Agreed. These brexiteers seem to forget they are human too ((in principle at least...) and therefore fall under its protection. I am reminded of that famous poem "First they came"
I agree. But the rethink might be not only is the convention screwed, but the whole structure of dealing with refugees doesn't work. It is all based on a reaction to the under-reaction to the Nazi's. Its more than 70 years later. Time to rethink the whole program.
You mean the same ECHR that ruled an Austrian woman did not have her freedom of expression breached for being convicted of insulting the prophet Muhammad? Yeah, I'll take what you're saying with a grain of salt.
So... On the one hand they are using the Good Friday Agreement as a levering tool in unilaterally changing the Brexit agreement, and on the other hand wanting to do something that violates that same agreement? Way to go Boris!
To be fair, the EU has been using the GFA to pressure the UK and push their side since the beginning. Also remember that means that the EU is using the threat of Irish terrorism to push their point and pressure the UK, I don’t think it’s fair to be pointing fingers.
Boris leaving the ECHR just so he can fly some asylum seekers to Rwanda reminds me of Henry VIII leaving the Roman Catholic Church just so he could get a divorce!
People were being shot and blown up in Ireland (At least 50% of the cause of the conflict was religious differences), because this fat king once wanted to bang a younger, prettier woman.
"If we have to care about Human Rights we'll just leave the ECHR" - Boris Johnson "If we can't torture prisoners of war we'll just leave the Geneva Convention" - Boris Johnson probably
processing visa applications is now 66% slower than it was a year ago - we don't need alternatives - we need the system to work - which means stop skimming money off national budgets - have the correct amount staff to complete the task.
It’s such a headache. My US study abroad students are at 3 months for a process that used to take them about a 4-6 weeks. Not that they should supercede asylum seekers, but just an example.
@@itsanexperiment.4671 This is such a weird opinion. What's the point here? I'm assuming you want less refugees to come or stay, but if they're not being processed they're also not being refused. Therefore they'll stay longer.
@@leoseling4413 Use a dictionary, a refuge isn't someone with dark skin. They are Illegally entering the uk. Crime shouldn't be rewarded. Simple,when you're not brainwashed. Hope that simplifies the English language. Xx
Totally spot on - the government does things like this on purpose to try and make someone the enemy of "taking back control" so they can get public support for tearing up agreements or leaving some regulatory body.
We should leave. The HRA needs to be changed. eg. Article 4 and the right to force labour needs to go. Article zero needs to be added, the right of consent.
@@Nickle314 I'm a bit confused, do you think article 4 should be strengthened to get rid of its exceptions (such as for military service) or do you think it should go and slavery should be permitted?
Post Brexit with our economy failing and Europe doing far better my guess is most asylum seekers will stop heading our way anyway. Trash your own future and the problem solves itself, job done.
Not necessarily, many asylum seekers aim for the UK because it's easier to adapt to an English-language dominant country than elsewhere, objectively speaking they have many other options that are richer per capita or have stronger welfare states, but a base understanding of English is probably something they all already have compared to Finnish for example. It's also why a lot of Francophone refugees aim for France or Belgium, rather than Spain or Italy, using those more as just stops on the way.
@@danycashking They also have better chances at getting their asylum claims heard. Many countries won't provide refugees with adequate translation in their hearings and as a result if they don't speak the language they may be deported (which since they're refugees could literally kill them) without being fairly heard so it's actually very important for their safety to go somewhere that they have a basic understanding of the language. This Rwanda deal is basically "not only will we not give you a trial, we're going to trap you in Rwanda where you might be unsafe, because fuck you and your rights".
@@forshor1998 their asylum claims would still be processed. And why would they be in danger? The alternative is basically having open borders, as asylum seekers often remain in the country even if their application is rejected. And this also finances people smugglers who are getting rich off of illegal immigration schemes and putting people's lives at risk.
@@hugoguerreiro1078 Amnesty internationals human rights director has gone of record saying that Rwanda has a "dismal human rights record" - so yeah not safe. At least a lot less safe than the UK so deportation from the UK to Rwanda is in fact a punishment that's being applied BEFORE their hearings. After the hearings they are banned from ever returning to the UK regardless of the result of the hearing. The alternative is not "basically having open borders" - we deport people who don't pass their hearings. If they remain then they become wanted by the law anyway and can't work. That isn't open borders. The people smugglers argument is an irrelevant pivot. That's happening regardless. The only alternative to people smuggling is helping refugees to get where they want to go.
@@forshor1998 They aren't just released into the wild in Rwanda, they are given proper accommodation in a safe place. Rwanda is a lot safer than it used to be, and if security is still an issue then the UK government could properly pay for private security at the hotels asylum seekers stay at. It's a joke to pretend sending these people to Rwanda is a human rights violation, it's just a bunch of open boarders activists ideologically opposing border control. And we all know people who get their asylum claims rejected often evade authorities, it just happens everywhere. Maybe it's not as bad in the UK as it is on the US, where illegal immigrants can still receive state benefits, but it's still a problem. In fact deportations in the UK are at a record low as asylum claims are at an all time high. The increase in asylum seekers not only gums up the system worsening their backlog problems, it also makes it so you have a ton of economic migrants mixed in going about inside the country unaccounted for. "That's happening regardless." No, it isn't. It wasn't as bad before, and when you just let everyone come you will only increase the number of smugglers taking advantage of a de facto open boarders policy. When the Rwanda policy was put in place the number of asylum claims actually went down. This certainly makes it look like many of these asylum seekers are actually just migrants wanting to immigrate to the UK and not just people running away from their country of origin. The UK government actually has data to back up their decisions, there is a reason they're implementing this policy now after years of mass immigration. Making unbacked claims that are easily contradicted by data like you're doing right now won't change the minds of the UK government.
No, the irony would be that the EU refuses to be subservient to UK courts, given we invented the law. Ah yes, I get it. We kowtow to the EU, no the other way.
@@cjane_world Well we were told when we left the EU would be taking back control. The courts are part of that. The UK should not kowtow to any foreign court.
Regardless of your opinion on the issue. Leaving a widespread international human rights organization to be able to send people to Rwanda definitely isn't the best look.
what they don’t say is the UK will accept 1 Rwandan refugee for 3 deportees. you idiots fail to realize that this policy doesn’t stop migration but worsens it with letting in more unskilled homeless in.
Eh meh, turkey and Russia are members of the ECHR. They have more violations that one can count, couldn't care less about the rulings. Not that this is good, just saying that the UK doesn't really need to leave, simply not follow the relevant ECHR ruling against them.
You mean the same ECHR that ruled an Austrian woman did not have her freedom of expression breached for being convicted of insulting the prophet Muhammad? Yeah, I'll take what you're saying with a grain of salt.
@@strife2746 She was convicted by a national Vienna court not ECHR. ECHR has only jurisdiction to contradict national laws when they would infringe human rights. She tried to use article 10 of the ECHR convention. Article 10 of the Convention states: "Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises." "The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary." This clearly lets national law maintain limits on what freedom of expression can contain and thus does not fall under the jurisdiction of the ECHR. I find it appalling that you try to throw an well established and well regarded institution as the ECHR under the bus without doing proper investigation in the case you are referring to. She was convicted under Austrian laws by an Austrian court. The ECHR has very little to do with it.
@@alexlehrersh9951 Your statement makes you sound like a self declared fascist based upon a misrepresentation of court case you have hardly investigated. I hope you will change your mind and maybe read the actual ruling before passing judgement.
@@christiaannooteboom4277 I adjusted my comment. It doesn't change a whole lot. Doing the conviction or justifying the conviction doesn't make them any less bad. And don't come to me with your "im so appalled" as if trying to push a sense of guilt on me. Not gonna happen. I misspoke, but the outcome isn't much different whether they do the convicting or tolerating it. It shows their stance on the issue, doesn't it?
@Prussianist Socialist but your not looking at the way of whether you wanna integrate them. A productive and integrated illegal immigrant is much more cheaper, if not profitable for the economy and society, then a to deport them to Rwanda! Abs before you say, it is very difficult for them to integrate because they are not given the chance to begin with. And when they are in rare cases, they are heavily discriminated upon
@Prussianist Socialist [citation needed] Like most European countries, skilled and unskilled labour is needed once more... Immigration policies play a big role with regards to whether immigration is beneficial to the country. In other words: I think there is a lot more nuance to that statement.
So let me get this straight, the UK is paying Rwanda 120 mil upfront and ~25k per asylum seeker they send off? You could pay for a 3 year university degree plus a modest cost of living grant for that amount per asylum seeker! So why is the UK paying money to send people away if they could pay the same amount of money and have a highly skilled worker at the end?
How about they stay in their own country and fight for their families and forefathers and make it better and not be cowards. women and children. Yes. fighting aged men. No.
@@matthewv4170 many of them come to work because their current country has no employment opportunities for them, and ultimately they need to feed their families. I don't imagine many people will want to stay and fight if it means their wife and children starve.
@@matthewv4170 In many cases they don't have a "country" to fight for..... You're an 18 year old Syrian chap who has just started his first year at Damascus university when the mass protests against the President begin. This quickly spirals into a chaotic civil war with multiple militant groups with different agendas and international financers..... Any sense of normality has been obliterated, bombs are being dropped indiscriminately on large population centres, water and food are in short supply and people are leaving the country in their millions looking for refuge.... What do you do? Join a militia group? Join the army of the Government which has been killing protestors? How do you fight for your country in such a situation? It's easy to sit there judging people from the comfort of your home in a safe and stable country....... but if chaos broke out tomorrow in which ever country you call home, normality removed overnight and social breakdown ensued, I doubt you'd practice what you preach.
