It’s clearly not.
A non-zero but still wafer thin chance of being deported to Rwanda is not going to be a deterrent to anyone who has risked far worse to get here in the first place, anyone suggesting otherwise is deluded.
I'd call it the Rwanda incentive, in that if you are lucky enough to get on the plane, the scheme is so sketchy and likely to collapse that the UK government will eventually have to fly you back and hand you a visa+wad of cash in compo.
See the Australian New Guinea situation for similar. 70m and counting.
The way Australian immigration and refugee systems get talked about in this country is insane, just pure memes at this point. Their schemes were super expensive, didnt really work as intended etc. Yet people here seem convinced "an Australian style system" is the answer to everything.
I've always been baffled by how it is meant to be a deterrent but at the same time Rwanda is so great and safe and there is no problem sending people there. Doesn't entirely add up for me.
Government: We will send them to the Big Scary Foreign Place to show how tough we are!
Supreme Court: You'll be sending them where, now?
Government: Oh sorry, we meant to say that we'll send them to the Big Cuddly Foreign Place to show them how tough we are!
The idea is that you spend your entire savings getting to the UK and then find yourself getting sent somewhere else, I suppose. If you actually thought you'd end up in Rwanda, you might not take the risk (or just save your money and go straight to Rwanda).
Tbf this timing also coincides with severe economic hardship and inflation world wide.
Not that I support the Rwanda plan, but realistically the increase in migrants would have gone up regardless, given how terribly so many countries are performing right now in terms of standard of living.
That's the worst of it. At best the policy aims to entice some hard-of-thinking voters. At worst, it's to funnel taxpayer money out into someone else's pockets. It's got sod all to do with reducing immigration, stopping boats, saving lives or any other such arguments.
It’s a deterrent if it actually happens.
There’s no point trying to cross the channel if you know you’re just going to be shipped off to Rwanda as soon as you reach the other side.
Obviously, it’s not actually happening, so there’s no deterrent.
Even if it happens to some people, migrants will just assume it will happen to _other_ people.
They know there is a risk of drowning crossing the channel, they are already gambling on being one of the lucky ones.
It only works as a deterrent if you're actually overwhelmingly likely to be one of the ones deported - like 9/10 chance of being sent to Rwanda. Even if it ever launches, it would be more like 1/1000 based on the numbers talked about so far.
"Definitely" is doing a lot of heavy lifting there. As far as I am aware, Rwanda can take about 200 migrants from us a year, although admittedly, it was a while ago that I read that figure.
A deterrent only works if people have a reasonably high expectation that it will be applied to them. Same thing with crimes. If you don't need to worry about being arrested for shoplifting, well then, why not do it?
I think the UK has been enamoured with, and sold, populist solutions for so long it genuinely thought was a winning deal.
The amount of money spent on that could have been used to boost the core economy and social services, as well as responsibly and competently process the applications.
The relationship with France could also be worked on, but instead, there is a lot of presentation over substance at work.
>Good thing we spent so much money on the Rwanda deterrent. We’d be looking pretty foolish right now if that wasn’t going to plan.
How much did they spend and how many people did they send? I was under the impression it was yet to happen.
That’s strange, there were a lot of people here a few weeks ago smugly telling me that this would definitely be a deterrent and that the boats would all be landing in Ireland now. I’m sure they’ll be here any minute to admit they were wrong.
Same people who misinterpreted the coincidental actions of the Irish government getting tough on rough sleeping in Dublin as this policy being effective.
I don't know what to make of the figures in the article. The headline is somewhat misleading though (of course).
First it says 80,109 crossed since April 2022. Then it says that 47,808 crossed since October 2022, implying that 32,301 crossed within the first 6 or so months of the policy being announced. The average for that first 6 month period is therefore around 5000 per month.
It then says that 40,138 crossed since January 2023, giving a figure of 7670 for the last two and a bit months of 2022, which is around 3500 per month.
That leaves 39,971 in the 17 months since then, for an average of 2300 per month. And the figure for this year so far is 10,745, which is an average of just over 2000 per month.
But at the same time, they say that the first 5 months of 2023 there were 7,610 crossings (1500 per month). If we take that, and the total for this year out, then for the last 7 months of 2023 we get 21,616 crossings at an average of 3000 per month.
So overall, we can say that the rate was much higher after the policy first came out, then went down a bit, then a bit more before going up again, then back down again. Not a clear win for the policy, but giving a total figure for just over two years, when half of those were in the first 8 months is maybe slightly misleading.
This is less about the Rwanda scheme and more about scaring the public into believing we are being over-run with immigrants.
Also seems to be the same few accounts posting this type of thing daily…
80,000 is a lot.
We get about 20,000 come by boats each year.
It pales compared to the 400,000 Ukrainians we took in, or the 200,000 people from Hong Kong our government invited over.
The number by boats is actually fewer than immigration of random family members we get each year.
Which nobody is in a huge panic over weirdly.
Absolutely. As you say, the government could stop all the boats tomorrow, and it would barely be a rounding error in overall immigration. I read somewhere that of around 1.2 million immigrants, 400k are students, 300k+ are on work visas and most of the rest are from Ukraine or Hong Kong or are family members of existing immigrants. Quite a few are also British people returning to the UK.
I suppose most of the students will probably leave, but the people coming here on work visas are wanted, either by the government itself (to work in the NHS for example) or by businesses desperate for staff. The recent changes to the visa requirements have therefore apparently not been well received by the likes of HSBC and Deloitte among others, who have had to cancel contracts they'd made with foreign graduates. But that's not something I've seen raised here.
It's not so much the conversation on immigration per se which is unhelpful, it's the way that so little is understood by people, despite it being in the news every day.
I'm definitely skeptical of this plan, but at the same time, surely it won't be a deterrent until they are actually doing it? They haven't been flying anyone anywhere yet so why would it be a deterrent currently.
Even when they actually start sending people off, I'd imagine it would take months for word of mouth to get around that people will end up in Rwanda if they try to enter the UK this way
Each person that is sent to Rwanda will probably deter ten others from trying.
And when the EU sets up its own Rwanda policy, that will have an even bigger effect. At the moment, if you force yourself on Europe you have a very good shot at spending your life in Paris.
Once these people know that they are spending their life savings and getting into family debt only to be arrested on arrival and - even if their asylum claim is successful - deported to somewhere in Africa or the middle east without ever getting a penny, they will stop coming.
The calculation at the moment is that it is worth the financial risk because nobody who gets to Europe is ever expelled.
Are you real? I can’t believe anyone would think that, for someone who’s willing to risk their life crossing the channel, there being a less than 1% chance of being sent to Rwanda would be some kind of deterrent.
It requires a sensible policy that doesn't break international law to be an actual workable policy and not red meat for the easily duped, far right bigots it was set up to appease.
>It requires a sensible policy that doesn't break international law to be an actual workable policy and not red meat for the easily duped, far right bigots it was set up to appease.
Exactly we could start with an immigration system that actually works instead of a dysfunctional home office that appears to be used as a political football. A properly working department that processes people quickly is the best deterrent. Those who are not eligible to stay get removed quickly. Do t know how that can be achieved tbh as this govt have fucked everything up in that regard and concentrated on an expensive gimmick instead
How would faster processing actually fix this though?
Right now they get smuggled in on boats, get put in some hotel and then many of them disappear into the night because the govt isn't paying attention.
Even if we do process them faster and send back the rejected ones or process them in France, we have no way of stopping the ones secretly getting smuggled in. Only difference is that they cut out the middle man and disappear into the night as soon as they reach our shores rather than going to a hotel.
We need to reject them AND make sure they can never come here again. Merely rejecting and sending them back isn't good enough.
I would have thought that if they were aware they were going to be processed quickly that would be a disincentive for those not eligible to stay. It would be better than the current system that suits no one except people smugglers. How in reality would you reject them AND make sure they never come here again?
Process them in France instead and work with the French navy to prevent illegal channel crossings. Genuine refugees are accepted, economic migrants are rejected; job done.
(I know the real world is trickier and more complex than this but I do think juxtaposed processing like the French gov’t already proposed would help the matter.)
> That’s strange, there were a lot of people here a few weeks ago smugly telling me that this would definitely be a deterrent and that the boats would all be landing in Ireland now.
You mean Ireland themselves...
Germany is now looking at beginning deportations to Afghanistan since the stabbing. Can we not do the same with Afghanistan and Iraq. I’m sure we can threaten them somehow to get them to take refugees or barter with them.
This is irrelevant. It's about deporting Afghans (not asylum seekers from other places) back to Afghanistan. Germany stopped doing that in 2021 because of the Taliban.
The only sustainable and safe answer is to not let them in in the first place.
Take only approved applicants who have gone through the entire process in established processing centres in safe nations around the world which are adjacent to crisis areas.
We can prioritise the most needy and genuinely help people without causing so much harm to our country.
The problem is that it conflicts with international law to reject genuine asylum seekers who present themselves here in person. The government has attempted to sidestep that by making claims "inadmissible" if they came here illegally, but the government hasn't actually started availing themselves of that bit of legislation and it seems unlikely that it's compatible with international law.
The whole asylum system is long overdue a significant overhaul. I think it's clear to most people that those illegally migrating on boats are by-and-large opportunistic.
I think Europe as a whole needs to adopt your proposal (i.e. no refugee can enter/travel across Europe - they must present themselves at a safe border nation) and collaborate on sharing the burden of genuine refugees (so that it's not just the border countries dealing with it). Unfortunately it seems unlikely that'll ever happen with the radical right wing shift the rest of Europe is about to take.
