that begins with deportation? That is fundamentally different, and fundamentally wrong.
It puts the migrants at risk by sending them to places that do not comply with our legal or human rights standards. It would be eye-wateringly expensive for the UK. And, perhaps most worrying, parliament would be ratifying a policy without knowing how it would work, granting executive powers without understanding how they might be used.
At this stage it is not even clear which country would be prepared to take this on. The Norwegians have said no. The Albanians have said no. The government is considering Rwanda and a remote, practically unreachable island off the coast of Africa. Both options abound with problems.
Amid all the unknowns, there is one thing we do know for sure: the Australian model on which this proposal is based was a failure. So why is the UK seeking to emulate a failed strategy?
My second concern relates to the clause that will enable the Home Office to strip people of their UK citizenship unilaterally, secretly, and it appears, with little right of appeal. This is a terrifying prospect. As I understand it, the Home Office would be able to take such decisions solely on the basis of the “public interest” – a definition so vast, with so many permutations, that I despair at where this road could lead.
Once again, this is a policy that the government has not fully explained, but would have a profound impact on the people affected, as well as on British values and the rule of law.
British values and the rule of law, rooted in the past, must guide us forward. The United Nations Refugee Convention of 1951 embodies both and provides us with the criteria to distinguish between asylum seekers and other migrants, and to assist those in desperate humanitarian need.
However, the bill’s asylum provisions fall short of addressing this need. It will create two categories of asylum seeker, differentiating between those who arrive “legally” and those who arrive “illegally”. Only those who arrive legally will have their asylum claims considered. Those who arrive illegally will not.
But here’s the rub: currently there are no proper legal and safe routes available. So essentially, all asylum seekers will be classed as illegal and face criminalisation.
This is punitive and paradoxical. In its determination to keep people out, the government risks losing sight of our obligations to selectively allow people in.
To justify this initiative, therefore, we need to make legal routes a reality. We did this for Bosnian refugees in the 90s. We did it for Syrians. And we are rightly doing it for the Afghans. A global resettlement scheme, which would enable people from different parts of the world to make their case for asylum humanely and legitimately, would surely inject a dose of fairness into the firm measures we must rightly adopt.
[*Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate*](https://members.parliament.uk/member/891/registeredinterests) *was Home Office immigration and nationality minister 1995-97*
–
**p.s.**
22nd December 2021: [Seeking asylum isn’t illegal yet, criminal courts confirm, quashing small boat convictions](https://freemovement.org.uk/asylum-seeking-isnt-illegal-yet-criminal-courts-confirm-quashing-small-boat-convictions/)
It’s like the tories took all the leaves from far right and trump playbooks, threw out anything even remotely palatable and decided to implement the rest while barking “wErE tHe BeSt aNd NoT lAbOuR”. Utterly inhuman, amoral, cunts.
What a shock! If only anyone could’ve seen this coming.
I assumed so. It’s forcibly removing and dumping people somewhere they don’t want to be without any say. It’s inhuman.
Here’s a dead cat. Look! Look at it! (ignore what’s going on over here). Look, dead cat!
I heard a conservative MP (forgot which one) genuinely say that the biggest problem they (the government) are going to face is challenging this in the courts…
If you’re making plans that you know are instantly going to get picked up by prosecutors, why are you making these rules?
It has served it’s purpose. It distracts from the partygate fines. It feeds “red meat” to their new, knuckle-dragging base and when it inevitably turns out that they can’t legally do it, they can blame the judges and the “elites”.
It’s all so fucking depressingly predictable.
Isn’t Australia doing something similar except they are sending people to Nauru?
Since when has the government cared about breaking laws?
So how come Australia have got away with it for years and years then?
How on earth can your country survive when it’s lead by liars and thieves
Since when does the U.K. Govt care about breaking the law???
Can we send the government to Rwanda instead? I feel like they’d fit in quite well
If u wanna discourage refugees just tell them they will be sent to Wales
Surprised the Brexiteer junta hasn’t campaigned to leave the United Nations yet.
Surely Rwanda would welcome the significant boost to its economy that the refugees bring? The fresh, energetic ideas they bring will see Rwanda flourish. Rwanda also has much more space than the UK and won’t need to build on greenbelt land as the UK has been doing for years.
The same international law that stopped Russia invading Ukraine?