Paying a foreign country a ₤120m plus additonal ₤20k-₤30k per application vs creating more jobs in the Home Office for citizens to sort out more applications/faster processing. Also wasting ₤500,000 on an empty flight. Tory monetary policy at it's finest.
Doing that you are just encouraging more people to attempt the crossing and fueling the human trafficking industry. Also there is a cost for removing every rejected asylum seeker and there is a cost to accepting a refugee, including providing jobs, healthcare and housing etc. There are also social costs of integrating people from other countries and culture into the society. This is not so simple as approve or reject.
(5:09) "Mostly attempted by young men, who might not actually be the ones most in need of help." Sorry, I don't mean to detract from the coverage - it is just that to me is some concerning phrasing; I know that presenters at TL;DR do not necessarily agree with the sentiment presented there (at least as I interpret it), this is mainly just addressing those who would believe/subscribe to such sentiments. Some genuine questions here: A) What would make young men less likely to be 'the ones most in need of help' and how do we qualify/quantify how much help people need and who needs it most? B) Should we deny help to people on the basis that they are not 'the ones most in need of help'? Personally I think the nuance of 'ones most in need of help' creates a sort of logical fallacy as those who would better fit that description may for whatever reason* not be using that help. (*Unable to escape their current predicaments, unable to access that help, unaware that the opportunity for such help exists, etc.)
I did think the same. It makes no difference whether you are old, or young. You could be prosecuted and the young could be the target. There is so much in this that it really sounds silly to pinpoint about things like that.
@@nothereandthereanywhere well it does make a difference really and a big one, let me explain, when an island like the UK and you have a large percentage lets say for sake of argument the ratio is 85% male 15% female and these are in the thousands arriving, what outcome will that have in a society where forming relationships with the other sex is already a whole lot harder than it was 20yrs ago because of online dating and or whatever reasons, but one should ask why over the years has rapes and sexual assaults increased, why has homophobic attacks and hate crimes increased, would this be true if the ratio was different say 30% male 70% women arriving I think the crime statistics would be different, just something to think about
The rhetoric is borderline no different from those who detract from asylum seekers, claiming that since it’s mostly young men they “aren’t really in danger.” Sadly a lot of people in the world only think things are serious when it’s women and children.
Yea TLDR is being sexist here blatantly. Young or old, men or women. Everyone deserves a good life and to flee from war ones. And considering young men are likely to be drafted to fight in wars, you can make an argument that they need help too.
@@Paul_Davies Homophobic attacks and hate crimes increased largely due to internal politics in Britain, its known as TERF island for a reason. Racial hate crimes have increased largely as a reaction to asylum seekers.
Just to clarify: You cannot apply for asylum in the UK if you’re still in your home country. You can only apply for normal migration that way, so it’s not just a case of “staying near danger” to fill out paperwork, they would also have their asylum denied if they hadn’t already fled.
Honestly, EU asylum policy based on old international treaties (which the ECHR enforces) is also pretty much bankrupt. 60%+ rejected asylum claims. 19% of rejected asylum claimants actually leave the EU (according to EU supreme auditor). That's an enormous problem. The EU pays the Libyan coastguard to keep people away. Frontex helped pushbacks in Greece. EC supports Poland pushing back migrants flown in from Belarus. It's a big mess and it needs an update. But as you can see, people will just shout "racists removing human rights" and they then continue to ignore the problem. When the original treaties could only exist in a world that wasn't as globalized so people from poor countries didn't find it as easy to travel as it is now.
@@Seth9809 I think you're underestimating (or just completely ignoring) cultural distance and the barrier it can be to good integration. Cultural relativism doesn't work: it takes more effort to integrate someone from Somalia into a western country (and viceversa) than it does to integrate someone from Sweden into a western country. Level of education is another big predictor. Not to mention the simple economic burden hosting many on average low-education people with large cultural distance. Compromise the welfare state too much and international solidarity breaks down. I see it in my country (the Netherlands) in the lower classes. They lack solidarity because social housing queues are increased as asylum recipients get to skip the queue. 12% of social housing is given to asylum recipients per year. That increases queues for low income Dutch people newly starting the queue to get social housing by 50%. And then we're not even mentioning the return rate of rejected asylum seekers of 19%. That's terrible, it means the whole asylum distinction barely matters. Especially with big diasporas which allow you to carry on your own culture in an enclave in the new country. The stuff you mention was accompanied with a lot of violence and misery and not a peaceful model of integration that we strive towards today.
The UK had problems with accepting and protecting Human Rights pretty much from the beginning. It was a sovereignty problem until the HR Act 1998. But I think the real reason is the utilitarian views held in much of society. The majority is more important than an individual. That's the main thought. It's just not a tradition to give individuals so many rights. I think it'd be sad for the British people to leave the ECHR - it supports individuals against the government, when their basic rights are infringed. It's not just refugees who get advantages from this, but anyone living in the UK. And in future they wouldn't be able to do anything, if the government violates their rights...
@Somewhatskeptical what authority does that court have? id literally ignore it and tell it the fuck themselves there is literally no enforcement mechanism that these Machismo Leftists can use.
I fail to see how this relates to utilitarianism at all. The argument for deportation of asylum seekers is primarily that they didn't do the right paperwork, which is not consequentialist. Any straightforward utilitarian analysis would come down in favour of helping the most with the least downside for all people, which would ultimately be in favour of refugee immigration. It would only *possibly* favour a reduction in immigration if you only considered the cost or benefit to British people, and even then, you'd have an uphill battle judging the subjective cost of anti-immigrant feelings (doubts and fears) with the measurably positive impacts that asylum seekers have on the economy. You can agree or disagree with a utilitarian perspective - I certainly don't identify as a pure utilitarian. I just do not see how a utilitarian model is compatible with blithe deportation.
@@theMoporter I'm not talking about asylum seekers. I'm talking about human rights in general. The rights of the individual are not as important as the will of the majority if you look at it from an utilitarian view. The HRA and the ECHR have made sure so far that individual rights are respected. If you repeal the HRA and the ECHR, well... I wouldn't want to live in the UK then, because the government could do to you whatever it wanted a had no means whatsoever to fight against it, because the strong majority dictates what you are or aren't allowed to do. In my opinion, there has to be a balance in a democracy between the dictate of the majority and the individual's rights and needs. Johnson doesn't want that. Very inconvenient indeed.
@@samatha1994Yes, but I think there are a lot of people who don't care about individual rights. Look, how people jump on the train, if you formulate it like this: "Europe is dictating how we have to treat refugees." Then you'll have a majority - even though people have been blinded, just as they have been about Brexit. It's so sad to see that they would give up their rights, because they have been deceived and even celebrate it. A quote comes to mind: "So this is how liberty dies . . . with thunderous applause" I hope that they won't be deceived and realise that it's to their detriment to revoke the HRA and the ECHR
The report, from classics master Martin Hammond to Stanley Johnson in 1982, criticised the 17-year-old Boris for thinking he should be free of the "network of obligation that binds everyone". The teacher also said Boris "believes it is churlish of us not to regard him as an exception".
What I'd like to know is a little bit trivial but all the same What happens if the asylum seekers/refugees are seeking asylum from Rwanda? Are we just gonna send them back???
Part of the deal is to take in a certain number of refugees from Rwanda, I forget the number. Sometimes TLDR omits certain facts in favour of narrative it seems. The government publicly omits that fact because it wouldn't be popular with a lot of people supportive of the policy
Here is the budget option, as suggested by France: we have empty offices in Callais you can use for processing refugees off-shore, before shuttling them over safe and legally
Yeah, but if they resolve the problem, where are they going to get their daily morning images of hate propaganda to distract from their own criminality?
Is this some kind of sarcastic comment? I cannot tell. You realise these offices would not attract "refugees" right? We're talking about people who destroy all of their documentation when they make the trip to make it impossible to ascertian whether they are refugees. The vast majoirty aren't interested in safe and legal processes, they just want to get into the UK where they'll be looked after by UK taxpayers, by any means necessary.
@@0w784g I agree, and I could be wrong, but I believe that if you board a ferry from France to the UK, arrive at the port at Dover, you can then simply say, I want to claim asylum. Now that’s fine if you’re from a country where there are known problems. If however you’re not, that’s obviously not going to work. Also, how did they get through all the other borders without papers? But all of a sudden don’t have a passport to get to the UK.
2:50 Just a heads up, 'R v.' in R v. Uxbridge is pronounced 'Crown Against', usually v. in English case law is pronounced either 'Against' or 'And'. Cheers.
@Prussianist Socialist Let me guess, the money we "save" after getting rid of the refugees will come back and build hospitals and re-fund the NHS? Interesting how some consider refugees peoples expendable when cutting cost 💀
@Prussianist Socialist no, let's spend money on getting refugees to work for the economy instead of wasting billions on importing africans. Oh wait, what is it? You didn't know that according to the Rwanda deal Uk will be importing africans? Then why did you comment?
@Prussianist Socialist do you really think the british worker would be in any way affected? Bargaining power of the workers comes from their importance and unions. Most British workers have neither and that's exactly how the conservatives want it to be. “they did not have skills necessary to make great nations at home". Are you dumb or yes? Did you build the mighty British economy yourself? No? How unsurprising. “Their skills are not aligned with those of developed nations". Are you ot of touch or yes? They are capable of cleaning toilets and wiping floors, those are exactly the skills developed nations need. Developed nations also have developed educations systems that both migrants and their children can use to learn even better skills.
@Prussianist Socialist it's one sided sure, but the point still stands and your argument only works to such an extent temporarily since Rwanda is a developed nation in a see of chaos, so we can expect the numbers to rise quite soon. Also: you're going to prevent illegal immigration by trowing out people that are already in the country? Think for a second and tell me how that will prevent anything except for tax payer money going into actually needed services.