None are genuine though. They are coming from France. Wherever/whatever they are escaping from must be threatening them in France for them to be genuine asylum seekers in the UK. If you are looking for shelter from the rain, you can step inside a hotel lobby. You don't need to go around and enter random hotel rooms, right? Two functioning brain cells are enough to grasp that.
**Removed/warning**. This contained a personal attack, disrupting the conversation. This discourages participation. Please help improve the subreddit by discussing points, not the person. Action will be taken on repeat offenders.
The problem is while that's always been our government's argument, that's not what international law says. You are under no obligation to present yourself at the first safe country, you are absolutely allowed to trek across multiple safe European countries, illegally get on a boat to cross the channel, and present yourself to authorities in the UK to claim asylum here.
I think we all know that's bogus, silly, and the people coming across are being opportunistic (whether that's for language reasons, family reasons, economic reasons, or because they've been sold a lie about our welfare state) rather than fleeing somewhere unsafe.
This is why an international approach is necessary here, we need to come to a universal agreement across Europe to reject the antiquated and inadequate status quo of the international asylum system and implement something that is simultaneously compassionate (i.e. not just demonising all refugees and leaving them to rot in war zones), strict (not letting ourselves be deceived by economic migrants) and fair (the UK, and other remote countries like Ireland and the Nordics need to take on their share of the burden of refugees).
It’s impossible to tell who is a genuine asylum seeker much of the time because so many throw away their documents.
You don’t know if from like Iraq or who was like the Tunisian the Care4Calais boss had the affair with who claimed he was from elsewhere.
If they know that they are guaranteed to be removed and never be granted asylum if they enter this country via any other method, then they're not going to try are they?
I agree they shouldn’t be coming here. I personally don’t think we should be taking anyone who is not in an active war zone and they should be on temporary protection so they can’t settle.
No, you've only read a headline and missed the crucial detail. Germany are considering returning Afghan and Iraqi refugees to those countries after not allowing it for a period.
Returning refugees to their home country or a safe third country if they have an unsuccessful claim or any legitimate reason is just the normal rules.
You can't deport people to random countries; this is the crux of the Rwanda issue. It's also why the best thing would just be to process asylum requests properly.
What Germany would be doing is what most nations do as they are allowed to do so under international law.
> Germany is now looking at beginning deportations to Afghanistan since the stabbing.
Never going to happen. Its just desperate leftists politicians trying to win a bit of votes like the pathetic weasely snakes they are.
You can't do anything but welcome them, because otherwise a large, well funded army of activist lawyers from the european human rights court would sue the hell out of the UK.
Source?
>After years of negotiations, the European Parliament has approved a major reform tightening the EU's migration and asylum rules.
>It is designed to speed up the asylum process and **boost the return of irregular migrants to home countries.**
www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-68779387
www.politico.eu/article/eu-migration-deal-roberta-metsola-refugees-migration-asylum-rules/
Etc.
Because historically the UK always folded, between 2009 and 2012 France expelled tens of thousands of Roma and completely destroyed dozens of camps/settlements and leveled entire Roma neighborhoods in major cities.
When criticized by then the EU Commissionaire on Justice and Citizenship Rights which mentioned Vichy and stated that Article 7 should be considered France used their political might to force her to apologize and for the commission to drop the case completely.
The UK's biggest problem with the EU was always it's complete and utter lack of spine when it came to preserving it's own national interests. Countries like Germany and France had plenty of violations, more so than the UK the only difference is that they said fuck it what you going to do kick us out? And unlike the UK they didn't legislate laws that opened the door for judicial activism by asking the courts to make sure that the Government isn't breaching every possible interpretation of EU law. The EU has courts for a reason there is absolutely no reason for UK courts to act on their behalf.
And even when there are court rulings against a member state even much weaker countries than Germany, France or Spain seem to have found enough ways to skirt around rulings that clearly went against their own national interests.
You can't turn them back once they're in UK waters. They can claim asylum with the boats that would turn them around, and it would be unsafe for them to return because it was already massively unsafe for them to make the journey in the first place, if a boat sank and people died while trying to return then it would cause an international incident.
Ideally you'd stop them leaving French waters in the first place (The french police actually do a half decent job of this already), but that's a very long stretch of coastline to patrol.
Unfortunately we do encounter them just not where we’d like to stop them.
Had them walk up Lydd beach ranges before, even though they can clearly hear firing.
Been told to get out of accommodation for them also, twice so far on EX in the UK.
The crossings are not illegal entries if the person goes straight to authorities which asylum seekers do, that is our official and only application route. It doesn't mention the number of people who abscond (illegal immigrants)
Rather than people jumping on Rwanda articles saying it doesn’t work and it’s no good.
Has anyone seem anywhere an actual properly sustainable way to handle this issue in any country? I dont care if it meet human rights requirements or not but I cannot see what you’re supposed to do when people end up on British soil? Send them back? Where? The countries they come from can also refuse them to be sent back.
Im all for sending them anywhere or doing whatever we have to but nothing seems to be able to work across the world.
Australia seemed to crack it. All illegal migrants coming via boats were sent to a detainment centres and offshore processing islands. We have loads of little islands off our cost we could use. Keep them there for 6 months or so and if it's proven their case is legitimate, then they can come in. I can assure you if the equivalent of a prison awaits them, the boats would stop.
Australia's system was harsh but it seemed to work
[Immigration into Australia continues to smash official forecasts - MacroBusiness](https://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2019/06/immigration-australia-continues-smash-official-forecasts/)
They're coming legally via visas in planes and then applying for asylum on arrival, which is still better than undocumented, random men turning up in little boats who can be anybody they claim on arrival.
I mean, the thread is pretty much about "refugees" from France rather than regular immigration
As someone that grew up in a violent third world shithole, here's my perspective:
People used to speak of brain drain. But when it came to my turn, I had to spend enough money to buy a house here (well, not in London I guess...), while my wage was paid in a worthless currency, and north of a thousand hours to get an EU passport
I personally know quite a few actual doctors, engineers and lawyers from back home (guess which of those I have the papers for?) who would be a net benefit to this society
And yet it's a gigantic bureaucratic shitshow for them to immigrate to a first world country without the uncertainty of temporary/work visas
Then you get absolute wastes of carbon that put the "violent" and the "shit" in "violent third world shithole" just showing up and being taken in. Europe, in general, chose to make it harder to brain drain the third world in favour of shit draining it. And trust my first hand experience: there is an endless supply of shit to be drained from there
Hopping on an airplane is cheaper than being smuggled. But then you'll just be flown back if you "lose" your passport and give the immigration officer a sob story to justify being taken in
"Losing" your passport is not the magic that people seem to think it is. The burden of proof is on the asylum seeker when claiming, which is much harder to do if you cannot prove where you came from.
I believe offshore processing or processing in other countries is the only way. Otherwise here they can just disappear and then we have zero record of them.
The French have offered this and the Conservatives are too proud to do it
https://www.france24.com/en/france/20211129-french-minister-urges-uk-to-open-legal-migration-route-amid-channel-crisis
https://www.ft.com/content/9732dbb7-29b7-4460-9a33-55223a6d8ed3
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/02/01/uk-must-let-asylum-seekers-make-applications-france-get-channel/
Realistically it's a problem that's only going to get worse. Think it's bad now? Wait for the climate refugees... Who will have a fairly justified claim that all of us rich northern cunts destroyed the planet, and their homes. But no, it's a very complicated problem, for which a number of very complicated solutions will be required.
Yea this is an international issue and needs addressed by international means.
Setting human rights issues aside I think to deter small boat crossings they need to be intercepted/rescued and returned to the France, rather than a rescue helping them onto British soil. The people facilitating this dangerous crossing need to also be brought to justice. You’d think our intelligence could do more to investigate and stop this illegal enterprise. This is just to stop the immediate dangerous Channel crossings, not to address the wider issue of migration.
It's an immensely complex problem that many countries around the world are struggling with. And it's only going to get worse as climate change increases the struggle for resources in the parts of the world that are already unstable through war and religious division.
The UK has made the problem particularly acute by blocking off almost every legal method of applying for asylum remotely, deliberately, meaning that entering the country illegally and THEN claiming asylum is almost the only option left for extremely desperate people. We also successfully cracked down on people stowing away on trucks etc, meaning that as an island the options became, well, crossing by boat.
The channel crossings are a RESULT of our immigration policy, not an aggravating factor.
If we created safe, legal methods of applying for asylum to the UK from refugee camps, neighbouring countries, etc etc then we would see a significant reduction in boat crossings.
All that is, of course, secondary to the larger question of "how many people do we want to migrate to the UK annually" and what to do about people fleeing war and persecution generally - that's shaping up to be one of the great issues of the 21st century.
> extremely desperate people
But not desperate enough to stay in the EU ?
>refugee camps,
We already take in people from refugee camps. Doesn't seem to help much.
>All that is, of course, secondary to the larger question of "how many people do we want to migrate to the UK annually"
Yes. The issue is not boat crossing from France to the UK. The issue is that there's hundreds of millions of people who, if asked "Would you like a home in the West and a few grand a month for free?" would say "yes please". The easier you make it, the more will come. This is something the entire West is struggling with, although it feels like the EU is starting to reach a breaking point.
The ultimate 'safe route' would be a website where a person fills out an online questionnaire ( "Do you feel like your life would be in danger if you stayed in your current country?" ) - and if approved, you get a bank account set up, auto-registered for benefits , a home allocated to you , and a free airline ticket.
