Nationality and Borders Bill

Discussions about serious topics, for serious people
User avatar
Bird on a Fire
Princess POW
Posts: 10137
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:05 pm
Location: Portugal

Re: Nationality and Borders Bill

Post by Bird on a Fire » Mon Jan 17, 2022 8:52 am

Heh, I'd love that. Perhaps also casting Priti Patel and her family into the channel in a leaky dinghy.
We have the right to a clean, healthy, sustainable environment.

User avatar
Fishnut
After Pie
Posts: 2447
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:15 pm
Location: UK

Re: Nationality and Borders Bill

Post by Fishnut » Wed Jan 26, 2022 9:47 pm

Some good news.

The court of appeal has ruled that the UK government acted unlawfully when it stripped a British woman of her citizenship without telling her.
The home secretary had argued that notification had been given to D4, who has been detained in the Roj camp in Syria since January 2019, by simply placing a note on her Home Office file, relying on regulations introduced without parliamentary approval.
Of course, the Home Office intends to try to appeal. Third time (un)lucky maybe?
it's okay to say "I don't know"

User avatar
Fishnut
After Pie
Posts: 2447
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:15 pm
Location: UK

Re: Nationality and Borders Bill

Post by Fishnut » Sun Feb 13, 2022 2:14 pm

Another reminder that there's not a single section of this bill that isn't designed to hurt people in some way. This time, it's victims of modern slavery.

Under Part 5, the Home Office would be able to remove support from survivors – even when they can evidence their exploitation – if details of abuse are shared ‘too late’. Plus if they've been given a sentence of 12 months or more they'd be banned from support.
The Home Office’s own data shows that half of all survivors could be at risk of losing support – in 2020, 49% of exploitation cases saw potential victims forced to commit crime as a result of their exploitation
The bill also says that the government has no responsibility to help victims, but help can be given on a 'case-by-case' basis. As with asylum seekers, it's creating a two-tier system of 'deserving' and 'undeserving', and if you're deemed 'undeserving' then you are on your own.
it's okay to say "I don't know"

DJL
Sindis Poop
Posts: 56
Joined: Thu Jul 01, 2021 6:42 pm

Re: Nationality and Borders Bill

Post by DJL » Mon Feb 14, 2022 6:37 am

Fishnut wrote:
Sun Feb 13, 2022 2:14 pm
The bill also says that the government has no responsibility to help victims, but help can be given on a 'case-by-case' basis. As with asylum seekers, it's creating a two-tier system of 'deserving' and 'undeserving', and if you're deemed 'undeserving' then you are on your own.
Back in the 70s when I was in junior school I had a class teacher who was a massive Victorian history buff and she got me to do a project on workhouses. Even then I thought that the distinction between the 'deserving' and the 'undeserving' in respect of poverty was a bit off. I'm not totally surprised to see the current government enjoy the concept so much, though.

User avatar
Fishnut
After Pie
Posts: 2447
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:15 pm
Location: UK

Re: Nationality and Borders Bill

Post by Fishnut » Mon Feb 14, 2022 10:13 pm

This is a great infographic showing just how expensively pointless and harmful the Bill will be:
Together with Refugees infographic.jpg
Together with Refugees infographic.jpg (43.01 KiB) Viewed 2695 times
Source
it's okay to say "I don't know"

monkey
After Pie
Posts: 1906
Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2019 5:10 pm

Re: Nationality and Borders Bill

Post by monkey » Tue Feb 15, 2022 12:29 am

UNHCR say there were 132,349 refugees in the UK in 2020. So instead of treating them like sh.t, for the same price you could give them all ~£20,000 a year, and set them all up proper good.


(I'm not suggesting this as an actual policy, just putting the amount into perspective)

WFJ
Catbabel
Posts: 648
Joined: Tue Jun 01, 2021 7:54 am

Re: Nationality and Borders Bill

Post by WFJ » Tue Feb 15, 2022 9:02 am

Fishnut wrote:
Mon Feb 14, 2022 10:13 pm
This is a great infographic showing just how expensively pointless and harmful the Bill will be:
Together with Refugees infographic.jpg

Source
It's a completely meaningless graphic. The Bill is terrible for a variety of reasons, but making a costs argument by only showing one side of the balance sheet is NHS bus-level rhetoric.