@@octavianpopescu4776 How does it not matter? Male suicide, and prison inmates, and workplace deaths, and overdoses and all manner of things, is far more prevalent than women.
@@jedcollings3624 the comment is just highlighting that there is no challenge for such policies that treat men differently - hence the "Does it matter"
@@bruhbruh2290 pure brexiteers seem to want to get rid of anything that they think infringes their precious sovereignity. EU, ECHR, UN and propably WTO too once they realize that this organixation is capable of ruling against them in a dispute.
@@kimwit1307 "precious sovereignty" like everyone says the UK should give sovereignty to their overseas territories, everyone supports that! WTO is calm compared to the EU.
I've said this before, why spend the amount of money they are spending in breaking international law, when they could use that money to educate these people and help them find good paying jobs and help them integrate into our society?
@@itsalongday its not racism (for some yes because will always be those types in any society) but maybe its more about wanting people that will integrate into society, respect our values and cultural norms and be law abiding citizens not go around threating cinema staff, or wanting to behead a school teacher or being in a GG (which I believe is the main reason for hostility towards the illegals) because we saw the way that was dealt with mainly because the police didn't want to be accused of racism so they let things continue
Or invest it in the countries (and those civilians) where people flee from to help out their society, that would be a nice option 2. As now often those countries lose some of their higher educated layers of the population which cripples such countries even further. I'm not sure how dense the UK is, some other countries are so densely populated that adding more people just isn't making sense as it will be unfair both to the refugees and the civilians already living there. I see Leonardo claiming it is racism (where he means discrimination as all people are the same race by biological definition) which isn't always true. Yes there are a lot of biggots in the world, but there is also rationality behind alternative approaches to the migration issues. Not sure Rwanda would be the most logical option
My solution would be to look at which countries these people are leaving from. And to invest in those countries in order to improve living standards there. Not only then can you further down the line make that money invested back. But it would also cut the number of migrants substantially.
The irony being the racists who complain about too many immigrants are also the people complaining about our foreign aid budget, saying it should be scrapped and that money should be spent at home instead.
I would much rather close the borders for any immigration and invest in our own country first schools, hospitals and housing then when we have our infrastructure built up where we can accommodate everyone and have space for more as the population grows because it will rapidly, then we can be in a position where we can help others otherwise its just adding to the problem because even if you pour trillions into the countries they are coming from they won't be like okay UK we'll stay here while you invest no they'll still keep coming
99% of refugees are already in the local areas 😂 You can take in a few thousands when neighbour countries are taking in millions. Only racists see this as a problem, because it is an economic opportunity and can increase the workforce of a country.
@@Paul_Davies sorry Paul, but migrants and immigrants pay taxes and help your countries economy. They are not a burden. Also your grandma needs social workers and nurses to help her when she gets sick, and with your shrinking population that will be harder and harder to do. Increasing the workforce is a win-win economically. If you want to fix your broken economy, increase taxes on the rich and close the loopholes. They are the real criminals ruining your country, not a few immigrant families who work harder than you.
...my understanding is that the Geneva Convention is written in such a way, that its standards can be imposed upon Britain even if we withdraw from it. Thus the right to claim asylum would remain in tact regardless. The international community would need to punish Britain for doing it though i.e. diplomatic cpnsequences, if not sanctions.
Lawyer here. Although international subjects are normally only bound by customs, treaties, and principles publicly accepted by them by ratification / faithfull observation, there are some international norms, called "ius cogens" which every international subject has to obey by virtue of them being considered universal peremptory norms for all of humanity, such norms include the prohibition of torture and genocide, basic labor protections, the universal declaration of human rights, etc. Tho what is and isn't considered ius cogens is a point of contention, most scholars agree that the majority of the geneva convention are ius cogens norms.
@@july6949 ...hello, thank you for that comment. So would the right to claim asylum would remain in tact in the UK, if we pulled out of the ECHR? Is that correct? Would it mean that how we interpret the right to claim asylum would become a little more debatable?
Anti-immigrant rhetoric is extremely anti-male. Apparently the livelihoods of adult men doesn't really matter as much as a women's. Ironic that leftists get accused of being anti-man, when nobody seems to think less of men than the right wing.
If the Conservatives would stop speedrunning being cartoonish villains, we could have a proper discussion about things like this, without the idea being seen as evil because evil people support it. Imagine if someone good was doing this instead, to improve upon the old rules.
yep be nice if the papers reported all the facts rather than the Government propaganda like many don't mention as part of this we promise to take Rwandan refugees from there...
120 million flat + say 1.000 people per year, that's 140.000.000... that's 140.000 GBP per head... I could pay off my mortgage 2 times + have some 10k to spend.... this is ridiculous
Genuine asylum seekers, who simply arrive by any means ARE LEGAL. Saying "arrive by legal means" is wrongly insinuating there is an illegal way for a genuine asylum seekers to arrive. Shame on you for perpetuating it.
@@daraghmcquaid3277 Yeah, they been used in hybrid warfare on border of my country a lot of taxes went into making giant fance instead of other things.
Governments picking and choosing what laws actually apply and what judicial bodies actually have power but if you dont behave they will lock you in a box for years.
TLDR you can't "stay in your country of origin while you apply" the UN charter on refugees specifically states you have to be in another country in order to apply (Palestinians excepting) so that you can prove that you are at risk of persecution or in danger.
With all the fuss over the U.K. “Rwanda deal”, bear in mind that the EU does fund detention centres in Libya! Some refugees/illegal immigrants who try to cross from North Africa to the nearest point of the EU are detained there, yet I don’t see any outcry about that.
I believe the UN even sent some to Rwanda themselves but whether they did or not I'd like to know, if refugees are welcome here, diversity is our strength, cultural enrichment is good for society and let's not forget about the benefits mass immigration brings the economy oh and yeah they are doctors, scientists, engineers etc. Well if all these statements are true which I've heard time and time again, then surely a country like the UK which has greatly benefited from mass immigration should share the same benefits with Rwanda a country that has worked hard at rebuilding since the awful civil war, it seems to be greedy to keep them all to ourselves when there's other countries in greater need, I reckon if those arriving were journalists, news presenters, professors etc the reaction from certain privileged members of society would be different
Because commenters here are naive and not aware of the issues with rejected migrants not leaving. The leave rate in the EU for rejected asylum applicants is 19%. That means the system is broken. But if you say that a lot of people will just call you racist and continue sacrificing their welfare state slowly in order to feel good about themselves.
I live in France and they're heavily involved in programs like that. Both France and Spain has sent vast amounts of money and equipment to north African nations to prevent people coming. They have been condemned internationally and there are various petitions for the EU commission to change that. Theres actually a few documentaries on UA-cam if you like and a few charities doing good work on this subject if you'd like me to link them.
@@alisav8394 ok, but if most of them are in France, why not to apply for it in France then? I mean why the UK? Spain, Portugual, France itself, Germany all of them are easyer to reach from mainland Europe, why UK?
@TLDR Staff @2:49 I hate to be nitpicky here, but just a small lesson in UK Case Law 101, "R v Uxbridge" wouldn't be pronounced as is, it would be pronounced "Crown Against Uxbridge". "R" stands for Rex/Regina, referring to the Crown as the State, and "v" is never pronounced as versus, it is always pronounced as either "against" or "and".
Flying an asylum seeker to Rwanda from London is crazy and horrific now I'm not in the UK but I couldn't imagine having a Cuban asylum seeker be sent to Argentina for example, what sense does that make? If you don't want them in your country just say that and send them home and call it a day.
i really wish that one day people stop giving a shit about people crossing borders and just accept that we are all people on a fucking rock, the lines we drew on the rock are akin to a kid going "you cant cross this line" that he drew in the sand with his foot
If we could get the world to be atheist. We would have a lot more cooperation. It's never going to happen but it's what I would prey for if I was delusional.
@@briancohenthepfjmassive.4769 Oh! We tried, failed horribly :) 100 million dead, and still persuaded in China, it's called Communism, go check it out.
@@briancohenthepfjmassive.4769 people are free to believe what they wish to believe, there is no converting the world to one viewpoint as it would entail the suppression and prosecution of others, we just need to construct a more compassionate society with the lines of xenophobia and racism squashed out before they can be passed on
@@pierrereynaud784 yet there are 1.5billion of them so how many without the 100mils descendents. Humans are intelligent ants in the realms of space. Dog bless you are sole.
@@briancohenthepfjmassive.4769 you place too much faith in atheists, trust me many aren’t much different than their religious counterpart, just with a boner for feeling smarter for not being religious.
@@Nickle314 Okay hold on. By what law is it illegal? And secondly, if aspiring to rule over another country is illegal, how did the UK end up controlling Ireland
The ECHR isn't even attempting to hide how politically motivated their decision to stop the flights was. The same ECHR which doesn't care that the EU also has a policy for resettling migrants in Rwanda, but is trying to obstruct the UK's attempt at one...
Britain is short of workers. It would make sense to give these people free cross-channel ferry tickets and make it as easy as possible for them to find work and accommodation in this country. That would have the not inconsiderable additional benefit of causing Priti Patel to self combust with hatred and rage.
@Prussianist Socialist the visa system is even worse under this home office 9 million overstays in the last 12 years due to the mass sacking of border and customs agent under austerity there even worse as there not paying taxes and working on forged papers at family firms guess what nationality is biggest culprit
There's also a clause in the Rwanda plan which says that we will take a selection of THEIR refugees. It's true, I'm 100% serious, check if you don't believe me. Section 16 of the memorandum of understanding.