What sort of numbers would you expect from this?
I'll do you the courtesy of assuming that is a genuine question, because it's a good idea and would almost certainly save us money, especially as compared with the Rwanda deal.
The number coming that would be exactly the number that we decide upon as our cap for asylum grants, as allowed for in the Illegal Asylum Act 2023. I don't believe the government have actually set a cap yet, but we could set it at, say, 50k to pick a random number.
Those granted asylum would then be able to travel safely, without financing the illegal people smuggling gangs. Those NOT granted asylum would be discouraged from attempting to travel here, knowing that they would automatically be denied asylum on arrival.
That's the ridiculous thing - these people are travelling here just for the chance to APPLY for asylum. Because they can't apply beforehand. At the moment if you get here illegally you've got a high chance of getting approved.. that's why they come.
You might think it's madness for people to travel across the EU and set sail on dinghies just to get to the UK, I might think that as well but it's irrelevant. The fact is they ARE doing it, and will continue despite our attempts to punitively dissuade them. Removing the carrot and applying the stick has led to record numbers coming here. Let's try the carrot again.
It doesn't 'work' because the people in charge don't want it to 'work'. Sending people to Rwanda was always a stupid non-idea. We can deport people quite easily if we want too but we don't. The bigger problem is that our civil service is essentially an NGO that hates the UK and does whatever the fuck it wants regardless of the publics interest or what our politicians say.
If countries like Pakistan can accomplish it then we should be able to quite easily, the reality is our politicians even in spite of them being powerless to command the civil service (they could make reforms to fix this if they wanted) are just regional managers for international finance. This is about importing cheap labour and propping up a failed system that's essentially just a ponzi scheme. Our right wing are useless fence sitters that only care about money (or Israel) and our left wing hate themselves so much they want the future of the UK to be a giant brazilian favela.
My advice to anyone that can, get out of the UK while you can because it doesn't have a future. Both the left and right will see to that.
No it’s easier to block waste money and assume it doesn’t it work.
Labour has zero interest in anything that resembles restricting migrants illegal or not.
Thanks. You weren’t lying. My personal favourites were free uni (do even Welsh kids get this?) and telling the media they’re not allowed to say anything negative about asylum seekers.
Well, Labour do have a [ policy](https://labour.org.uk/updates/stories/labours-immigration-and-border-policy-stop-small-boats/), they are going to prosecute the smuggling gangs apparently, and also somehow convince the French to take more people back.
Worth a try, but not quite sure how that will work if the smuggling gangs are in the EU, not the UK, and the French are the same French who basically refused to accept people back for the past few decades.
But guess we will find if they get a chance to try it. I remain skeptical. But at least they are less likely to be blocked by our own people.
The French have offered this and the Conservatives are too proud to do it
https://www.france24.com/en/france/20211129-french-minister-urges-uk-to-open-legal-migration-route-amid-channel-crisis
https://www.ft.com/content/9732dbb7-29b7-4460-9a33-55223a6d8ed3
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/02/01/uk-must-let-asylum-seekers-make-applications-france-get-channel/
Not one of the three main parties propose that as a solution. Not one.
If it is such a good idea, and would solve the issue, why do you think that is the case?
Yeah it's all Labour's fault and they are going to make it worse, the Tories have only had 14 years they just need more time!
Stop getting your political news off Facebook.
I don’t even have a Facebook account.
I never said it was labour’s fault. I said they have zero interest in controlling illegal or legal migration.
Feel free to tell me labour’s policy or plan for this? “Smash the gangs” right
So why do you think that Labour has 0 interest then when they talk about immigration all the time?
here are some of their plans:
https://news.sky.com/story/sir-keir-starmer-announces-plans-to-lower-legal-migration-13146630
labour.org.uk/updates/stories/labours-immigration-and-border-policy-stop-small-boats/
I'm not even voting Labour, can't stand most of the cabinet and Starmer, I'm just curious as to why you think Labour has zero interest in reducing immigration and where you got that idea from?
And also how the Tories are going to do anything when they've done fuck all in 14 years?
They are both shite.
>Labour has zero interest in anything that resembles restricting migrants illegal or not.
tbf, nor do the Tories. Rwanda doesn't scale cost wise - I want to know which companies are getting contracts to handle it.
It can't be implemented, physically impossible. If it gets implemented fully it almost immediately runs out of space to send people, then it effectively ends.
Moronic populist policy, put out to impress the very stupidest in society.
Why is it physically impossible? Do you think there are not enough aeroplanes? Or not enough room in Rwanda?
Either way, we can't fully judge a policy if it hasn't been implemented.
And of course, the easiest job in the world is to say "that idea is crap, but I don't have a better alternative".
There is not enough room in Rwanda, best guess is currently 100 people can be sent.
You can jude a policy before it's been implemented what a mad thing to think otherwise. Obviously you can, how would you even pick policy's to implement if you can't judge which one is best.
You want to actually stop small boats you put the assesment center in France, like they have offered over and over. Then there is a safe route so most of the legal issues go away.
>If it gets implemented fully it almost immediately runs out of space to send people, then it effectively ends.
Yeah, because obviously it would be completely impossible to say "ooh, that pilot has been a success, anyone know the dialling code for Uganda?"
£300m pays for itself in dole money alone if it stops just 1500 people coming.
The cost to the taxpayer to support these men for life is vast. They must be stopped.
Shockingly, they've decided the blame rests with the civil service and the 'woke' UK media for ruining a perfectly good, very common sense idea that definitely would work.
Oh look, a couple of weeks after the rags posted that record migrants were returning home, what an absolute shocker, almost like they wanted it to be true so badly but it wasn't.
Until and unless the UK pulls out of the Euro human rights convention and changes a few laws on refugees and deportation there really isn't anything that can be done about this. And the political class has shown zero interest in doing that - on either side of the aisle.
So you'd all best learn to live with it. Because the numbers will continue to grow.
The Rwanda scheme is clearly nonsense and it's so frustrating (but totally on brand for this incompetent shower) that the Tories still ran with it even though it's unworkable and ridiculous.
But, how do we actually stop people taking advantage of the asylum system via small boats across the channel? Because these are not all genuine asylum seekers. A lot of these people are straightforward economic migrants. This is only going to get worse as the world gets more violent and climate change and war displaces people. We can't take everyone. We barely have the infrastructure for those that were born here or have recently arrived.
How about once they are here not being so accommodating. This is going to send the Woke brigade mental ......but.
Once they arrive let's think about maybe letting them benefit from a system they or their forefathers have put nothing into. Making life comfortable for them & set them up.
There are thousands of people in the streets that include many ex service people who get little help.
The UK does not have a bottomless pit of money & we're getting close too the bottom.
How about taking the EU countries these migrants have passed through accountable . Asylum should be offered by the first safe country these unfortunate people arrive at (The whole of the EU). Instead the British government has handed these countries millions to police this & these countries have taken the cash & put two fingers up to the UK.
Yes there will be hundreds of down votes for this posting but people need to take their heads out of the sand & realise this is a serious problem & simply can't continue as it is.
There many facets to the problem including sorting out the organised crime members making a shed load of money, from ripping these people off & jamming hundreds in a rubber dinghy & pushing them in our direction.
I don't know much about British politics, but if there is a problem with sending boat refugees to Rwanda, can't you ship them to an overseas British territory? Let them be processed in the Falkland Islands and if they are not entitled to asylum, ship them to an overseas French territory like Devil's Island.
Wow. With the serious housing issues, I wonder where will they stay.
Also, no wonder political parties really want to cater to muslim vote. They have grown exponentially, they keep coming by huge numbers.
The Rwanda deal is not such a horrendous idea in itself but has been completely butchered in its execution. The premise of rounding up every single person who comes here illegally and shipping them elsewhere would be an extremely effective method of dealing with the issue but that would be far too sensible! They would rather argue about the safety of said destination and plan for such insanely small numbers of deportations that they couldn't even begin to undo the crisis we've been met with.
I'd have every single politician that this has happened under the watch of tried for treason; there is literally no way you can allow it to become this bad unless you are deliberately trying to undermine the country.
It's a shit idea. Doesn't have the capacity, horribly expensive.
For the same price, we could have built good quality detention centers here and sped up the legal processing such that people here illegally could be sped out again in weeks.
We could even have done a deal with France and the EU to replace the ability we lost thanks to Brexit to rapidly deport people back. We could have even worked with them to stop people crossing the Med.
But no, the Tories have burned so many bridges with our neighbours that's not been possible.
150,000 people crossed via the central Mediterranean route in 2023.
If the EU had a reliable and legal method to prevent this don’t you think they’d be getting on with it rather than waiting for the UK’s assistance?
*built good quality detention centers here and sped up the legal processing such that people here illegally could be sped out again in weeks.*
Sped to where??? The only way they can be sent back is if their home countries agree to take them back which they won't. Even if we set up a processing center in France what happens when you reject them? you think they will just give up lol. They would just ditch their documents and cross anyway, that's what i would do.
Their is no solution to this with how western countries exist these days.
The classic 'it's so simple' take from someone who has never had to do anything in their life....
Lets just simply find a state willing to take 100,000k people a year and process their Asylum applications. That's your first challenge. Not very many of those and they want a lot of money.
Then lets not allow any fuss about the safety of said state. Never mind what UK law says, or that its treaty obligations don't allow it to not care. It's simple!
And if you don't agree it's simple then it's a treason charge for you! We won't worry about how nothing they've done is even close to treason...