User avatar
Cardinal Fang
Snowbonk
Posts: 421
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2019 7:42 pm

Re: Nationality and Borders Bill

Post by Cardinal Fang » Tue Feb 15, 2022 1:41 pm

Part of the problem is that a lot of the "other side" costs would be to do with government policy as well. Say, for example" if they said "we spend (x) billions in benefits to asylum seekers", so which the obvious answer would be along the lines of "that's because you refuse to allow them to work. If asylum seekers were allowed to get jobs, they wouldn't need so much support would they?"

Plus a lot of those "other side" costs are offset by the economic benefits accrued by gaining mostly young, literate, well motivated people who want to build new lives

CF
Image

WFJ
Catbabel
Posts: 648
Joined: Tue Jun 01, 2021 7:54 am

Re: Nationality and Borders Bill

Post by WFJ » Tue Feb 15, 2022 2:33 pm

Cardinal Fang wrote:
Tue Feb 15, 2022 1:41 pm
Part of the problem is that a lot of the "other side" costs would be to do with government policy as well. Say, for example" if they said "we spend (x) billions in benefits to asylum seekers", so which the obvious answer would be along the lines of "that's because you refuse to allow them to work. If asylum seekers were allowed to get jobs, they wouldn't need so much support would they?"

Plus a lot of those "other side" costs are offset by the economic benefits accrued by gaining mostly young, literate, well motivated people who want to build new lives

CF
I agree. But that is why the cost argument, at least as represented by this graphic, is meaningless. It's not even clear what situation the costs are compared to. Are they relative to the status quo or to accepting all migrants who apply or to something else.

User avatar
Fishnut
After Pie
Posts: 2447
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:15 pm
Location: UK

Re: Nationality and Borders Bill

Post by Fishnut » Tue Feb 15, 2022 8:00 pm

We don't currently process refugees offshore so the 'other side' is to continue what we're doing now (at a minimum - let's be honest, what we're doing now is already inhumane) and save the estimated £1.44 billion it will cost to set them up and run them. When the idea was first proposed, places like Ascension Island and St Helena were discussed. Only someone who's never been to Ascension Island could think it would be a sensible place to hold refugees. It's an 8 hour flight (though I'm certain it was longer when I did it - the RAF flew us on an ex-Air India plane which wasn't particularly fast). It's a barren volcanic island where everything has to be flown or shipped in. Even if you don't care about the inhumanity of sticking refugees in the middle of nowhere, the costs to do so are prohibitive to anyone sane.

Rwanda has also been proposed. As has Moldova, Morocco and Papua New Guinea. Why any of those countries would agree to house people wanting to claim asylum in the UK I am unclear. Indeed, last month Ghana made a statement rejecting proposals to use it as an offshore detention centre. Refugee Action have a twitter thread of all the places being touted as potential sites for offshore detention centres. There is no rhyme nor reason to them.

The plan is based on the system used by Australia. While it's hard to get accurate costs, figures published last week by the Refugee Council of Australia estimate the Australian government spends around $1 billion a year holding people overseas while processing their applications for refugee/asylum seeker status - a process that can take years. The average time is around a year and a half (PDF) though one man was held for 9 years.

From what I can tell, the latest figures [PDF] show fewer than 200 people being kept on Nauru and Papua New Guinea (PNG). The processing centre on Manus Island was closed in 2016 after the Papua New Guinea Supreme Court ruled it to be illegal and ordered its closure and the Australian government was forced to pay $70 million in compensation to 1,905 refugees and asylum seekers for illegally detaining them in dangerous and damaging conditions. After its closure, 124 asylum seekers and refugees were kept in PNG, 88 of whom have had their claims for protection formally recognised. The Asylum Seeker Resource Centre published a report (PDF) in 2019 that estimated that,
offshore processing is costing the Australian Government in excess of $573,000 per offshore person, per year. To detain the same person onshore in Australia however results in a cost saving of approximately $200,000 per person, per year, with onshore mandatory detention costing on average $346,000 per person per year, compared to $10,221 per person per year for those living in the Australian community on bridging visas.
So, the 'other side' would be to house people in the community. Refugees and asylum seekers are not inherently criminal. They do not automatically need locking up. What most need is support to get themselves settled and integrated and then be allowed to live their lives. The UK government already have a bad track record for housing asylum seekers safely. Australia was accused of systematically violating the UN's convention against torture with its facilities on Manus (the ones I mentioned above, where it paid $70 million in compensation to its inmates). This is the model the UK government is basing its plan on. The 'other side' is to not do this. The 'other side' is to treat refugees like people and not spend a fortune locking them up when we could spend far less helping them rebuild their lives.
it's okay to say "I don't know"

tom p
After Pie
Posts: 1876
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:14 pm
Location: the low countries