This is purely meant as a deterrence strategy. Which won't work against people legitimately fleeing for their lives as they have nothing to lose. At best it'll just result in increased expenses for the British government. The only thing cheap or simple will be the UK compromising its humanitarian values.
Good thing there are almost none of those among the illegal boat migrants. They come over from France, a safe country. (And almost none of them are refugees -- they are just people who want a richer life.)
I love the Nebula ad. I think I first saw it on your last video, extremely cool and strange to see you on your own ad before your video. Really interesting as well, watched it all through!
you can see a reflection of a screen in his glasses. so he is reading a script. It's probably a slideshow and he clicks screen by screen. its not a teleprompter because you normally have someone operating that to match the speaker.
@@varsityathlete9927 Figured it would probably be used like that when I went away. Just thought it might have been something to transition the recording to a slideshow, similar to a switchboard when livestreaming but only a single switch and handheld. Surprised no-one has thought to bring something out similar to that tbh
I bet if the government wouldn’t be spending this if the asylum seekers were landing a few miles further north. Cost per asylum seeker: £30,000 plus £120,000,000/(Number deported -so far zero) The money could be better spent “levelling up” the midlands, north and west of the country.
Update: Rwanda would only accept 200 refugees from the UK. Under the agreement, Rwanda has full discretion on whether to accept a refugee. That's £600,000 per person.
Easy fix, anyone arriving via boat is immediately returned to France. 120,000 extra people in Paris will force France to step up their removals, or send them all to Germany - who caused this nightmare
Next plan: outsource the passport office to Rwanda too, since they also have a backlog of applications. Fewer people would renew their passport if there was a chance they'd get a Rwandan one! Problem solved :D
But why Rwanda... They could have just done the Falklands or somewhere which is already in the United Kingdom. Meaning they technically weren't being deported.
Yes, if your goal is to accept people. But if your goal is to reject people, "computer says no" will always lead to an appeal and require normal human evaluation.
So do I understand correctly, Britain will pay 120 million pounds plus at least 20k pounds per person to dump literally any refugee in Rwanda? Couldn't you just put up a refugee centre in France with properly organised travel routes to Britain for that money if it really was about stopping people from drowning? Heck, for that kind of money I assume you actually could "put refugees into hotels" and as an additional perk, it wouldn't be human trafficking. Seriously, who votes for these politicians and is not xenophobic themselves or at least okay with xenophobia?
For those who don't know current asylum seekers are half what they were in 2002. This would of been a comment I think should have been mentioned by the video. Because showing an increase is fair since 2010, but showing that its significantly down since 2002 is also worth noting
First, the numbers are for asylum cases, not asylum seekers. Second, the figures don't account for people who are arguably granted asylum but would for various reasons not appear in the statistics. Hong Kongers, Afghans and Ukrainians that have arrived under dedicated schemes for example, will not be in those statistics.
You have ommited some very important points regarding thier treatment once they are here, how they are used to take advantage of them and others , how it affects the labour market, how its affecting the housing market, how its affecting the nhs, etc etc, obviously there are alot of people who profit from the cheap labour that can be created by driving areas into poverty and desperation. I don't know if its because you are genuinely niave or too privileged to actually have any real concept of whats life is like for the poorer half of britain but your understanding of the situation clearly lacks perspective deliberately or otherwise.
Considering that Australia's Nauru policy has been a blot on our international record for more than a decades, it's disappointing to say the least that the UK actually went through with it. Regardless on how you feel about asylum seekers, dumping them to rot in the third world out of view of the public is not the answer.
@@chrisoddy8744 That's exactly what they say about Biden. That's what they said about Trump, that's what they said about Obama, that's what they said about Bush. That's the media bub. It's obviously not all true.
If you have to leave a Human Rights convention to get a policy through it might be time for a bit of a rethink.
this.
My grandpa didn't need no human rights while he was shooting down German bombers on his way to school!
Agreed. These brexiteers seem to forget they are human too ((in principle at least...) and therefore fall under its protection. I am reminded of that famous poem "First they came"
I agree. But the rethink might be not only is the convention screwed, but the whole structure of dealing with refugees doesn't work. It is all based on a reaction to the under-reaction to the Nazi's. Its more than 70 years later. Time to rethink the whole program.
You mean the same ECHR that ruled an Austrian woman did not have her freedom of expression breached for being convicted of insulting the prophet Muhammad? Yeah, I'll take what you're saying with a grain of salt.
8:40 ... "Grece temporarily after a military coup and Russia after invading Ukraine", what a company to be a part of.
I know right?
The UK set to be the biggest pariah state in Europe that uses the Latin alphabet.
So... On the one hand they are using the Good Friday Agreement as a levering tool in unilaterally changing the Brexit agreement, and on the other hand wanting to do something that violates that same agreement? Way to go Boris!
in which way does it violate the Agreement?
@@dimitriyeremian1354 The GFA stipulates that the UK be subject to the ECHR
@@dimitriyeremian1354 Rewatch the video.🙄
To be fair, the EU has been using the GFA to pressure the UK and push their side since the beginning. Also remember that means that the EU is using the threat of Irish terrorism to push their point and pressure the UK, I don’t think it’s fair to be pointing fingers.
@@dimitriyeremian1354 8:49
Boris leaving the ECHR just so he can fly some asylum seekers to Rwanda reminds me of Henry VIII leaving the Roman Catholic Church just so he could get a divorce!
Both tyrannical individuals
now that you mention it, it DOES seem uncannily similar
Love your comment
The records for what happened after that for several hundred years is clear. I'm sure we don't need to have that series of events repeated.
People were being shot and blown up in Ireland (At least 50% of the cause of the conflict was religious differences), because this fat king once wanted to bang a younger, prettier woman.
"If we have to care about Human Rights we'll just leave the ECHR" - Boris Johnson
"If we can't torture prisoners of war we'll just leave the Geneva Convention" - Boris Johnson probably
,,If we can't invade Ireland we will just leave the UN.“
Putin blames Brexit.
processing visa applications is now 66% slower than it was a year ago - we don't need alternatives - we need the system to work - which means stop skimming money off national budgets - have the correct amount staff to complete the task.
It’s such a headache. My US study abroad students are at 3 months for a process that used to take them about a 4-6 weeks. Not that they should supercede asylum seekers, but just an example.
Should be 100% slower
@@itsanexperiment.4671 This is such a weird opinion. What's the point here? I'm assuming you want less refugees to come or stay, but if they're not being processed they're also not being refused. Therefore they'll stay longer.
@@leoseling4413 Use a dictionary, a refuge isn't someone with dark skin. They are Illegally entering the uk. Crime shouldn't be rewarded. Simple,when you're not brainwashed. Hope that simplifies the English language. Xx
Leaving the ECHR and the Council of Europe? Is the UK up for some more "troubles" in Northern Ireland?
I think the whole Rwanda thing was actually to have an excuse to leave the EHRC
or the other way around
Totally spot on - the government does things like this on purpose to try and make someone the enemy of "taking back control" so they can get public support for tearing up agreements or leaving some regulatory body.
We should leave. The HRA needs to be changed. eg. Article 4 and the right to force labour needs to go. Article zero needs to be added, the right of consent.
@@Nickle314 So you leave something in order to change it? I'm fairly sure that's not how agreements work
@@Nickle314 I'm a bit confused, do you think article 4 should be strengthened to get rid of its exceptions (such as for military service) or do you think it should go and slavery should be permitted?
Post Brexit with our economy failing and Europe doing far better my guess is most asylum seekers will stop heading our way anyway.
Trash your own future and the problem solves itself, job done.
Not necessarily, many asylum seekers aim for the UK because it's easier to adapt to an English-language dominant country than elsewhere, objectively speaking they have many other options that are richer per capita or have stronger welfare states, but a base understanding of English is probably something they all already have compared to Finnish for example. It's also why a lot of Francophone refugees aim for France or Belgium, rather than Spain or Italy, using those more as just stops on the way.
@@danycashking They also have better chances at getting their asylum claims heard. Many countries won't provide refugees with adequate translation in their hearings and as a result if they don't speak the language they may be deported (which since they're refugees could literally kill them) without being fairly heard so it's actually very important for their safety to go somewhere that they have a basic understanding of the language.
This Rwanda deal is basically "not only will we not give you a trial, we're going to trap you in Rwanda where you might be unsafe, because fuck you and your rights".
@@forshor1998 their asylum claims would still be processed. And why would they be in danger?
The alternative is basically having open borders, as asylum seekers often remain in the country even if their application is rejected. And this also finances people smugglers who are getting rich off of illegal immigration schemes and putting people's lives at risk.
@@hugoguerreiro1078 Amnesty internationals human rights director has gone of record saying that Rwanda has a "dismal human rights record" - so yeah not safe. At least a lot less safe than the UK so deportation from the UK to Rwanda is in fact a punishment that's being applied BEFORE their hearings. After the hearings they are banned from ever returning to the UK regardless of the result of the hearing.
The alternative is not "basically having open borders" - we deport people who don't pass their hearings. If they remain then they become wanted by the law anyway and can't work. That isn't open borders.
The people smugglers argument is an irrelevant pivot. That's happening regardless. The only alternative to people smuggling is helping refugees to get where they want to go.
@@forshor1998 They aren't just released into the wild in Rwanda, they are given proper accommodation in a safe place. Rwanda is a lot safer than it used to be, and if security is still an issue then the UK government could properly pay for private security at the hotels asylum seekers stay at. It's a joke to pretend sending these people to Rwanda is a human rights violation, it's just a bunch of open boarders activists ideologically opposing border control.