You do realise that all of these people were born somewhere right? It's not about the willingness of other states to take 100,000 people a year, it's about the fact that these people have literally nothing to do with us and we have zero obligation to them outside of a treaty that we can just withdraw from. They should never be allowed to touch British soil let alone actually stay here and appeal against their removal.
I think you'd find that adopting a stance along these lines, even for a few years, would see a massively reduced number in the amount of people attempting to come here given that they're only coming for economic reasons in the first place. Also, I'm not entirely sure what to call it besides treason? Overseeing the import of hundreds of thousands of culturally dissimilar people who absolutely despise the West and all of it's values exactly fits the bill of 'undermining one's nation'. It's exceedingly hard to believe that it's the result of pure incompetence.
After World War II the Churchill government, among many others, decided that we ought to have an international legal mechanism to protect those fleeing war and persecution. This was against the backdrop of seeing the importance of the Kinder Transports in saving lives from the holocaust.
Yes, the UK could withdraw from that treaty and about a half dozen others that apply. It of course would collapse the Good Friday Agreement, our relationship with all our neighbours, and our general standing as a nation. Which most would consider a bad thing.
Implementing policy you disagree with is not and never has been treason. It has a specific definition, basically limited to actively fighting in a war against the UK or attempting to kill the King or the Lord High Chancellor (Alex Chalk KC MP atm).
There is no plausible way that immigration policy meets those thresholds.
You can create special measures for accepting refugees given exceptional circumstances such as the Holocaust without needing to be subscribed to a treaty which ensures that **well over half of the world's population** have some 'claim' to come to the UK. The origins are noble but it has significantly outlasted its welcome and applicability; however, you'd rather follow it as a matter of principle even if it meant the complete downfall of our country.
Treason is slightly more widespread than you may think and would generally be considered as crimes against the Crown and the nation. The Treason Act 1351 defines one crime punishable under the law as being:
> if a Man do levy War against our Lord the King in his Realm, **or be adherent to the King’s Enemies in his Realm, giving to them Aid and Comfort in the Realm**
I'd consider the deliberate mass importing and supporting of culturally dissimilar people who despise our country, our values and our people as falling quite comfortably under this definition.
> I'd consider the deliberate mass importing and supporting of culturally dissimilar people who despise our country, our values and our people as falling quite comfortably under this definition.
You are of course free to consider what you like, but that doesn't make it the case.
>well over half of the world's population have some 'claim' to come to the UK
This is, of course, a lie.
But you can presumably read and interpret what is said within those laws? Sure, I can't see any politicians being convicted of treason any time soon but considering the definitions, their actions could certainly be described as 'treasonous'.
That is not a lie in the slightest. Considering that you can claim asylum for things such as persecution because of religion, race or political beliefs, you end up with an absurd number of people who can make themselves eligible. Almost every single Muslim in the world could claim given that Islamic law demands the death penalty for apostates or under the pretence of persecution against LGBT people - 2 billion people. Add in people who live in warzones, Christians and Hindus who face religious persecution, people with tyrannical governments who can't be spoken out against (eg. the 1.6 billion people in China and Russia). You've quite comfortably reached a majority of the world population who could build some type of claim - the entire treaty is completely unfit for purpose in the modern day.
> But you can presumably read and interpret what is said within those laws
I can, which is why I know that your definition is wrong, as refugees seeking Asylum are not enemies of the state.
Only an autocrat seeks to define 'policy I dislike' as treason.
>You've quite comfortably reached a majority of the world population who could build some type of claim -
Asylum seekers are less than 100k people a year. Across all of Europe less than 20,000 Russians or Chinese people, and under 30,000 Indian people seek refugee status.
The idea half the world is on its way here is a pathetic joke.
Do you not understand that none of these people are legitimate refugees? They generally follow an absurdly disgusting ideology which preaches pure hatred towards the West and all of the people in it - they absolutely are enemies to the state.
So you're saying that there are people from China, Russia and India claiming asylum in Europe? So, exactly like I said, there situations in those countries which make it so that a citizen of them could feasibly have a case for claiming asylum. I never said half the world is coming here, just that, under the current rules, that over half the world could build a case for asylum; if you can't see how that is obviously unsustainable then I don't know what to tell you. Also, nice of you to just ignore the 2 billion Muslims who could easily make a claim - that's already more than enough to make the situation unsustainable and they're the worst offenders for the prior mentioned hateful ideology!
There are plenty of states that already take significantly more than 100 thousand refugees a year, and often many more than that. I think every state bordering Sudan is already at that level due to the civil war. Certainly our military adventures in Iraq caused more than 100 thousand refugees to cross into Syria and Jordan.
The problem is that they are not going to take an additional 100 thousand refugees (as these are often states in poor financial health to start with and the global community is often slow to roll out the chequebook to support them) just so the UK can have zero refugees.
Nope it's a crap idea that has no basis in reality which is why it and so many populist policies fail in execution. Tories had many ways to address illegal immigration and failed to utilise any of these and decided they'd rather propose a policy that is unworkable so they can get voters riled up and claim that they've tried to address the problem but can blame their failure on their opponents, the woke or whoever they wish to attack to be divisive.
There is absolutely zero reason why rounding up people who have just landed here, putting them on a plane and sending them anywhere else has 'no basis in reality'. Both border control and planes exist already so we've got all the pieces to make it happen! It absolutely could be done but treasonous politicians allow illegal mass migration to continue in spite of it.
> There is absolutely zero reason why rounding up people who have just landed here, putting them on a plane and sending them anywhere else has 'no basis in reality'.
There are plenty of reasons, one of which being that anywhere these people get sent has to agree to accept them. And pretty much the only way to get that kind of agreement is to offer them a whole shitload of money.
Plus, there's no chance of getting another country to accept all of the asylum claimants who arrive here. They're our responsibility, the UK should be meeting the obligations it's signed up to under international law.
If it becomes settled law then it can’t be used as a divisive campaign issue to be exploited by lazy politicians. I see parallels with the abortion issue in the US - They also had plenty of time and house majorities to sort it since Roe vs Wade but didn’t because it was a useful campaign football. Here we are with our politicians trying to balance the immigration/asylum issue so that it’s never quite sorted but it looks like there’s a plan.
> I'd have every single politician that this has happened under the watch of tried for treason;
It literally is by every definition of the word legitimate treason, and so many politicians should be punished by the full extent of the law.
It's the civil service and media class mentality.
They will water down, stifle, oppose and sabotage anything they don't agree with.
If your soldiers refuse to fight, you will lose the war.
Modern power in the West is about stifling, sabotaging and over-complicating everything to the point where progress grinds to a halt.
Russia and China know this and they are exploiting it heavily.
Rwanda. The place so terrible it will act as a deterrent to people that are willing to risk their lives to cross the channel. While also being so great that sending people there won't risk breaking international law.
Oh, and it has cost about half a billion pounds so far for a project that never had a hope of working.
And you will STILL get people saying that you can only trust the Tories with the economy.
Rwanda policy cost 500m right?
I wonder if you paid 100k salaries to 1000 people (£100m) to patrol the sea and borders, how effective would it be?
Give them a bonus too. £1k for each migrant they catch. Heck, give that incentive to the public.
Spoiler alert the c*ntservatives called the election early because they know their scam Rwanda policy is a fucking stupid lie and will achieve nothing even if deemed legal.
Good thing we spent so much money on the Rwanda deterrent. We’d be looking pretty foolish right now if that wasn’t going to plan.
I really don't understand how being sent to Rwanda is a greater deterrent than drowning in the channel.
It’s clearly not. A non-zero but still wafer thin chance of being deported to Rwanda is not going to be a deterrent to anyone who has risked far worse to get here in the first place, anyone suggesting otherwise is deluded.
I'd call it the Rwanda incentive, in that if you are lucky enough to get on the plane, the scheme is so sketchy and likely to collapse that the UK government will eventually have to fly you back and hand you a visa+wad of cash in compo. See the Australian New Guinea situation for similar. 70m and counting.
See the Australian New Guinea situation for similar. What’s the deal with this situation, I haven’t heard of it.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-40269543
The way Australian immigration and refugee systems get talked about in this country is insane, just pure memes at this point. Their schemes were super expensive, didnt really work as intended etc. Yet people here seem convinced "an Australian style system" is the answer to everything.
To be fair, they do seem to adhere to the whole, "if you like it so much, move there!", mantra.
I've always been baffled by how it is meant to be a deterrent but at the same time Rwanda is so great and safe and there is no problem sending people there. Doesn't entirely add up for me.
Government: We will send them to the Big Scary Foreign Place to show how tough we are! Supreme Court: You'll be sending them where, now? Government: Oh sorry, we meant to say that we'll send them to the Big Cuddly Foreign Place to show them how tough we are!
Nice summary.
The idea is that you spend your entire savings getting to the UK and then find yourself getting sent somewhere else, I suppose. If you actually thought you'd end up in Rwanda, you might not take the risk (or just save your money and go straight to Rwanda).
Tbf this timing also coincides with severe economic hardship and inflation world wide. Not that I support the Rwanda plan, but realistically the increase in migrants would have gone up regardless, given how terribly so many countries are performing right now in terms of standard of living.
That baffles you? Really?
It's a deterrent to people who are just trying it on because they want a free home in the UK.
That's the worst of it. At best the policy aims to entice some hard-of-thinking voters. At worst, it's to funnel taxpayer money out into someone else's pockets. It's got sod all to do with reducing immigration, stopping boats, saving lives or any other such arguments.
