Asylum seekers

I hope some folks will read and share this.
https://iandunt.substack.com/p/rwanda-a-day-of-shame

With every step they make me more ashamed to be from this septic isle.

Very much agree.

Am a child of immigrants.

Is the better term clandestine?

I fear you are right. Look at what this shite gov did to the windrush generation children brought here.

Not new news, but this was an appalling excuse..

https://www.thepinknews.com/2023/09/26/braverman-gay-refugees-asylum/

Where individuals are being persecuted, it is right that we offer sanctuary. But we will not be able to sustain an asylum system if, in effect, simply being gay or a woman and fearful of discrimination in your country of origin is sufficient to qualify for protection

A government that made tangible progress restoring a sense of order and fairness in the public realm would not satisfy the anti-immigrant hardcore, but it wouldn’t have to. A period of sustained competence – just making the systems work – would drain so much poison out of the debate.

Interesting, and timely, column from Rafael Behr in today's Guardian:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/apr/24/keir-starmer-immigration-debate-tories-britain

Well said.

What I don’t understand is why as a country we aren’t welcoming these people into society here. There’s plenty of housing an opportunity. Just making the process easier and quicker rather than spending ludicrous amounts of money on such a morally bankrupt scheme.

When Rishi describes it as the will of the people it makes my blood boil. If he understood the will of the people he’d walk off a cliff.

Given the death of Frank Field today, it seems timely to point out that there is a legitimate progressive critique of the impacts of immigration, specifically that it is being used to benefit capital, rather than the immigrants themselves or the wider population.

Despite a lot of hot air over Rwanda, net immigration has grown throughout the Tory period in office. They would rather deliver for their donors and the corporate lobbyists of Amazon, Deliveroo, Uber, despite their toxic anti-immigrant rhetoric.

Put another way, the argument in favour of immigration and equitable asylum also needs to argue for a system where it benefits everybody, rather than just allowing Jeff Bezos to further increase his net worth. By extension that means addressing the issues of access to quality housing, healthcare, education and employment for all.

An important set of stats

The number of people waiting for an asylum decision has increased by 408% since December 2017. Before this, the backlog had remained relatively stable at around 31,000 from 2014 to 2017.

https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explainer/asylum-backlog

So, in Reforms desperation to be more hard line than the tory's Ben Habib want to let asylum seekers drown. Its nuts to watching Hartley-Brewer being the voice of reason.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/reform-uk-asylum-rwanda-channel-boats-b2533923.html

What’s gonna be the plan when boatloads of blood stained Isntrealis start arriving from the Middle East?

Not gonna click on the Graun, but I expect my former colleague Raf doesn't cover the fact none of this is done to appease the fairly insignificant far right population but is entirely for the benefit of a few wingnut editors who still, bizarrely enough, have the power to sway elections.

He probably deliberately ignores the role those currently in charge of the so-called Labour Party had in legitimising 'gEnUiNe CoNcErNs' about immigration way back in the noughties when they had the chance to nip this shit in the bud but oddly enough chose not to.

Granted I haven't and won't read the article. I don't read what Raf churns out anymore since he went on record to blame Jeremy Corbyn for his heart condition. Fuck knows what happened to him, but he wasn't such a loon in the 90s.

What’s the point of commenting on an article if you aren’t prepared to read it?

I’m not sure what your point is. “The Plan” is to send them to Rwanda. Haven’t you heard?

To point out I no longer trust the output of its author. Was I right?

If what you quoted is the long and short of his argument, i.e. make things work and the plebs will stop doing a racism, I fundamentally reject that too. It's grossly classist and ignores the fact racism and anti-immigration is not exclusively a working class problem.

Even if you're only going to be reading that quote I struggle to understand how that is your comprehension of the quote?

A government that made tangible progress restoring a sense of order and fairness in the public realm would not satisfy the anti-immigrant hardcore, but it wouldn’t have to. A period of sustained competence – just making the systems work – would drain so much poison out of the debate.

Vs

.e. make things work and the plebs will stop doing a racism, I fundamentally reject that too. It's grossly classist and ignores the fact racism and anti-immigration is not exclusively a working class problem.

It is saying; 1. Making the immigration system function won't change the views of people who are vermently anti-immigration 2. Making the immigration system function will take the heat out of the debate for the majority.

I mean, I fundamentally disagree with that notion too. It isn't the system working (or not) that contributes to the poison in the debate. It's a dishonest media/political class that only has its own interests at heart.

Also he specifically he challenges the trope (which this forum loves to indulge in) that public attitudes to immigration are binary - us good guys on one side vs all the massive racists who don't share our views.

So without wanting to turn this into an ad hominem argument, I don't think your views or interpretation on Rafael Behr's writing are especially useful.

Hand on heart, you don't think that the fact that we've spent £x on housing asylum applicants in hotels, barges and attempting to fly them to Rwanda, instead of processing them with the same cost/efficiency as say, under Cameron's government, has any impact?

Based on a sample size of one, the cost boils my piss.

I think those policies were carried out with the express purpose of boiling people's piss. To distract from the fact the Government's other policies have been catastrophic for public services and by extension most people's day-to-day lives.

Immigration is used by pretty much all governments as a distraction. Rarely do any make the case for it (i.e. we need it). New Labour did it (remember the mugs?), Cameron's government did it and this one has picked it up and run with it too. None of them have any interest in making the system 'work' or making the case for it because the former takes away a cast iron excuse for their own failings and the latter puts them in conflict with said wingnut newspaper editors I mentioned earlier.

Would a so-called 'functioning' system take the poison out of the debate? No. Not as long as there are politicians wanting to distract from their own failings and a media more than happy to amplify those distractions.

Here’s a concise summary of the stupidity of the “Rwanda scheme”
Performative cruelty.
Meanwhile Mohammad Ghanjkanlou who has a genuine a claim for refugee status is to be held in the Bibby Stockholm pending deportation.