And we all know people who get their asylum claims rejected often evade authorities, it just happens everywhere. Maybe it's not as bad in the UK as it is on the US, where illegal immigrants can still receive state benefits, but it's still a problem. In fact deportations in the UK are at a record low as asylum claims are at an all time high. The increase in asylum seekers not only gums up the system worsening their backlog problems, it also makes it so you have a ton of economic migrants mixed in going about inside the country unaccounted for.
"That's happening regardless."
No, it isn't. It wasn't as bad before, and when you just let everyone come you will only increase the number of smugglers taking advantage of a de facto open boarders policy. When the Rwanda policy was put in place the number of asylum claims actually went down. This certainly makes it look like many of these asylum seekers are actually just migrants wanting to immigrate to the UK and not just people running away from their country of origin.
The UK government actually has data to back up their decisions, there is a reason they're implementing this policy now after years of mass immigration. Making unbacked claims that are easily contradicted by data like you're doing right now won't change the minds of the UK government.
It would be ironic for Boris Johnson to pull the UK out of the ECHR, considering his idol Churchill played an active role in helping found it
Churchill and Disraeli are spinning in their graves at Thatcher and Johnson
No, the irony would be that the EU refuses to be subservient to UK courts, given we invented the law. Ah yes, I get it. We kowtow to the EU, no the other way.
That was in the 1940s. The world has changed a lot since then
@@Nickle314 what does the EU have to do with any of this?
@@cjane_world Well we were told when we left the EU would be taking back control. The courts are part of that. The UK should not kowtow to any foreign court.
Regardless of your opinion on the issue.
Leaving a widespread international human rights organization to be able to send people to Rwanda definitely isn't the best look.
what they don’t say is the UK will accept 1 Rwandan refugee for 3 deportees. you idiots fail to realize that this policy doesn’t stop migration but worsens it with letting in more unskilled homeless in.
Eh meh, turkey and Russia are members of the ECHR. They have more violations that one can count, couldn't care less about the rulings. Not that this is good, just saying that the UK doesn't really need to leave, simply not follow the relevant ECHR ruling against them.
And the Understatement of the Year award goes to….
An Actual Adult!
that's not a very good look if you need to leave a human rights commission for your policies
Even their consideration to leave the ECHR means that it's now no longer hyperbole to label this current Tory Party as fascists.
You mean the same ECHR that ruled an Austrian woman did not have her freedom of expression breached for being convicted of insulting the prophet Muhammad? Yeah, I'll take what you're saying with a grain of salt.
Then facist is a good thing
@@strife2746 She was convicted by a national Vienna court not ECHR. ECHR has only jurisdiction to contradict national laws when they would infringe human rights. She tried to use article 10 of the ECHR convention. Article 10 of the Convention states: "Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises."
"The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary." This clearly lets national law maintain limits on what freedom of expression can contain and thus does not fall under the jurisdiction of the ECHR. I find it appalling that you try to throw an well established and well regarded institution as the ECHR under the bus without doing proper investigation in the case you are referring to. She was convicted under Austrian laws by an Austrian court. The ECHR has very little to do with it.
@@alexlehrersh9951 Your statement makes you sound like a self declared fascist based upon a misrepresentation of court case you have hardly investigated. I hope you will change your mind and maybe read the actual ruling before passing judgement.
@@christiaannooteboom4277 I adjusted my comment. It doesn't change a whole lot. Doing the conviction or justifying the conviction doesn't make them any less bad. And don't come to me with your "im so appalled" as if trying to push a sense of guilt on me. Not gonna happen. I misspoke, but the outcome isn't much different whether they do the convicting or tolerating it. It shows their stance on the issue, doesn't it?
What's happening with the other half of the deal? The undesired people who Rwanda will be sending to Britain in return?
I think they are going to Zambia
Yep don't hear that mentioned much
@@Mypromiselive what? The ones we promise to bring here as part of the deal ???
You mean all 3 of them?
20-30k is literally a living wage, if you have that kind of money to spend on deporting migrants surely there are better options
The idea is to spend more now to deter further illegal immigrants
@Prussianist Socialist but your not looking at the way of whether you wanna integrate them. A productive and integrated illegal immigrant is much more cheaper, if not profitable for the economy and society, then a to deport them to Rwanda!
Abs before you say, it is very difficult for them to integrate because they are not given the chance to begin with. And when they are in rare cases, they are heavily discriminated upon
@Prussianist Socialist so that massive pile of cash for the one off scheme setup wouldn't cover those??
@Prussianist Socialist Is that so? I'm interested in how you're coming up with that comparison.
@Prussianist Socialist [citation needed]
Like most European countries, skilled and unskilled labour is needed once more... Immigration policies play a big role with regards to whether immigration is beneficial to the country. In other words: I think there is a lot more nuance to that statement.
So let me get this straight, the UK is paying Rwanda 120 mil upfront and ~25k per asylum seeker they send off? You could pay for a 3 year university degree plus a modest cost of living grant for that amount per asylum seeker! So why is the UK paying money to send people away if they could pay the same amount of money and have a highly skilled worker at the end?
How about they stay in their own country and fight for their families and forefathers and make it better and not be cowards.
women and children. Yes.
fighting aged men. No.
@@matthewv4170 they’re civilians, with no military training, if they run in with no guns or weapons they will die, that’s just a truth
@@matthewv4170 many of them come to work because their current country has no employment opportunities for them, and ultimately they need to feed their families. I don't imagine many people will want to stay and fight if it means their wife and children starve.
@@bassetts1899 well set up a business then. That's not a refugee wanting a better job.
@@matthewv4170 In many cases they don't have a "country" to fight for.....
You're an 18 year old Syrian chap who has just started his first year at Damascus university when the mass protests against the President begin. This quickly spirals into a chaotic civil war with multiple militant groups with different agendas and international financers..... Any sense of normality has been obliterated, bombs are being dropped indiscriminately on large population centres, water and food are in short supply and people are leaving the country in their millions looking for refuge.... What do you do? Join a militia group? Join the army of the Government which has been killing protestors? How do you fight for your country in such a situation?
It's easy to sit there judging people from the comfort of your home in a safe and stable country....... but if chaos broke out tomorrow in which ever country you call home, normality removed overnight and social breakdown ensued, I doubt you'd practice what you preach.
Paying a foreign country a ₤120m plus additonal ₤20k-₤30k per application vs creating more jobs in the Home Office for citizens to sort out more applications/faster processing. Also wasting ₤500,000 on an empty flight. Tory monetary policy at it's finest.
This
But if you reject someone, they, more likely than not, don't leave. That's the problem this is supposed to solve.
Doing that you are just encouraging more people to attempt the crossing and fueling the human trafficking industry. Also there is a cost for removing every rejected asylum seeker and there is a cost to accepting a refugee, including providing jobs, healthcare and housing etc. There are also social costs of integrating people from other countries and culture into the society. This is not so simple as approve or reject.
Current hotel costs for asylum seekers are 4.7m per day. That's not very cheap either.
@@Jajalaatmaar those are corrupt tory hotels that were only selected because their MP's got relations with them.
Obviously the best policy, Putin leaves the ECHR, follow suit - genius
next we will invade the republic of ireland to re establish the union of the british isles
@@nevreiha Don't talk such nonsense, Britany is obviously the next best step
(5:09) "Mostly attempted by young men, who might not actually be the ones most in need of help."
Sorry, I don't mean to detract from the coverage - it is just that to me is some concerning phrasing; I know that presenters at TL;DR do not necessarily agree with the sentiment presented there (at least as I interpret it), this is mainly just addressing those who would believe/subscribe to such sentiments.
Some genuine questions here:
A) What would make young men less likely to be 'the ones most in need of help' and how do we qualify/quantify how much help people need and who needs it most?
B) Should we deny help to people on the basis that they are not 'the ones most in need of help'?
Personally I think the nuance of 'ones most in need of help' creates a sort of logical fallacy as those who would better fit that description may for whatever reason* not be using that help. (*Unable to escape their current predicaments, unable to access that help, unaware that the opportunity for such help exists, etc.)
I did think the same. It makes no difference whether you are old, or young. You could be prosecuted and the young could be the target. There is so much in this that it really sounds silly to pinpoint about things like that.
@@nothereandthereanywhere well it does make a difference really and a big one, let me explain, when an island like the UK and you have a large percentage lets say for sake of argument the ratio is 85% male 15% female and these are in the thousands arriving, what outcome will that have in a society where forming relationships with the other sex is already a whole lot harder than it was 20yrs ago because of online dating and or whatever reasons, but one should ask why over the years has rapes and sexual assaults increased, why has homophobic attacks and hate crimes increased, would this be true if the ratio was different say 30% male 70% women arriving I think the crime statistics would be different, just something to think about
The rhetoric is borderline no different from those who detract from asylum seekers, claiming that since it’s mostly young men they “aren’t really in danger.” Sadly a lot of people in the world only think things are serious when it’s women and children.
Yea TLDR is being sexist here blatantly. Young or old, men or women. Everyone deserves a good life and to flee from war ones. And considering young men are likely to be drafted to fight in wars, you can make an argument that they need help too.
@@Paul_Davies Homophobic attacks and hate crimes increased largely due to internal politics in Britain, its known as TERF island for a reason. Racial hate crimes have increased largely as a reaction to asylum seekers.
Just to clarify: You cannot apply for asylum in the UK if you’re still in your home country.
You can only apply for normal migration that way, so it’s not just a case of “staying near danger” to fill out paperwork, they would also have their asylum denied if they hadn’t already fled.
It's failing because it's Johnson's policy,like every other joke policy he comes up with all gimmicks.