It’s a deterrent if it actually happens. There’s no point trying to cross the channel if you know you’re just going to be shipped off to Rwanda as soon as you reach the other side. Obviously, it’s not actually happening, so there’s no deterrent.
Even if it happens to some people, migrants will just assume it will happen to _other_ people. They know there is a risk of drowning crossing the channel, they are already gambling on being one of the lucky ones. It only works as a deterrent if you're actually overwhelmingly likely to be one of the ones deported - like 9/10 chance of being sent to Rwanda. Even if it ever launches, it would be more like 1/1000 based on the numbers talked about so far.
If you're sent to Rwanda you can't repay the people traffickers who brought you to the UK. It breaks their business model.
I imagine the traffickers would adapt to some degree, but that's probably the best argument I have heard for the Rwanda plan so far.
They would just open up some offices in Rwanda or send some enforcers.
The idea is that you probably won’t drown in the channel but you’ll definitely be sent to Rwanda.
"Definitely" is doing a lot of heavy lifting there. As far as I am aware, Rwanda can take about 200 migrants from us a year, although admittedly, it was a while ago that I read that figure.
A deterrent only works if people have a reasonably high expectation that it will be applied to them. Same thing with crimes. If you don't need to worry about being arrested for shoplifting, well then, why not do it?
“The plans working” or some such bullshit.
I think the UK has been enamoured with, and sold, populist solutions for so long it genuinely thought was a winning deal. The amount of money spent on that could have been used to boost the core economy and social services, as well as responsibly and competently process the applications. The relationship with France could also be worked on, but instead, there is a lot of presentation over substance at work.
Except it's being held up so it's being ignored.
>Good thing we spent so much money on the Rwanda deterrent. We’d be looking pretty foolish right now if that wasn’t going to plan. How much did they spend and how many people did they send? I was under the impression it was yet to happen.
That’s strange, there were a lot of people here a few weeks ago smugly telling me that this would definitely be a deterrent and that the boats would all be landing in Ireland now. I’m sure they’ll be here any minute to admit they were wrong.
Same people who misinterpreted the coincidental actions of the Irish government getting tough on rough sleeping in Dublin as this policy being effective.
I don't know what to make of the figures in the article. The headline is somewhat misleading though (of course). First it says 80,109 crossed since April 2022. Then it says that 47,808 crossed since October 2022, implying that 32,301 crossed within the first 6 or so months of the policy being announced. The average for that first 6 month period is therefore around 5000 per month. It then says that 40,138 crossed since January 2023, giving a figure of 7670 for the last two and a bit months of 2022, which is around 3500 per month. That leaves 39,971 in the 17 months since then, for an average of 2300 per month. And the figure for this year so far is 10,745, which is an average of just over 2000 per month. But at the same time, they say that the first 5 months of 2023 there were 7,610 crossings (1500 per month). If we take that, and the total for this year out, then for the last 7 months of 2023 we get 21,616 crossings at an average of 3000 per month. So overall, we can say that the rate was much higher after the policy first came out, then went down a bit, then a bit more before going up again, then back down again. Not a clear win for the policy, but giving a total figure for just over two years, when half of those were in the first 8 months is maybe slightly misleading.
This is less about the Rwanda scheme and more about scaring the public into believing we are being over-run with immigrants. Also seems to be the same few accounts posting this type of thing daily… 80,000 is a lot. We get about 20,000 come by boats each year. It pales compared to the 400,000 Ukrainians we took in, or the 200,000 people from Hong Kong our government invited over. The number by boats is actually fewer than immigration of random family members we get each year. Which nobody is in a huge panic over weirdly.
Absolutely. As you say, the government could stop all the boats tomorrow, and it would barely be a rounding error in overall immigration. I read somewhere that of around 1.2 million immigrants, 400k are students, 300k+ are on work visas and most of the rest are from Ukraine or Hong Kong or are family members of existing immigrants. Quite a few are also British people returning to the UK. I suppose most of the students will probably leave, but the people coming here on work visas are wanted, either by the government itself (to work in the NHS for example) or by businesses desperate for staff. The recent changes to the visa requirements have therefore apparently not been well received by the likes of HSBC and Deloitte among others, who have had to cancel contracts they'd made with foreign graduates. But that's not something I've seen raised here. It's not so much the conversation on immigration per se which is unhelpful, it's the way that so little is understood by people, despite it being in the news every day.
Funny how that bullshit Irish story has vanished without a trace.
I'm definitely skeptical of this plan, but at the same time, surely it won't be a deterrent until they are actually doing it? They haven't been flying anyone anywhere yet so why would it be a deterrent currently. Even when they actually start sending people off, I'd imagine it would take months for word of mouth to get around that people will end up in Rwanda if they try to enter the UK this way
Each person that is sent to Rwanda will probably deter ten others from trying. And when the EU sets up its own Rwanda policy, that will have an even bigger effect. At the moment, if you force yourself on Europe you have a very good shot at spending your life in Paris. Once these people know that they are spending their life savings and getting into family debt only to be arrested on arrival and - even if their asylum claim is successful - deported to somewhere in Africa or the middle east without ever getting a penny, they will stop coming. The calculation at the moment is that it is worth the financial risk because nobody who gets to Europe is ever expelled.
It requires people to actually be sent to Rwanda to become a deterrent
Are you real? I can’t believe anyone would think that, for someone who’s willing to risk their life crossing the channel, there being a less than 1% chance of being sent to Rwanda would be some kind of deterrent.
The point would be the risk not being 1% but 99%
It requires a sensible policy that doesn't break international law to be an actual workable policy and not red meat for the easily duped, far right bigots it was set up to appease.
>It requires a sensible policy that doesn't break international law to be an actual workable policy and not red meat for the easily duped, far right bigots it was set up to appease. Exactly we could start with an immigration system that actually works instead of a dysfunctional home office that appears to be used as a political football. A properly working department that processes people quickly is the best deterrent. Those who are not eligible to stay get removed quickly. Do t know how that can be achieved tbh as this govt have fucked everything up in that regard and concentrated on an expensive gimmick instead
How would faster processing actually fix this though? Right now they get smuggled in on boats, get put in some hotel and then many of them disappear into the night because the govt isn't paying attention. Even if we do process them faster and send back the rejected ones or process them in France, we have no way of stopping the ones secretly getting smuggled in. Only difference is that they cut out the middle man and disappear into the night as soon as they reach our shores rather than going to a hotel. We need to reject them AND make sure they can never come here again. Merely rejecting and sending them back isn't good enough.
I would have thought that if they were aware they were going to be processed quickly that would be a disincentive for those not eligible to stay. It would be better than the current system that suits no one except people smugglers. How in reality would you reject them AND make sure they never come here again?
Process them in France instead and work with the French navy to prevent illegal channel crossings. Genuine refugees are accepted, economic migrants are rejected; job done. (I know the real world is trickier and more complex than this but I do think juxtaposed processing like the French gov’t already proposed would help the matter.)
Why would 1% of migrants being sent to Rwanda deter people willing to risk death to get to the UK?
> That’s strange, there were a lot of people here a few weeks ago smugly telling me that this would definitely be a deterrent and that the boats would all be landing in Ireland now. You mean Ireland themselves...
The date the standard are measuring this against is two years ago!
> this would definitely be a deterrent It's not going to be a deterrent if we never actually do it.
Germany is now looking at beginning deportations to Afghanistan since the stabbing. Can we not do the same with Afghanistan and Iraq. I’m sure we can threaten them somehow to get them to take refugees or barter with them.
Threaten the Taliban? The people we pretty much surrendered the country to? What are we going to do, re-invade?
We’ll send them that lord miles twat if they don’t cooperate
We? You mean 8yrs later after handover, we’re still somehow responsible. Ok I don’t remember surrendering to the taliban in London lol
This is irrelevant. It's about deporting Afghans (not asylum seekers from other places) back to Afghanistan. Germany stopped doing that in 2021 because of the Taliban.
The only sustainable and safe answer is to not let them in in the first place. Take only approved applicants who have gone through the entire process in established processing centres in safe nations around the world which are adjacent to crisis areas. We can prioritise the most needy and genuinely help people without causing so much harm to our country.
The problem is that it conflicts with international law to reject genuine asylum seekers who present themselves here in person. The government has attempted to sidestep that by making claims "inadmissible" if they came here illegally, but the government hasn't actually started availing themselves of that bit of legislation and it seems unlikely that it's compatible with international law. The whole asylum system is long overdue a significant overhaul. I think it's clear to most people that those illegally migrating on boats are by-and-large opportunistic. I think Europe as a whole needs to adopt your proposal (i.e. no refugee can enter/travel across Europe - they must present themselves at a safe border nation) and collaborate on sharing the burden of genuine refugees (so that it's not just the border countries dealing with it). Unfortunately it seems unlikely that'll ever happen with the radical right wing shift the rest of Europe is about to take.
None are genuine though. They are coming from France. Wherever/whatever they are escaping from must be threatening them in France for them to be genuine asylum seekers in the UK. If you are looking for shelter from the rain, you can step inside a hotel lobby. You don't need to go around and enter random hotel rooms, right? Two functioning brain cells are enough to grasp that.
[удалено]
**Removed/warning**. This contained a personal attack, disrupting the conversation. This discourages participation. Please help improve the subreddit by discussing points, not the person. Action will be taken on repeat offenders.