Re: Nationality and Borders Bill

Post by tom p » Wed Feb 16, 2022 9:27 am

WFJ wrote:
Tue Feb 15, 2022 9:02 am
Fishnut wrote:
Mon Feb 14, 2022 10:13 pm
This is a great infographic showing just how expensively pointless and harmful the Bill will be:
Together with Refugees infographic.jpg

Source
It's a completely meaningless graphic. The Bill is terrible for a variety of reasons, but making a costs argument by only showing one side of the balance sheet is NHS bus-level rhetoric.
that bus worked.
They aren't writing an academic essay, they are publicising their side.
And they are arguing against a gang of career liars. Even if it was untrue, it would still be fair. It certainly doesn't have to be balanced. Let Patel & her minions put the other side.

WFJ
Catbabel
Posts: 648
Joined: Tue Jun 01, 2021 7:54 am

Re: Nationality and Borders Bill

Post by WFJ » Wed Feb 16, 2022 11:27 am

tom p wrote:
Wed Feb 16, 2022 9:27 am
WFJ wrote:
Tue Feb 15, 2022 9:02 am
Fishnut wrote:
Mon Feb 14, 2022 10:13 pm
This is a great infographic showing just how expensively pointless and harmful the Bill will be:
Together with Refugees infographic.jpg

Source
It's a completely meaningless graphic. The Bill is terrible for a variety of reasons, but making a costs argument by only showing one side of the balance sheet is NHS bus-level rhetoric.
that bus worked.
They aren't writing an academic essay, they are publicising their side.
And they are arguing against a gang of career liars. Even if it was untrue, it would still be fair. It certainly doesn't have to be balanced. Let Patel & her minions put the other side.
My point has nothing to do with balance, the graphic is meaningless so makes no effective argument. Fishnut's long post gives some of the many strong arguments against this bill, but none of these is shown in the poster. The fact a policy has costs is not an argument against it, especially if not weighed against potential savings, so can be easily ignored.

The Tories are making the costs of the asylum system one of the major arguments in favour of this bill (obviously this is a smokescreen as they cannot publicly say we want this to help keep darkies and muslims out). I had assumed that these projected costs were lower than those of the current system. From googling I see that this is wrong, which shows this poster is even worse than I first thought. If someone who is already against the bill (I'm not a UK taxpayer, but would still be were I) can dismiss it so easily, who is it meant to convince.

I think costs are a terrible argument against the bill. Even if it could be implemented for 50p is would still be bad. But showing that the Tories costs argument does not stack up is a good argument. This meaningless graphic fails to do that.

tom p
After Pie
Posts: 1876
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:14 pm
Location: the low countries

Re: Nationality and Borders Bill

Post by tom p » Wed Feb 16, 2022 1:34 pm

WFJ wrote:
Wed Feb 16, 2022 11:27 am
tom p wrote:
Wed Feb 16, 2022 9:27 am
WFJ wrote:
Tue Feb 15, 2022 9:02 am


It's a completely meaningless graphic. The Bill is terrible for a variety of reasons, but making a costs argument by only showing one side of the balance sheet is NHS bus-level rhetoric.
that bus worked.
They aren't writing an academic essay, they are publicising their side.
And they are arguing against a gang of career liars. Even if it was untrue, it would still be fair. It certainly doesn't have to be balanced. Let Patel & her minions put the other side.
My point has nothing to do with balance, the graphic is meaningless so makes no effective argument. Fishnut's long post gives some of the many strong arguments against this bill, but none of these is shown in the poster.
Not every poster has to make every argument. You would be mad to think they do. Each argument can, and should, be made separately to persuade different sections of the public & to do so concisely.
WFJ wrote:
Wed Feb 16, 2022 11:27 am
The fact a policy has costs is not an argument against it, especially if not weighed against potential savings, so can be easily ignored.
Yes, yes it is an argument against it. Indeed, if a policy has costs, then parties are expected to justify how they will pay for it (ever heard the phrases 'budget black hole' or 'uncosted manifesto commitments'?) If legislation has costs, then there are additional procedural hurdles to pass before HMG can bring it to the house, precisely in order to justify these costs & counter financial arguments against it. You just don't see those 'cos they are done intramuros.
WFJ wrote:
Wed Feb 16, 2022 11:27 am
The Tories are making the costs of the asylum system one of the major arguments in favour of this bill (obviously this is a smokescreen as they cannot publicly say we want this to help keep darkies and muslims out). I had assumed that these projected costs were lower than those of the current system. From googling I see that this is wrong, which shows this poster is even worse than I first thought. If someone who is already against the bill (I'm not a UK taxpayer, but would still be were I) can dismiss it so easily, who is it meant to convince.
Most people don't google things. Showing that this so-called saving is going to cost money may well persuade some of the people who care more about a few pennies than a human life.
WFJ wrote:
Wed Feb 16, 2022 11:27 am
I think costs are a terrible argument against the bill. Even if it could be implemented for 50p is would still be bad. But showing that the Tories costs argument does not stack up is a good argument. This meaningless graphic fails to do that.
It shows it will cost a lot of money. Billions of pounds. It doesn't need to show current costs, because that is the argument for the tories to make. All this poster is doing is showing it costs a lot, which can be used to counter the (inevitably false) claims that it will save money.