He’s available on telegram
# alexmarciofx
Honestly, EU asylum policy based on old international treaties (which the ECHR enforces) is also pretty much bankrupt. 60%+ rejected asylum claims. 19% of rejected asylum claimants actually leave the EU (according to EU supreme auditor). That's an enormous problem.
The EU pays the Libyan coastguard to keep people away. Frontex helped pushbacks in Greece. EC supports Poland pushing back migrants flown in from Belarus. It's a big mess and it needs an update. But as you can see, people will just shout "racists removing human rights" and they then continue to ignore the problem.
When the original treaties could only exist in a world that wasn't as globalized so people from poor countries didn't find it as easy to travel as it is now.
@@Seth9809 I think you're underestimating (or just completely ignoring) cultural distance and the barrier it can be to good integration. Cultural relativism doesn't work: it takes more effort to integrate someone from Somalia into a western country (and viceversa) than it does to integrate someone from Sweden into a western country. Level of education is another big predictor.
Not to mention the simple economic burden hosting many on average low-education people with large cultural distance. Compromise the welfare state too much and international solidarity breaks down. I see it in my country (the Netherlands) in the lower classes. They lack solidarity because social housing queues are increased as asylum recipients get to skip the queue. 12% of social housing is given to asylum recipients per year. That increases queues for low income Dutch people newly starting the queue to get social housing by 50%.
And then we're not even mentioning the return rate of rejected asylum seekers of 19%. That's terrible, it means the whole asylum distinction barely matters.
Especially with big diasporas which allow you to carry on your own culture in an enclave in the new country.
The stuff you mention was accompanied with a lot of violence and misery and not a peaceful model of integration that we strive towards today.
These refugees are fleeing the EU and coming to Britain. Tells us a lot about how crap the EU is!
The UK had problems with accepting and protecting Human Rights pretty much from the beginning. It was a sovereignty problem until the HR Act 1998.
But I think the real reason is the utilitarian views held in much of society. The majority is more important than an individual. That's the main thought. It's just not a tradition to give individuals so many rights.
I think it'd be sad for the British people to leave the ECHR - it supports individuals against the government, when their basic rights are infringed.
It's not just refugees who get advantages from this, but anyone living in the UK. And in future they wouldn't be able to do anything, if the government violates their rights...
@Somewhatskeptical what authority does that court have? id literally ignore it and tell it the fuck themselves there is literally no enforcement mechanism that these Machismo Leftists can use.
I fail to see how this relates to utilitarianism at all. The argument for deportation of asylum seekers is primarily that they didn't do the right paperwork, which is not consequentialist.
Any straightforward utilitarian analysis would come down in favour of helping the most with the least downside for all people, which would ultimately be in favour of refugee immigration. It would only *possibly* favour a reduction in immigration if you only considered the cost or benefit to British people, and even then, you'd have an uphill battle judging the subjective cost of anti-immigrant feelings (doubts and fears) with the measurably positive impacts that asylum seekers have on the economy.
You can agree or disagree with a utilitarian perspective - I certainly don't identify as a pure utilitarian. I just do not see how a utilitarian model is compatible with blithe deportation.
@@theMoporter I'm not talking about asylum seekers. I'm talking about human rights in general.
The rights of the individual are not as important as the will of the majority if you look at it from an utilitarian view.
The HRA and the ECHR have made sure so far that individual rights are respected. If you repeal the HRA and the ECHR, well... I wouldn't want to live in the UK then, because the government could do to you whatever it wanted a had no means whatsoever to fight against it, because the strong majority dictates what you are or aren't allowed to do.
In my opinion, there has to be a balance in a democracy between the dictate of the majority and the individual's rights and needs.
Johnson doesn't want that. Very inconvenient indeed.
It's not the UK. It's the Boris band. There are some people who trust him. But not the majority of the UK.
@@samatha1994Yes, but I think there are a lot of people who don't care about individual rights.
Look, how people jump on the train, if you formulate it like this: "Europe is dictating how we have to treat refugees."
Then you'll have a majority - even though people have been blinded, just as they have been about Brexit. It's so sad to see that they would give up their rights, because they have been deceived and even celebrate it.
A quote comes to mind: "So this is how liberty dies . . . with thunderous applause"
I hope that they won't be deceived and realise that it's to their detriment to revoke the HRA and the ECHR
I'd really love it if TLDR has the time to do a video about the upcoming changes/gutting of the UK GDPR Laws that was announced a couple of days ago.
You'd think they were paid !!!!!!!!!
The report, from classics master Martin Hammond to Stanley Johnson in 1982, criticised the 17-year-old Boris for thinking he should be free of the "network of obligation that binds everyone". The teacher also said Boris "believes it is churlish of us not to regard him as an exception".
Big-headed little b'staad ,isn't he, wasn't he, won't he be?
Must've been an agravating pupil...
If I ever need to know the top 100 stupid ideas, I think I will contact the British Government
Her Majesty's Government
Pretty sure you can ask for way more than 100 and they would provide
What I'd like to know is a little bit trivial but all the same
What happens if the asylum seekers/refugees are seeking asylum from Rwanda? Are we just gonna send them back???
Part of the deal is to take in a certain number of refugees from Rwanda, I forget the number. Sometimes TLDR omits certain facts in favour of narrative it seems.
The government publicly omits that fact because it wouldn't be popular with a lot of people supportive of the policy
@@Cunnysmythe I wish TL;DR would include that part too. No media outlet seems to be talking about it but it seems pretty significant to me.
Here is the budget option, as suggested by France: we have empty offices in Callais you can use for processing refugees off-shore, before shuttling them over safe and legally
Yes, but if they are already in France, it’s hard to justify that they are in danger of persecution.
Yeah, but if they resolve the problem, where are they going to get their daily morning images of hate propaganda to distract from their own criminality?
@@davidbates3057 I’m sure there are plenty of other options to keep us all distracted from government incompetence
Is this some kind of sarcastic comment? I cannot tell.
You realise these offices would not attract "refugees" right? We're talking about people who destroy all of their documentation when they make the trip to make it impossible to ascertian whether they are refugees. The vast majoirty aren't interested in safe and legal processes, they just want to get into the UK where they'll be looked after by UK taxpayers, by any means necessary.
@@0w784g I agree, and I could be wrong, but I believe that if you board a ferry from France to the UK, arrive at the port at Dover, you can then simply say, I want to claim asylum. Now that’s fine if you’re from a country where there are known problems. If however you’re not, that’s obviously not going to work. Also, how did they get through all the other borders without papers? But all of a sudden don’t have a passport to get to the UK.
Technical jargon : "We propose to exit the ECHR"
Plain languge : "We want to do horrible things to people"
2:50 Just a heads up, 'R v.' in R v. Uxbridge is pronounced 'Crown Against', usually v. in English case law is pronounced either 'Against' or 'And'. Cheers.
I think you mean Regina versus ....... that's how its pronounced properly
Its a comparatively trivial thing, but Jack looks better clean shaven, especially without the neck beard!
While some uk citizens are purposely skipping meals cause inflation is to high… sure let’s spend money on this instead
@Prussianist Socialist or racism 🌚
Anyway counting pennies for refugees food is such a Tory thing.
@Prussianist Socialist Let me guess, the money we "save" after getting rid of the refugees will come back and build hospitals and re-fund the NHS?
Interesting how some consider refugees peoples expendable when cutting cost 💀
@Prussianist Socialist no, let's spend money on getting refugees to work for the economy instead of wasting billions on importing africans. Oh wait, what is it? You didn't know that according to the Rwanda deal Uk will be importing africans? Then why did you comment?
@Prussianist Socialist do you really think the british worker would be in any way affected? Bargaining power of the workers comes from their importance and unions. Most British workers have neither and that's exactly how the conservatives want it to be. “they did not have skills necessary to make great nations at home". Are you dumb or yes? Did you build the mighty British economy yourself? No? How unsurprising. “Their skills are not aligned with those of developed nations". Are you ot of touch or yes? They are capable of cleaning toilets and wiping floors, those are exactly the skills developed nations need. Developed nations also have developed educations systems that both migrants and their children can use to learn even better skills.
@Prussianist Socialist it's one sided sure, but the point still stands and your argument only works to such an extent temporarily since Rwanda is a developed nation in a see of chaos, so we can expect the numbers to rise quite soon.
Also: you're going to prevent illegal immigration by trowing out people that are already in the country? Think for a second and tell me how that will prevent anything except for tax payer money going into actually needed services.
Switzerland had a similar idea with Burkina Faso
last i heard you can be denied citizenship for being too annoying when it comes to switzerland.
Chad move.
I’m interested in why it’s seemingly universally agreed that men deserve less compassion that other categories of person.
Does it matter? We're expendable. We know that, we've always known that and we should just live with it.
Black Muslim man dangerous 🌚🌚🌚😱 sent them to Rwanda.🇷🇼
-Tory grindset
Cause those Muslim men are coming for our women!1!!!1!!! Those women are mine!
@@octavianpopescu4776 How does it not matter? Male suicide, and prison inmates, and workplace deaths, and overdoses and all manner of things, is far more prevalent than women.
@@jedcollings3624 the comment is just highlighting that there is no challenge for such policies that treat men differently - hence the "Does it matter"
I hope not, it's one of the few things that protects the average uk citizen from complete serfdom.
Lets face it the Brexiters will only be satisfied with a "Pure Brexit", when the UK is like N Korea
are you one of those people who think the UK didn't exist before the EU?
@@bruhbruh2290 pure brexiteers seem to want to get rid of anything that they think infringes their precious sovereignity. EU, ECHR, UN and propably WTO too once they realize that this organixation is capable of ruling against them in a dispute.