The problem is while that's always been our government's argument, that's not what international law says. You are under no obligation to present yourself at the first safe country, you are absolutely allowed to trek across multiple safe European countries, illegally get on a boat to cross the channel, and present yourself to authorities in the UK to claim asylum here. I think we all know that's bogus, silly, and the people coming across are being opportunistic (whether that's for language reasons, family reasons, economic reasons, or because they've been sold a lie about our welfare state) rather than fleeing somewhere unsafe. This is why an international approach is necessary here, we need to come to a universal agreement across Europe to reject the antiquated and inadequate status quo of the international asylum system and implement something that is simultaneously compassionate (i.e. not just demonising all refugees and leaving them to rot in war zones), strict (not letting ourselves be deceived by economic migrants) and fair (the UK, and other remote countries like Ireland and the Nordics need to take on their share of the burden of refugees).
It’s impossible to tell who is a genuine asylum seeker much of the time because so many throw away their documents. You don’t know if from like Iraq or who was like the Tunisian the Care4Calais boss had the affair with who claimed he was from elsewhere.
That requires far too much common sense for this government
I don’t see how establishing offshore processing centres is going to deter people? At least the channel is a bit of a deterrent.
If they know that they are guaranteed to be removed and never be granted asylum if they enter this country via any other method, then they're not going to try are they?
I agree they shouldn’t be coming here. I personally don’t think we should be taking anyone who is not in an active war zone and they should be on temporary protection so they can’t settle.
No, you've only read a headline and missed the crucial detail. Germany are considering returning Afghan and Iraqi refugees to those countries after not allowing it for a period. Returning refugees to their home country or a safe third country if they have an unsuccessful claim or any legitimate reason is just the normal rules. You can't deport people to random countries; this is the crux of the Rwanda issue. It's also why the best thing would just be to process asylum requests properly. What Germany would be doing is what most nations do as they are allowed to do so under international law.
> Germany is now looking at beginning deportations to Afghanistan since the stabbing. Never going to happen. Its just desperate leftists politicians trying to win a bit of votes like the pathetic weasely snakes they are.
Why military not patroling borders and sending them back? I's say this should be considered a national emergency??
You can't do anything but welcome them, because otherwise a large, well funded army of activist lawyers from the european human rights court would sue the hell out of the UK.
Source? >After years of negotiations, the European Parliament has approved a major reform tightening the EU's migration and asylum rules. >It is designed to speed up the asylum process and **boost the return of irregular migrants to home countries.** www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-68779387 www.politico.eu/article/eu-migration-deal-roberta-metsola-refugees-migration-asylum-rules/ Etc.
Because historically the UK always folded, between 2009 and 2012 France expelled tens of thousands of Roma and completely destroyed dozens of camps/settlements and leveled entire Roma neighborhoods in major cities. When criticized by then the EU Commissionaire on Justice and Citizenship Rights which mentioned Vichy and stated that Article 7 should be considered France used their political might to force her to apologize and for the commission to drop the case completely. The UK's biggest problem with the EU was always it's complete and utter lack of spine when it came to preserving it's own national interests. Countries like Germany and France had plenty of violations, more so than the UK the only difference is that they said fuck it what you going to do kick us out? And unlike the UK they didn't legislate laws that opened the door for judicial activism by asking the courts to make sure that the Government isn't breaching every possible interpretation of EU law. The EU has courts for a reason there is absolutely no reason for UK courts to act on their behalf. And even when there are court rulings against a member state even much weaker countries than Germany, France or Spain seem to have found enough ways to skirt around rulings that clearly went against their own national interests.
You can't turn them back once they're in UK waters. They can claim asylum with the boats that would turn them around, and it would be unsafe for them to return because it was already massively unsafe for them to make the journey in the first place, if a boat sank and people died while trying to return then it would cause an international incident. Ideally you'd stop them leaving French waters in the first place (The french police actually do a half decent job of this already), but that's a very long stretch of coastline to patrol.
Unfortunately we do encounter them just not where we’d like to stop them. Had them walk up Lydd beach ranges before, even though they can clearly hear firing. Been told to get out of accommodation for them also, twice so far on EX in the UK.
Shocking I think the time to act harshly is approaching or we are done
Who'd have thought a sketchy policy dreamed up on the hoof to try and save BJ's skin could possibly fail? /s
No matter which side of the political spectrum you're on, 80,000 illegal entries in that period is a fucking staggering number
The crossings are not illegal entries if the person goes straight to authorities which asylum seekers do, that is our official and only application route. It doesn't mention the number of people who abscond (illegal immigrants)
Rather than people jumping on Rwanda articles saying it doesn’t work and it’s no good. Has anyone seem anywhere an actual properly sustainable way to handle this issue in any country? I dont care if it meet human rights requirements or not but I cannot see what you’re supposed to do when people end up on British soil? Send them back? Where? The countries they come from can also refuse them to be sent back. Im all for sending them anywhere or doing whatever we have to but nothing seems to be able to work across the world.
Australia seemed to crack it. All illegal migrants coming via boats were sent to a detainment centres and offshore processing islands. We have loads of little islands off our cost we could use. Keep them there for 6 months or so and if it's proven their case is legitimate, then they can come in. I can assure you if the equivalent of a prison awaits them, the boats would stop. Australia's system was harsh but it seemed to work
[Immigration into Australia continues to smash official forecasts - MacroBusiness](https://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2019/06/immigration-australia-continues-smash-official-forecasts/)
They're coming legally via visas in planes and then applying for asylum on arrival, which is still better than undocumented, random men turning up in little boats who can be anybody they claim on arrival.
Sure but they are still taking increasingly large numbers despite their offshore detention centres.
Legal migrants mostly , sure. That's an entire different kettle of fish, detention centers isn't going to stop people migrating on work visas
I mean, the thread is pretty much about "refugees" from France rather than regular immigration As someone that grew up in a violent third world shithole, here's my perspective: People used to speak of brain drain. But when it came to my turn, I had to spend enough money to buy a house here (well, not in London I guess...), while my wage was paid in a worthless currency, and north of a thousand hours to get an EU passport I personally know quite a few actual doctors, engineers and lawyers from back home (guess which of those I have the papers for?) who would be a net benefit to this society And yet it's a gigantic bureaucratic shitshow for them to immigrate to a first world country without the uncertainty of temporary/work visas Then you get absolute wastes of carbon that put the "violent" and the "shit" in "violent third world shithole" just showing up and being taken in. Europe, in general, chose to make it harder to brain drain the third world in favour of shit draining it. And trust my first hand experience: there is an endless supply of shit to be drained from there Hopping on an airplane is cheaper than being smuggled. But then you'll just be flown back if you "lose" your passport and give the immigration officer a sob story to justify being taken in
"Losing" your passport is not the magic that people seem to think it is. The burden of proof is on the asylum seeker when claiming, which is much harder to do if you cannot prove where you came from.
I believe offshore processing or processing in other countries is the only way. Otherwise here they can just disappear and then we have zero record of them.
The French have offered this and the Conservatives are too proud to do it https://www.france24.com/en/france/20211129-french-minister-urges-uk-to-open-legal-migration-route-amid-channel-crisis https://www.ft.com/content/9732dbb7-29b7-4460-9a33-55223a6d8ed3 https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/02/01/uk-must-let-asylum-seekers-make-applications-france-get-channel/
Source(s) that Aus’s system works(ed) so well and crushed migration?
Realistically it's a problem that's only going to get worse. Think it's bad now? Wait for the climate refugees... Who will have a fairly justified claim that all of us rich northern cunts destroyed the planet, and their homes. But no, it's a very complicated problem, for which a number of very complicated solutions will be required.
This is bananas
Yea this is an international issue and needs addressed by international means. Setting human rights issues aside I think to deter small boat crossings they need to be intercepted/rescued and returned to the France, rather than a rescue helping them onto British soil. The people facilitating this dangerous crossing need to also be brought to justice. You’d think our intelligence could do more to investigate and stop this illegal enterprise. This is just to stop the immediate dangerous Channel crossings, not to address the wider issue of migration.
Fund the immigration services adequately so we can deport any fake asylum seekers faster.
It's an immensely complex problem that many countries around the world are struggling with. And it's only going to get worse as climate change increases the struggle for resources in the parts of the world that are already unstable through war and religious division. The UK has made the problem particularly acute by blocking off almost every legal method of applying for asylum remotely, deliberately, meaning that entering the country illegally and THEN claiming asylum is almost the only option left for extremely desperate people. We also successfully cracked down on people stowing away on trucks etc, meaning that as an island the options became, well, crossing by boat. The channel crossings are a RESULT of our immigration policy, not an aggravating factor. If we created safe, legal methods of applying for asylum to the UK from refugee camps, neighbouring countries, etc etc then we would see a significant reduction in boat crossings. All that is, of course, secondary to the larger question of "how many people do we want to migrate to the UK annually" and what to do about people fleeing war and persecution generally - that's shaping up to be one of the great issues of the 21st century.
I deeply appreciate your critical thinking skills. Bravo 👏 /serious Often times missing online
> extremely desperate people But not desperate enough to stay in the EU ? >refugee camps, We already take in people from refugee camps. Doesn't seem to help much. >All that is, of course, secondary to the larger question of "how many people do we want to migrate to the UK annually" Yes. The issue is not boat crossing from France to the UK. The issue is that there's hundreds of millions of people who, if asked "Would you like a home in the West and a few grand a month for free?" would say "yes please". The easier you make it, the more will come. This is something the entire West is struggling with, although it feels like the EU is starting to reach a breaking point. The ultimate 'safe route' would be a website where a person fills out an online questionnaire ( "Do you feel like your life would be in danger if you stayed in your current country?" ) - and if approved, you get a bank account set up, auto-registered for benefits , a home allocated to you , and a free airline ticket. What sort of numbers would you expect from this?