WFJ
Catbabel
Posts: 648
Joined: Tue Jun 01, 2021 7:54 am

Re: Nationality and Borders Bill

Post by WFJ » Wed Feb 16, 2022 2:12 pm

tom p wrote:
Wed Feb 16, 2022 1:34 pm

Yes, yes it is an argument against it. Indeed, if a policy has costs, then parties are expected to justify how they will pay for it (ever heard the phrases 'budget black hole' or 'uncosted manifesto commitments'?) If legislation has costs, then there are additional procedural hurdles to pass before HMG can bring it to the house, precisely in order to justify these costs & counter financial arguments against it. You just don't see those 'cos they are done intramuros.
Of course, but all policies have costs.
Most people don't google things. Showing that this so-called saving is going to cost money may well persuade some of the people who care more about a few pennies than a human life.
Then most who are in favour of the bill, or are on the fence/haven't even thought about it, will likely make the assumption I did that these costs are lower than the costs of the current asylum system in the UK—otherwise why wouldn't this poster say that. It was only through googling that I found this assumption was wrong and so the poster made a valid argument.
It shows it will cost a lot of money. Billions of pounds. It doesn't need to show current costs, because that is the argument for the tories to make. All this poster is doing is showing it costs a lot, which can be used to counter the (inevitably false) claims that it will save money.
The point is that the Tories are making that argument, and if these cost estimates are ballpark correct, the argument is demonstrably false. But this poster fails to demonstrate it.

The Daily Mail states that the UK asylum system cost £1bn in 19-20 and £1.4bn in 20-21 (I use them a source as they are hardly likely to deflate the figures, but have seen the same figures elsewhere). What would make a more effective poster—"Bill Costs £2.7bn/year" or "Tories are lying: Bill will double asylum costs to £2.7bn/year"?

tom p
After Pie
Posts: 1876
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:14 pm
Location: the low countries

Re: Nationality and Borders Bill

Post by tom p » Wed Feb 16, 2022 3:47 pm

WFJ wrote:
Wed Feb 16, 2022 2:12 pm
tom p wrote:
Wed Feb 16, 2022 1:34 pm

Yes, yes it is an argument against it. Indeed, if a policy has costs, then parties are expected to justify how they will pay for it (ever heard the phrases 'budget black hole' or 'uncosted manifesto commitments'?) If legislation has costs, then there are additional procedural hurdles to pass before HMG can bring it to the house, precisely in order to justify these costs & counter financial arguments against it. You just don't see those 'cos they are done intramuros.
Of course, but all policies have costs.
Most people don't google things. Showing that this so-called saving is going to cost money may well persuade some of the people who care more about a few pennies than a human life.
Then most who are in favour of the bill, or are on the fence/haven't even thought about it, will likely make the assumption I did that these costs are lower than the costs of the current asylum system in the UK—otherwise why wouldn't this poster say that. It was only through googling that I found this assumption was wrong and so the poster made a valid argument.
It shows it will cost a lot of money. Billions of pounds. It doesn't need to show current costs, because that is the argument for the tories to make. All this poster is doing is showing it costs a lot, which can be used to counter the (inevitably false) claims that it will save money.
The point is that the Tories are making that argument, and if these cost estimates are ballpark correct, the argument is demonstrably false. But this poster fails to demonstrate it.

