Illegal Migration Bill — theoretical consequences?

[Deleted member 28]

And what a win it is!

View attachment 3411

Is that you, cos it certainly isn't me?

 

[glasgowcyclist]

The bill is not about increasing safe routes, so its hardly a criticism of the bill that it doesn't do this, when it was never intended to do this.

• The UK Gov sees the Channel crossings by people seeking asylum as a problem.
• People cross this way because the same UK Gov does not provide safe routes into the UK to claim asylum.
• Through this bill, the UK Gov wants to address the problem by deterrence*, by stating that all such travellers will be deported, on a one-way ticket, to Rwanda or some other place, and never be allowed to seek asylum here ever again.

It is therefor undoubtedly valid to criticise the bill’s intent because it’s an abandonment of the UK Gov’s responsibility to protect those fleeing persecution and war by providing safe and acceptable routes to enter the UK.

Instead of dissuading the smugglers that they are so keen to blame, the UK Gov is giving them even more power and control to exploit people for sex or labour. The traffickers will hold up a copy of Sunak’s tweet about denial of access to anti-slavery protections, and tell those wanting our help, “Look, nobody will listen to you, nobody in authority cares. You have no safeguards!” This will keep people trafficked, it will support and sustain the exploitation of fellow human beings to, and inside, the UK.

(*Rwanda is Schrodinger’s Destination; simultaneously frightening enough to threaten and deter would-be arrivals but also “a vibrant secure, beautiful haven for refugees”.)

 

[newfhouse]

(*Rwanda is Schrodinger’s Destination; simultaneously frightening enough to threaten and deter would-be arrivals but also “a vibrant secure, beautiful haven for refugees”.)

In this case, whenever the contents of the box are inspected there's always going to be the same disappointing result.