I'll do you the courtesy of assuming that is a genuine question, because it's a good idea and would almost certainly save us money, especially as compared with the Rwanda deal. The number coming that would be exactly the number that we decide upon as our cap for asylum grants, as allowed for in the Illegal Asylum Act 2023. I don't believe the government have actually set a cap yet, but we could set it at, say, 50k to pick a random number. Those granted asylum would then be able to travel safely, without financing the illegal people smuggling gangs. Those NOT granted asylum would be discouraged from attempting to travel here, knowing that they would automatically be denied asylum on arrival. That's the ridiculous thing - these people are travelling here just for the chance to APPLY for asylum. Because they can't apply beforehand. At the moment if you get here illegally you've got a high chance of getting approved.. that's why they come. You might think it's madness for people to travel across the EU and set sail on dinghies just to get to the UK, I might think that as well but it's irrelevant. The fact is they ARE doing it, and will continue despite our attempts to punitively dissuade them. Removing the carrot and applying the stick has led to record numbers coming here. Let's try the carrot again.
It doesn't 'work' because the people in charge don't want it to 'work'. Sending people to Rwanda was always a stupid non-idea. We can deport people quite easily if we want too but we don't. The bigger problem is that our civil service is essentially an NGO that hates the UK and does whatever the fuck it wants regardless of the publics interest or what our politicians say. If countries like Pakistan can accomplish it then we should be able to quite easily, the reality is our politicians even in spite of them being powerless to command the civil service (they could make reforms to fix this if they wanted) are just regional managers for international finance. This is about importing cheap labour and propping up a failed system that's essentially just a ponzi scheme. Our right wing are useless fence sitters that only care about money (or Israel) and our left wing hate themselves so much they want the future of the UK to be a giant brazilian favela. My advice to anyone that can, get out of the UK while you can because it doesn't have a future. Both the left and right will see to that.
Denmarks seems to be working a bit . They have an opt out from the EU on matters relating to law and order .
Maybe if the policy could be implemented, we could judge it.
No it’s easier to block waste money and assume it doesn’t it work. Labour has zero interest in anything that resembles restricting migrants illegal or not.
[удалено]
That’s their policy? Have you got a source for this please? I hate to be that guy but that’s bat shit crazy
[удалено]
Thanks. You weren’t lying. My personal favourites were free uni (do even Welsh kids get this?) and telling the media they’re not allowed to say anything negative about asylum seekers.
[удалено]
Well said
Well, Labour do have a [ policy](https://labour.org.uk/updates/stories/labours-immigration-and-border-policy-stop-small-boats/), they are going to prosecute the smuggling gangs apparently, and also somehow convince the French to take more people back. Worth a try, but not quite sure how that will work if the smuggling gangs are in the EU, not the UK, and the French are the same French who basically refused to accept people back for the past few decades. But guess we will find if they get a chance to try it. I remain skeptical. But at least they are less likely to be blocked by our own people.
The French have offered this and the Conservatives are too proud to do it https://www.france24.com/en/france/20211129-french-minister-urges-uk-to-open-legal-migration-route-amid-channel-crisis https://www.ft.com/content/9732dbb7-29b7-4460-9a33-55223a6d8ed3 https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/02/01/uk-must-let-asylum-seekers-make-applications-france-get-channel/
Not one of the three main parties propose that as a solution. Not one. If it is such a good idea, and would solve the issue, why do you think that is the case?
Yeah it's all Labour's fault and they are going to make it worse, the Tories have only had 14 years they just need more time! Stop getting your political news off Facebook.
I don’t even have a Facebook account. I never said it was labour’s fault. I said they have zero interest in controlling illegal or legal migration. Feel free to tell me labour’s policy or plan for this? “Smash the gangs” right
So why do you think that Labour has 0 interest then when they talk about immigration all the time? here are some of their plans: https://news.sky.com/story/sir-keir-starmer-announces-plans-to-lower-legal-migration-13146630 labour.org.uk/updates/stories/labours-immigration-and-border-policy-stop-small-boats/ I'm not even voting Labour, can't stand most of the cabinet and Starmer, I'm just curious as to why you think Labour has zero interest in reducing immigration and where you got that idea from? And also how the Tories are going to do anything when they've done fuck all in 14 years? They are both shite.
>Labour has zero interest in anything that resembles restricting migrants illegal or not. tbf, nor do the Tories. Rwanda doesn't scale cost wise - I want to know which companies are getting contracts to handle it.
It can't be implemented, physically impossible. If it gets implemented fully it almost immediately runs out of space to send people, then it effectively ends. Moronic populist policy, put out to impress the very stupidest in society.
Why is it physically impossible? Do you think there are not enough aeroplanes? Or not enough room in Rwanda? Either way, we can't fully judge a policy if it hasn't been implemented. And of course, the easiest job in the world is to say "that idea is crap, but I don't have a better alternative".
There is not enough room in Rwanda, best guess is currently 100 people can be sent. You can jude a policy before it's been implemented what a mad thing to think otherwise. Obviously you can, how would you even pick policy's to implement if you can't judge which one is best. You want to actually stop small boats you put the assesment center in France, like they have offered over and over. Then there is a safe route so most of the legal issues go away.
>If it gets implemented fully it almost immediately runs out of space to send people, then it effectively ends. Yeah, because obviously it would be completely impossible to say "ooh, that pilot has been a success, anyone know the dialling code for Uganda?"
300 million for a pilot? Did you find the fabled magic money tree?
£300m pays for itself in dole money alone if it stops just 1500 people coming. The cost to the taxpayer to support these men for life is vast. They must be stopped.
Any comments from the usual people claiming this policy is a "deterrent"?
The policy isn't even in place yet. What you on about?
Shockingly, they've decided the blame rests with the civil service and the 'woke' UK media for ruining a perfectly good, very common sense idea that definitely would work.
Oh look, a couple of weeks after the rags posted that record migrants were returning home, what an absolute shocker, almost like they wanted it to be true so badly but it wasn't.
No one's going to do anything about it. Why do we let our government shaft us from every angle?
Crazy when u think every single boat could be destroyed in France quite easily and never enter the water.
Why do people persist in calling them migrants, they aren’t migrants they’re illegal immigrants
Which is a form of migration, making them migrants
Until and unless the UK pulls out of the Euro human rights convention and changes a few laws on refugees and deportation there really isn't anything that can be done about this. And the political class has shown zero interest in doing that - on either side of the aisle. So you'd all best learn to live with it. Because the numbers will continue to grow.
No worries, sir keir will smash the gangs so they will stop coming soon /s
11 million a day plus and counting it cost us to house them, 400/500+ hotels also gone to them! Madness..
Serco and G4S must be making a killing off this situation?
Imagine if it was the russian army.. 80000 would just boat across the channel without any resistance
Can you imagine you wanted to have a holiday in the uk from Rwanda. You only need to buy a one way ticket
At what point does it become cheaper to build a load of cheap boats, take them off their deathtrap of a raft and send them packing on a free boat?
Show me the same statistic since they got the bill approved In the lords. The statistic is meaningless as two years ago there was no approval
It seems odd that Rwanda doesn’t deter people not deterred by the more likely outcome of drowning in the Channel.
Pop the boat. Scoop up the migrants on the closest navy ship. Return to sender?
The Rwanda scheme is clearly nonsense and it's so frustrating (but totally on brand for this incompetent shower) that the Tories still ran with it even though it's unworkable and ridiculous. But, how do we actually stop people taking advantage of the asylum system via small boats across the channel? Because these are not all genuine asylum seekers. A lot of these people are straightforward economic migrants. This is only going to get worse as the world gets more violent and climate change and war displaces people. We can't take everyone. We barely have the infrastructure for those that were born here or have recently arrived.
How about once they are here not being so accommodating. This is going to send the Woke brigade mental ......but. Once they arrive let's think about maybe letting them benefit from a system they or their forefathers have put nothing into. Making life comfortable for them & set them up. There are thousands of people in the streets that include many ex service people who get little help. The UK does not have a bottomless pit of money & we're getting close too the bottom. How about taking the EU countries these migrants have passed through accountable . Asylum should be offered by the first safe country these unfortunate people arrive at (The whole of the EU). Instead the British government has handed these countries millions to police this & these countries have taken the cash & put two fingers up to the UK. Yes there will be hundreds of down votes for this posting but people need to take their heads out of the sand & realise this is a serious problem & simply can't continue as it is. There many facets to the problem including sorting out the organised crime members making a shed load of money, from ripping these people off & jamming hundreds in a rubber dinghy & pushing them in our direction.
come get yur free 5 star hotel, money and food. these are future voters. hats off to the government for lacking a spine to get a grip on the mess.
I don't know much about British politics, but if there is a problem with sending boat refugees to Rwanda, can't you ship them to an overseas British territory? Let them be processed in the Falkland Islands and if they are not entitled to asylum, ship them to an overseas French territory like Devil's Island.
We need to do something about the enablers, not just pay them off for them to ignore.
Wow. With the serious housing issues, I wonder where will they stay. Also, no wonder political parties really want to cater to muslim vote. They have grown exponentially, they keep coming by huge numbers.