The Daily Mail states that the UK asylum system cost £1bn in 19-20 and £1.4bn in 20-21 (I use them a source as they are hardly likely to deflate the figures, but have seen the same figures elsewhere). What would make a more effective poster—"Bill Costs £2.7bn/year" or "Tories are lying: Bill will double asylum costs to £2.7bn/year"?
Tell people that their favourite party is lying and they won't listen.
Add the tories' claims into the image and it becomes confusing. Most people are sh.t with numbers and might just remember the lower figure.
Not every argument has to be made at once. People can share this and add 'tories are lying - look at the true costs'. The fact that it doesn't say 'the tories are lying' makes it seem less partisan and more honest.

User avatar
Fishnut
After Pie
Posts: 2447
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:15 pm
Location: UK

Re: Nationality and Borders Bill

Post by Fishnut » Wed Feb 16, 2022 6:51 pm

Policy Exchange, a think tank with "close links to the government" has recommended setting up asylum processing centres in the following countries Britain’s Sovereign Base Areas in Cyprus, Alderney in the Channel Islands or Ascension Island and sending asylum seekers to them within 48 hours of their arrival in the UK, to act as a deterrent.
The exchange’s preference out of the three overseas locations is Ascension because of its climate and its lack of an indigenous or permanent population.

The report said the island’s runway could handle “large planes” and cited its “extremely stable and favourable” climate, with an average temperature of 22.7C.
I don't know where they get their climate data from. According to wiki the average low is 22.7C. Average high is 27.8C. Weatherspark has a great breakdown of the climate that shows there's only a small portion of the year where the climate can be considered 'comfortable. I visited for a few days one January and it was very hot. It's volcanic rock and the heat just radiated off everything. I got a bit lost walking back from one of the few beaches you can swim from safely. The ground was too hot to stand still on, the water in my bottle got too hot to drink and I had visions of my bleached bones being found months later. It is not a hospitable place. I honestly can't believe it's being repeatedly suggested as a suitable place to house asylum seekers.

A few holiday snaps to give you an idea of the landscape:
Comfortless Cove to Georgetown.jpg
Comfortless Cove to Georgetown.jpg (27.45 KiB) Viewed 2403 times
View from Green Mountain 1.jpg
View from Green Mountain 1.jpg (20.46 KiB) Viewed 2403 times
View from Green Mountain 2.jpg
View from Green Mountain 2.jpg (21.7 KiB) Viewed 2403 times
Oh, and that runway - it seems it's currently out of commission and has been since 2017.

I get the impression that this is all about looking tough and isn't really something they intend to do. For one, I'm not entirely sure what the security implications would be of putting an asylum processing centre on a tiny island that's main clams to fame are an RAF base, a US military base, and acting a hub for communications infrastructure. Asylum seekers are not criminals but pretending to be one sure would be a handy way to get to the island and cause all sorts of hugely embarrassing chaos, should someone be so inclined.
it's okay to say "I don't know"

User avatar
Fishnut
After Pie
Posts: 2447
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:15 pm
Location: UK

Re: Nationality and Borders Bill

Post by Fishnut » Thu Feb 17, 2022 11:10 pm

An interesting tidbit on the Ascension Island proposal, journalist Andrew Connelly emailed officials on the island late last year.
They said: ‘There are no ongoing discussions to receive UK asylum seekers.’
Which adds to my belief that this is just a load of posturing.
Fishnut wrote:
Tue Feb 15, 2022 8:00 pm
The average time [for Australia to process asylum claims from offshore detainees] is around a year and a half (PDF) though one man was held for 9 years.
I came across updated figures (PDF) - as of 30 September 2021 the average length of time people were held in detention facilities was 689 days - almost 2 years. Over 100 people were held for more than 5 years. This is NOT a strategy we want to copy.

Like I say, I don't think we will - we simply don't have access to locations in the same way that Australia did. From what I can tell, they basically forced poor countries nearby who they have power over to take their asylum seekers - for example, Nauru. It's a tiny country and after its natural resources were extinguished it fell into corruption and poverty. From a Guardian article,
Twenty-first century Nauru, with scarce indigenous industry, is now overwhelmingly reliant on foreign aid for its economic survival. Australia is its chief and most unquestioning benefactor.

But it is not an easy relationship. Australia has rarely treated its weaker neighbour benignly. In 1993, for instance, Australia agreed to pay reparations for its mismanagement of the mining that destroyed Nauru’s natural environment (but only after Nauru took Australia to the international court of justice).