@@kimwit1307 "precious sovereignty" like everyone says the UK should give sovereignty to their overseas territories, everyone supports that! WTO is calm compared to the EU.
Calm? It's also less meaningful. And forget about the people of the memberstates voting for anything in the WTO.
@@kimwit1307 ok do you know what NATO is? do you know who founded NATO?
I've said this before, why spend the amount of money they are spending in breaking international law, when they could use that money to educate these people and help them find good paying jobs and help them integrate into our society?
We all know the answer, it starts with R and ends in acism. Some of the voters don't want foreigners in their country.
@@itsalongday its not racism (for some yes because will always be those types in any society) but maybe its more about wanting people that will integrate into society, respect our values and cultural norms and be law abiding citizens not go around threating cinema staff, or wanting to behead a school teacher or being in a GG (which I believe is the main reason for hostility towards the illegals) because we saw the way that was dealt with mainly because the police didn't want to be accused of racism so they let things continue
Or invest it in the countries (and those civilians) where people flee from to help out their society, that would be a nice option 2. As now often those countries lose some of their higher educated layers of the population which cripples such countries even further. I'm not sure how dense the UK is, some other countries are so densely populated that adding more people just isn't making sense as it will be unfair both to the refugees and the civilians already living there. I see Leonardo claiming it is racism (where he means discrimination as all people are the same race by biological definition) which isn't always true. Yes there are a lot of biggots in the world, but there is also rationality behind alternative approaches to the migration issues. Not sure Rwanda would be the most logical option
@@itsalongday of course it’s not racism.
@@svenv460 no idea what you are talking about, your option is awful and isn’t valid. The UK already sends some aid to poorer countries.
When you’re government has to leave the EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS to pass a bill you know you have a BIG problem
No,you know you're not part of Europe . Get an education, you racist.
My solution would be to look at which countries these people are leaving from. And to invest in those countries in order to improve living standards there. Not only then can you further down the line make that money invested back. But it would also cut the number of migrants substantially.
The irony being the racists who complain about too many immigrants are also the people complaining about our foreign aid budget, saying it should be scrapped and that money should be spent at home instead.
A good idea, but some countries are beyond investment? Afghanistan?
I would much rather close the borders for any immigration and invest in our own country first schools, hospitals and housing then when we have our infrastructure built up where we can accommodate everyone and have space for more as the population grows because it will rapidly, then we can be in a position where we can help others otherwise its just adding to the problem because even if you pour trillions into the countries they are coming from they won't be like okay UK we'll stay here while you invest no they'll still keep coming
99% of refugees are already in the local areas 😂
You can take in a few thousands when neighbour countries are taking in millions.
Only racists see this as a problem, because it is an economic opportunity and can increase the workforce of a country.
@@Paul_Davies sorry Paul, but migrants and immigrants pay taxes and help your countries economy. They are not a burden. Also your grandma needs social workers and nurses to help her when she gets sick, and with your shrinking population that will be harder and harder to do.
Increasing the workforce is a win-win economically.
If you want to fix your broken economy, increase taxes on the rich and close the loopholes. They are the real criminals ruining your country, not a few immigrant families who work harder than you.
...my understanding is that the Geneva Convention is written in such a way, that its standards can be imposed upon Britain even if we withdraw from it. Thus the right to claim asylum would remain in tact regardless. The international community would need to punish Britain for doing it though i.e. diplomatic cpnsequences, if not sanctions.
Lawyer here. Although international subjects are normally only bound by customs, treaties, and principles publicly accepted by them by ratification / faithfull observation, there are some international norms, called "ius cogens" which every international subject has to obey by virtue of them being considered universal peremptory norms for all of humanity, such norms include the prohibition of torture and genocide, basic labor protections, the universal declaration of human rights, etc. Tho what is and isn't considered ius cogens is a point of contention, most scholars agree that the majority of the geneva convention are ius cogens norms.
@@july6949 ...hello, thank you for that comment. So would the right to claim asylum would remain in tact in the UK, if we pulled out of the ECHR? Is that correct?
Would it mean that how we interpret the right to claim asylum would become a little more debatable?
If this happens Winston Churchill will jump out of his grave and punch Boris in the face for ruining his legacy.
0:17 - wait, what, males only? Discrimination at its finest! 🤦🏼♀️
Anti-immigrant rhetoric is extremely anti-male. Apparently the livelihoods of adult men doesn't really matter as much as a women's. Ironic that leftists get accused of being anti-man, when nobody seems to think less of men than the right wing.
6:35
Holy shit fucking *EXPENSIVE*
If the Conservatives would stop speedrunning being cartoonish villains, we could have a proper discussion about things like this, without the idea being seen as evil because evil people support it.
Imagine if someone good was doing this instead, to improve upon the old rules.
yep be nice if the papers reported all the facts rather than the Government propaganda like many don't mention as part of this we promise to take Rwandan refugees from there...
Human rights rules when it looks good, and not when it actually inconveniences us.
Residency in the UK is now a human right is it?
@@davidgreen6490 imagine not knowing what a "refugee" is 💀
@@misterlinux9290 He seems to have an extreme lack of imagination in more than one regards.
Giving citizenship to economic migrants is not a human right.
@@davidgreen6490 good point why dont we kick you out because you have no right to live ere
120 million flat + say 1.000 people per year, that's 140.000.000... that's 140.000 GBP per head... I could pay off my mortgage 2 times + have some 10k to spend.... this is ridiculous
Hmmmm.
Cheaper to build new houses and flats.......
In layman's terms:
The Conservative Party is a collapsing empire trying to survive
Genuine asylum seekers, who simply arrive by any means ARE LEGAL.
Saying "arrive by legal means" is wrongly insinuating there is an illegal way for a genuine asylum seekers to arrive.
Shame on you for perpetuating it.
They need to arrive in first safe country to be legal
@@Koczu0 Sure, to be safe...but not to seek asylum.
You are categorically incorrect
@@daraghmcquaid3277 but my wallet does
@@daraghmcquaid3277 Yeah, they been used in hybrid warfare on border of my country a lot of taxes went into making giant fance instead of other things.
@@daraghmcquaid3277 Poland, Belarus importing economic migrants by plane.
Governments picking and choosing what laws actually apply and what judicial bodies actually have power but if you dont behave they will lock you in a box for years.
So wierd how he thinks an ad with his face isn’t still an ad
It’s a very clever take on advertising.
TLDR you can't "stay in your country of origin while you apply" the UN charter on refugees specifically states you have to be in another country in order to apply (Palestinians excepting) so that you can prove that you are at risk of persecution or in danger.
With all the fuss over the U.K. “Rwanda deal”, bear in mind that the EU does fund detention centres in Libya! Some refugees/illegal immigrants who try to cross from North Africa to the nearest point of the EU are detained there, yet I don’t see any outcry about that.
I believe the UN even sent some to Rwanda themselves but whether they did or not I'd like to know, if refugees are welcome here, diversity is our strength, cultural enrichment is good for society and let's not forget about the benefits mass immigration brings the economy oh and yeah they are doctors, scientists, engineers etc. Well if all these statements are true which I've heard time and time again, then surely a country like the UK which has greatly benefited from mass immigration should share the same benefits with Rwanda a country that has worked hard at rebuilding since the awful civil war, it seems to be greedy to keep them all to ourselves when there's other countries in greater need, I reckon if those arriving were journalists, news presenters, professors etc the reaction from certain privileged members of society would be different
Because commenters here are naive and not aware of the issues with rejected migrants not leaving. The leave rate in the EU for rejected asylum applicants is 19%. That means the system is broken. But if you say that a lot of people will just call you racist and continue sacrificing their welfare state slowly in order to feel good about themselves.
I live in France and they're heavily involved in programs like that. Both France and Spain has sent vast amounts of money and equipment to north African nations to prevent people coming. They have been condemned internationally and there are various petitions for the EU commission to change that. Theres actually a few documentaries on UA-cam if you like and a few charities doing good work on this subject if you'd like me to link them.
So if most of them are in France already, why go to UK, cant they fill the burocracy from france?
Watch the video again, you have to be inside a country in order to be able to apply for asylum.
@@alisav8394 ok, but if most of them are in France, why not to apply for it in France then? I mean why the UK? Spain, Portugual, France itself, Germany all of them are easyer to reach from mainland Europe, why UK?
Tory's: thanks for your service during COVID but we need to cut jobs to save money
Also Tory's showing how to be reckless with spending.
there will significant costs to write off if UK left - you are not allowed to leave for 'free'
@TLDR Staff @2:49 I hate to be nitpicky here, but just a small lesson in UK Case Law 101, "R v Uxbridge" wouldn't be pronounced as is, it would be pronounced "Crown Against Uxbridge". "R" stands for Rex/Regina, referring to the Crown as the State, and "v" is never pronounced as versus, it is always pronounced as either "against" or "and".
Don't waste your time. He is Von Manstein's case study in being both lazy and stupid.
Flying an asylum seeker to Rwanda from London is crazy and horrific now I'm not in the UK but I couldn't imagine having a Cuban asylum seeker be sent to Argentina for example, what sense does that make? If you don't want them in your country just say that and send them home and call it a day.
i really wish that one day people stop giving a shit about people crossing borders and just accept that we are all people on a fucking rock, the lines we drew on the rock are akin to a kid going "you cant cross this line" that he drew in the sand with his foot
If we could get the world to be atheist. We would have a lot more cooperation. It's never going to happen but it's what I would prey for if I was delusional.
@@briancohenthepfjmassive.4769 Oh! We tried, failed horribly :) 100 million dead, and still persuaded in China, it's called Communism, go check it out.
