moral, maybe. legal, not really

Individuals have a right to seek asylum in countries; the signatories to the various conventions have a shared responsibility to offer that asylum. How those countries share that responsibility is left open. There is a huge gulf in how asylum seekers are dealt with across various countries. Somewhere like Japan takes in bugger all.

The key obligation is that if someone makes it here, we can't send them somewhere that puts them at risk of harm/loss of freedoms.

A lot of the reporting on Rwanda as a destination verges on ignorance and prejudice to a degree that would get you cancelled if you were talking about immigrants (and conveniently ignores a lot of the unsavoury aspects of UK life for immigrants, particularly those that slip through outside of official channels and have to eke out an existence in the black economy).

I'm not convinced it's a bad policy in principle if all safeguard are in place, but it's pretty clear the way it is being done currently is driven by optics.

User Posted Link

(Cooper, for anyone triggered by Labour politicians doing a decent job)

Posted By: CWC, Jun 16, 10:26:17