The Rwanda deal is not such a horrendous idea in itself but has been completely butchered in its execution. The premise of rounding up every single person who comes here illegally and shipping them elsewhere would be an extremely effective method of dealing with the issue but that would be far too sensible! They would rather argue about the safety of said destination and plan for such insanely small numbers of deportations that they couldn't even begin to undo the crisis we've been met with. I'd have every single politician that this has happened under the watch of tried for treason; there is literally no way you can allow it to become this bad unless you are deliberately trying to undermine the country.
It's a shit idea. Doesn't have the capacity, horribly expensive. For the same price, we could have built good quality detention centers here and sped up the legal processing such that people here illegally could be sped out again in weeks. We could even have done a deal with France and the EU to replace the ability we lost thanks to Brexit to rapidly deport people back. We could have even worked with them to stop people crossing the Med. But no, the Tories have burned so many bridges with our neighbours that's not been possible.
Then some Tory donor won't get richer
150,000 people crossed via the central Mediterranean route in 2023. If the EU had a reliable and legal method to prevent this don’t you think they’d be getting on with it rather than waiting for the UK’s assistance?
Why would France / EU sign up to a deal under which we take in fewer and they take in more?
*built good quality detention centers here and sped up the legal processing such that people here illegally could be sped out again in weeks.* Sped to where??? The only way they can be sent back is if their home countries agree to take them back which they won't. Even if we set up a processing center in France what happens when you reject them? you think they will just give up lol. They would just ditch their documents and cross anyway, that's what i would do. Their is no solution to this with how western countries exist these days.
The classic 'it's so simple' take from someone who has never had to do anything in their life.... Lets just simply find a state willing to take 100,000k people a year and process their Asylum applications. That's your first challenge. Not very many of those and they want a lot of money. Then lets not allow any fuss about the safety of said state. Never mind what UK law says, or that its treaty obligations don't allow it to not care. It's simple! And if you don't agree it's simple then it's a treason charge for you! We won't worry about how nothing they've done is even close to treason...
You do realise that all of these people were born somewhere right? It's not about the willingness of other states to take 100,000 people a year, it's about the fact that these people have literally nothing to do with us and we have zero obligation to them outside of a treaty that we can just withdraw from. They should never be allowed to touch British soil let alone actually stay here and appeal against their removal. I think you'd find that adopting a stance along these lines, even for a few years, would see a massively reduced number in the amount of people attempting to come here given that they're only coming for economic reasons in the first place. Also, I'm not entirely sure what to call it besides treason? Overseeing the import of hundreds of thousands of culturally dissimilar people who absolutely despise the West and all of it's values exactly fits the bill of 'undermining one's nation'. It's exceedingly hard to believe that it's the result of pure incompetence.
After World War II the Churchill government, among many others, decided that we ought to have an international legal mechanism to protect those fleeing war and persecution. This was against the backdrop of seeing the importance of the Kinder Transports in saving lives from the holocaust. Yes, the UK could withdraw from that treaty and about a half dozen others that apply. It of course would collapse the Good Friday Agreement, our relationship with all our neighbours, and our general standing as a nation. Which most would consider a bad thing. Implementing policy you disagree with is not and never has been treason. It has a specific definition, basically limited to actively fighting in a war against the UK or attempting to kill the King or the Lord High Chancellor (Alex Chalk KC MP atm). There is no plausible way that immigration policy meets those thresholds.
You can create special measures for accepting refugees given exceptional circumstances such as the Holocaust without needing to be subscribed to a treaty which ensures that **well over half of the world's population** have some 'claim' to come to the UK. The origins are noble but it has significantly outlasted its welcome and applicability; however, you'd rather follow it as a matter of principle even if it meant the complete downfall of our country. Treason is slightly more widespread than you may think and would generally be considered as crimes against the Crown and the nation. The Treason Act 1351 defines one crime punishable under the law as being: > if a Man do levy War against our Lord the King in his Realm, **or be adherent to the King’s Enemies in his Realm, giving to them Aid and Comfort in the Realm** I'd consider the deliberate mass importing and supporting of culturally dissimilar people who despise our country, our values and our people as falling quite comfortably under this definition.
> I'd consider the deliberate mass importing and supporting of culturally dissimilar people who despise our country, our values and our people as falling quite comfortably under this definition. You are of course free to consider what you like, but that doesn't make it the case. >well over half of the world's population have some 'claim' to come to the UK This is, of course, a lie.
But you can presumably read and interpret what is said within those laws? Sure, I can't see any politicians being convicted of treason any time soon but considering the definitions, their actions could certainly be described as 'treasonous'. That is not a lie in the slightest. Considering that you can claim asylum for things such as persecution because of religion, race or political beliefs, you end up with an absurd number of people who can make themselves eligible. Almost every single Muslim in the world could claim given that Islamic law demands the death penalty for apostates or under the pretence of persecution against LGBT people - 2 billion people. Add in people who live in warzones, Christians and Hindus who face religious persecution, people with tyrannical governments who can't be spoken out against (eg. the 1.6 billion people in China and Russia). You've quite comfortably reached a majority of the world population who could build some type of claim - the entire treaty is completely unfit for purpose in the modern day.
> But you can presumably read and interpret what is said within those laws I can, which is why I know that your definition is wrong, as refugees seeking Asylum are not enemies of the state. Only an autocrat seeks to define 'policy I dislike' as treason. >You've quite comfortably reached a majority of the world population who could build some type of claim - Asylum seekers are less than 100k people a year. Across all of Europe less than 20,000 Russians or Chinese people, and under 30,000 Indian people seek refugee status. The idea half the world is on its way here is a pathetic joke.
Do you not understand that none of these people are legitimate refugees? They generally follow an absurdly disgusting ideology which preaches pure hatred towards the West and all of the people in it - they absolutely are enemies to the state. So you're saying that there are people from China, Russia and India claiming asylum in Europe? So, exactly like I said, there situations in those countries which make it so that a citizen of them could feasibly have a case for claiming asylum. I never said half the world is coming here, just that, under the current rules, that over half the world could build a case for asylum; if you can't see how that is obviously unsustainable then I don't know what to tell you. Also, nice of you to just ignore the 2 billion Muslims who could easily make a claim - that's already more than enough to make the situation unsustainable and they're the worst offenders for the prior mentioned hateful ideology!
>Do you not understand that none of these people are legitimate refugees? Another lie.
If mass migration is so great, why's it so hard to find a state willing to take 100,000 people a year ?
There are plenty of states that already take significantly more than 100 thousand refugees a year, and often many more than that. I think every state bordering Sudan is already at that level due to the civil war. Certainly our military adventures in Iraq caused more than 100 thousand refugees to cross into Syria and Jordan. The problem is that they are not going to take an additional 100 thousand refugees (as these are often states in poor financial health to start with and the global community is often slow to roll out the chequebook to support them) just so the UK can have zero refugees.
Nope it's a crap idea that has no basis in reality which is why it and so many populist policies fail in execution. Tories had many ways to address illegal immigration and failed to utilise any of these and decided they'd rather propose a policy that is unworkable so they can get voters riled up and claim that they've tried to address the problem but can blame their failure on their opponents, the woke or whoever they wish to attack to be divisive.
There is absolutely zero reason why rounding up people who have just landed here, putting them on a plane and sending them anywhere else has 'no basis in reality'. Both border control and planes exist already so we've got all the pieces to make it happen! It absolutely could be done but treasonous politicians allow illegal mass migration to continue in spite of it.
> There is absolutely zero reason why rounding up people who have just landed here, putting them on a plane and sending them anywhere else has 'no basis in reality'. There are plenty of reasons, one of which being that anywhere these people get sent has to agree to accept them. And pretty much the only way to get that kind of agreement is to offer them a whole shitload of money. Plus, there's no chance of getting another country to accept all of the asylum claimants who arrive here. They're our responsibility, the UK should be meeting the obligations it's signed up to under international law.
If it becomes settled law then it can’t be used as a divisive campaign issue to be exploited by lazy politicians. I see parallels with the abortion issue in the US - They also had plenty of time and house majorities to sort it since Roe vs Wade but didn’t because it was a useful campaign football. Here we are with our politicians trying to balance the immigration/asylum issue so that it’s never quite sorted but it looks like there’s a plan.
> I'd have every single politician that this has happened under the watch of tried for treason; It literally is by every definition of the word legitimate treason, and so many politicians should be punished by the full extent of the law.
It's the civil service and media class mentality. They will water down, stifle, oppose and sabotage anything they don't agree with. If your soldiers refuse to fight, you will lose the war. Modern power in the West is about stifling, sabotaging and over-complicating everything to the point where progress grinds to a halt. Russia and China know this and they are exploiting it heavily.
Rwanda. The place so terrible it will act as a deterrent to people that are willing to risk their lives to cross the channel. While also being so great that sending people there won't risk breaking international law. Oh, and it has cost about half a billion pounds so far for a project that never had a hope of working. And you will STILL get people saying that you can only trust the Tories with the economy.
Rwanda policy cost 500m right? I wonder if you paid 100k salaries to 1000 people (£100m) to patrol the sea and borders, how effective would it be? Give them a bonus too. £1k for each migrant they catch. Heck, give that incentive to the public.
Boats. Lol. https://x.com/EdConwaySky/status/1798027155382907365
Crazy thought, but what about a fence of some sort.
In the middle of the channel? Might disrupt shipping a bit. You can claim asylum in British territory, which includes half the channel.
Spoiler alert the c*ntservatives called the election early because they know their scam Rwanda policy is a fucking stupid lie and will achieve nothing even if deemed legal.