@@briancohenthepfjmassive.4769 people are free to believe what they wish to believe, there is no converting the world to one viewpoint as it would entail the suppression and prosecution of others, we just need to construct a more compassionate society with the lines of xenophobia and racism squashed out before they can be passed on
@@pierrereynaud784 yet there are 1.5billion of them so how many without the 100mils descendents. Humans are intelligent ants in the realms of space. Dog bless you are sole.
@@briancohenthepfjmassive.4769 you place too much faith in atheists, trust me many aren’t much different than their religious counterpart, just with a boner for feeling smarter for not being religious.
Of course the *British* government will leave the ECHR. I don't think a Scottish government would - or a Welsh government for that matter
its just the government man even english people dont support this
How is this legal? This is what we called being Shanghai’d.
The NI protocol is illegal. As is the Irish constitution under international law.
@@Nickle314 how is the Irish constitution illegal
@@Daniel-bb9qj No country is allowed to claim or aspire to rule over another. Ireland does that.
@@Nickle314 Okay hold on. By what law is it illegal? And secondly, if aspiring to rule over another country is illegal, how did the UK end up controlling Ireland
@@daraghmcquaid3277 UN Conventions make it illegal.
When the Ireland was part of the UK, which law were you referring to?
Brilliant presentation and content!
The ECHR isn't even attempting to hide how politically motivated their decision to stop the flights was. The same ECHR which doesn't care that the EU also has a policy for resettling migrants in Rwanda, but is trying to obstruct the UK's attempt at one...
the government knew full well this has been tried in other countries and failed so whats the real reason
I mean it worked in denmark, took about a year before people stopped calling them racist, maybe will be the same for us.
Britain is short of workers. It would make sense to give these people free cross-channel ferry tickets and make it as easy as possible for them to find work and accommodation in this country. That would have the not inconsiderable additional benefit of causing Priti Patel to self combust with hatred and rage.
its not short of workers. its short of real wages. thats why they import the third world.
Surely Britain has enough "indigenous" workers so they won't have to rely on foreign workers? (lol)
@@knaperstekt7953 indigenous Irish on 🥔fields for instance ;))
They need workers, no criminals
@Prussianist Socialist the visa system is even worse under this home office 9 million overstays in the last 12 years due to the mass sacking of border and customs agent under austerity there even worse as there not paying taxes and working on forged papers at family firms guess what nationality is biggest culprit
There's also a clause in the Rwanda plan which says that we will take a selection of THEIR refugees. It's true, I'm 100% serious, check if you don't believe me. Section 16 of the memorandum of understanding.
It is a great idea, it's a shame it's been sabotaged by people who haven't got the best interests of the country at heart.
not really
This is purely meant as a deterrence strategy. Which won't work against people legitimately fleeing for their lives as they have nothing to lose. At best it'll just result in increased expenses for the British government.
The only thing cheap or simple will be the UK compromising its humanitarian values.
Good thing there are almost none of those among the illegal boat migrants. They come over from France, a safe country.
(And almost none of them are refugees -- they are just people who want a richer life.)
@@peterfireflylund Then why would they leave France for Britain? You make no sense.
I love the Nebula ad. I think I first saw it on your last video, extremely cool and strange to see you on your own ad before your video. Really interesting as well, watched it all through!
What do you use the clicker for? How do you use it, and how did you set it up? Assuming it's for bringing up the infographics on screen?
you can see a reflection of a screen in his glasses. so he is reading a script. It's probably a slideshow and he clicks screen by screen. its not a teleprompter because you normally have someone operating that to match the speaker.
@@varsityathlete9927 Figured it would probably be used like that when I went away. Just thought it might have been something to transition the recording to a slideshow, similar to a switchboard when livestreaming but only a single switch and handheld. Surprised no-one has thought to bring something out similar to that tbh
Not exactly related, but 2 videos in one day👀
Love 'The Britain' in the title
Why would you send Kurds to goddamn Rwanda?😂
So they are out of the UK, duh.
"the Britain"?
Exactly what I was going to ask. Strange.
Boris Johnson: how dare Russia violate international laws?
Someone applies international law to Britain.
Boris Johnson: 😮
This isn't international law. This is European law.
@@thechosenone1533 Its actuallu UK law not related to the EU in any way shape or form
@@daraghmcquaid3277 It was the ECHR that blocked this program. Hence it is European law.
@@daraghmcquaid3277 Did I say EU law? No, I said European law.
@@thechosenone1533 you realise europe is made up of countries right? You also know the meaning of the word international right?
It was designed to get headlines first and foremost. It also gives this government someone to blame when it goes wrong
I bet if the government wouldn’t be spending this if the asylum seekers were landing a few miles further north.
Cost per asylum seeker: £30,000 plus £120,000,000/(Number deported -so far zero)
The money could be better spent “levelling up” the midlands, north and west of the country.
The entire country is in a recession except for London and the Part still in the EU
What on earth does this even mean 🤣
Update: Rwanda would only accept 200 refugees from the UK. Under the agreement, Rwanda has full discretion on whether to accept a refugee.
That's £600,000 per person.
Why can't you say European Mainland its not the continent- great Britain is part of the European continent
Britain pretends like it is Canada
Easy fix, anyone arriving via boat is immediately returned to France.
120,000 extra people in Paris will force France to step up their removals, or send them all to Germany - who caused this nightmare
Next plan: outsource the passport office to Rwanda too, since they also have a backlog of applications. Fewer people would renew their passport if there was a chance they'd get a Rwandan one! Problem solved :D
Costly...and inhuman. Honestly, one would expect deporting people in thirdworld countries would raise at least some moral issue.
Because it was a stupid idea
@Prussianist Socialist it could be that..... or maybe it was a stupid idea in the first place.
But why Rwanda...
They could have just done the Falklands or somewhere which is already in the United Kingdom.
Meaning they technically weren't being deported.
Can anyone explain to me why processing someone's refugee status takes so long. Surely it could be done in a number of days with modern technology.
Yes, if your goal is to accept people. But if your goal is to reject people, "computer says no" will always lead to an appeal and require normal human evaluation.
Because we give them 31 chances to appeal.
Coz Brits don't want them and no politician would spend money on it coz it would be unpopular.
for some reason they keep burning their passports, so it can be hard to validate the claim
@Prussianist Socialist No documentation is evidence that they are not genuine.
We spend millions a day, its much cheaper then £120,000,000 and people are dying in the sea.
Ok. You take the guys to Rwanda. You pay Rwanda. They take small boats and come right back.
Rwandan politicians are going to be so proud of themselves
Have you got a link with the 120 million per person
Exactly. Just creating a black market for those that aren't deterred by the law
120 mil upfront, 30k per person. Still an absolutely ludicrous idea.
Er, from Rwanda? It's land locked!
@@Obi_boy edited. Satisfied?
it was never meant to work in the first place
So do I understand correctly, Britain will pay 120 million pounds plus at least 20k pounds per person to dump literally any refugee in Rwanda? Couldn't you just put up a refugee centre in France with properly organised travel routes to Britain for that money if it really was about stopping people from drowning? Heck, for that kind of money I assume you actually could "put refugees into hotels" and as an additional perk, it wouldn't be human trafficking.
Seriously, who votes for these politicians and is not xenophobic themselves or at least okay with xenophobia?
You figured it out. No one.
They should have sent them to space instead, make UK colonies on Mars with indentured servants just like the old days (except in Space).
so that they could make Aust. 2.0?
irrespective of the situation, if they come illegally then they are criminals, and they can apply from detention. Problem solved.
How can someone from France or Europe be a victimised refugee.
For those who don't know current asylum seekers are half what they were in 2002. This would of been a comment I think should have been mentioned by the video. Because showing an increase is fair since 2010, but showing that its significantly down since 2002 is also worth noting
First, the numbers are for asylum cases, not asylum seekers. Second, the figures don't account for people who are arguably granted asylum but would for various reasons not appear in the statistics. Hong Kongers, Afghans and Ukrainians that have arrived under dedicated schemes for example, will not be in those statistics.
Wasnt the Pacific Solution horribly ineffective and overly expensive? I thought it was considered a total failure?
WELL why its failing is because Boris has something to do with it i cant think of anything he's done which has been a success only Boris is for Boris
I didn't realise it was just males they were sending. I don't know why but that makes it even worse IMO.
You have ommited some very important points regarding thier treatment once they are here, how they are used to take advantage of them and others , how it affects the labour market, how its affecting the housing market, how its affecting the nhs, etc etc, obviously there are alot of people who profit from the cheap labour that can be created by driving areas into poverty and desperation. I don't know if its because you are genuinely niave or too privileged to actually have any real concept of whats life is like for the poorer half of britain but your understanding of the situation clearly lacks perspective deliberately or otherwise.
That ad was pretty good, how can we get the answer to the last one?
Rwanda policy. Call it what it is, Human trafficking
Considering that Australia's Nauru policy has been a blot on our international record for more than a decades, it's disappointing to say the least that the UK actually went through with it. Regardless on how you feel about asylum seekers, dumping them to rot in the third world out of view of the public is not the answer.
Challenge: have a positive segment about Johnson.
His absence.
What positive thing is there to say about him at the moment? It's all scandal, obvious failure, scandal, failure, failure, scandal....
@@chrisoddy8744
That's exactly what they say about Biden. That's what they said about Trump, that's what they said about Obama, that's what they said about Bush. That's the media bub. It's obviously not all true.
Yes, that was always going to be challenging. Even 20 years ago.
@@chasejordan22 They who? “The media” isn’t a singular unit.
Government doesn't care about wasting money because it's not coming out of their pocket. It's we the taxpayers that are paying the bill.