Nauru’s is a painful position for a country to be in, and vulnerability attends its weakness. The country needs Australia. As much as it might like to, it cannot say no to Australia’s comparative economic might...

Australia’s “proposal” of offshore processing is heard in Nauru as insistence. The government is in no position to refuse, and besides, the massive stimulus of hundreds of millions of Australian dollars, and jobs for an under-employed workforce, outweighs the fierce hostility that many – not all – in the Nauruan community hold for the refugees imposed upon their island.
For all our talk of Empire 2.0 I don't think there's any countries we can just dump a detention centre on. Nothing close by will accept it, and anything far away will be too costly to even get people to, let alone staff and manage. But that doesn't mean that we can stop worrying. For one, this is a government not known for its financial probity, so I wouldn't be surprised if they spend a lot of money trying to get this off the ground. For another, it's indicative of the approach they are wanting to take (and, let's be honest, have been taking). Treating asylum seekers as inherently criminal, locking them up out of sight and out of mind and spending far more money (mostly going to contractors who coincidently are mates and/or donors) and keeping them in appalling conditions for years. Wasted money, wasted lives. And for what?
it's okay to say "I don't know"

tom p
After Pie
Posts: 1876
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:14 pm
Location: the low countries

Re: Nationality and Borders Bill

Post by tom p » Fri Feb 18, 2022 9:00 am

Fishnut wrote:
Thu Feb 17, 2022 11:10 pm
An interesting tidbit on the Ascension Island proposal, journalist Andrew Connelly emailed officials on the island late last year.
They said: ‘There are no ongoing discussions to receive UK asylum seekers.’
Which adds to my belief that this is just a load of posturing.
Fishnut wrote:
Tue Feb 15, 2022 8:00 pm
The average time [for Australia to process asylum claims from offshore detainees] is around a year and a half (PDF) though one man was held for 9 years.
I came across updated figures (PDF) - as of 30 September 2021 the average length of time people were held in detention facilities was 689 days - almost 2 years. Over 100 people were held for more than 5 years. This is NOT a strategy we want to copy.

Like I say, I don't think we will - we simply don't have access to locations in the same way that Australia did. From what I can tell, they basically forced poor countries nearby who they have power over to take their asylum seekers - for example, Nauru. It's a tiny country and after its natural resources were extinguished it fell into corruption and poverty. From a Guardian article,
Twenty-first century Nauru, with scarce indigenous industry, is now overwhelmingly reliant on foreign aid for its economic survival. Australia is its chief and most unquestioning benefactor.

But it is not an easy relationship. Australia has rarely treated its weaker neighbour benignly. In 1993, for instance, Australia agreed to pay reparations for its mismanagement of the mining that destroyed Nauru’s natural environment (but only after Nauru took Australia to the international court of justice).

Nauru’s is a painful position for a country to be in, and vulnerability attends its weakness. The country needs Australia. As much as it might like to, it cannot say no to Australia’s comparative economic might...

Australia’s “proposal” of offshore processing is heard in Nauru as insistence. The government is in no position to refuse, and besides, the massive stimulus of hundreds of millions of Australian dollars, and jobs for an under-employed workforce, outweighs the fierce hostility that many – not all – in the Nauruan community hold for the refugees imposed upon their island.
For all our talk of Empire 2.0 I don't think there's any countries we can just dump a detention centre on. Nothing close by will accept it, and anything far away will be too costly to even get people to, let alone staff and manage. But that doesn't mean that we can stop worrying. For one, this is a government not known for its financial probity, so I wouldn't be surprised if they spend a lot of money trying to get this off the ground. For another, it's indicative of the approach they are wanting to take (and, let's be honest, have been taking). Treating asylum seekers as inherently criminal, locking them up out of sight and out of mind and spending far more money (mostly going to contractors who coincidently are mates and/or donors) and keeping them in appalling conditions for years. Wasted money, wasted lives. And for what?
For what? It's classic divide and rule, innit? Play on the differences between muslims and others, so they can have a handful of token brown-skinned people in cabinet to try and appeal to people of indian descent while still keeping white racists onside by being beastly to muslims & other forrin-looking people. Plus, as you noted, a nice little bit of grift on the side.
Win-win if you're a f.cking scumbag.

By the way, it's titbit, not tidbit. A small morsel such as a tit (the adorable little birds) might eat.

User avatar
Bird on a Fire
Princess POW
Posts: 10137
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:05 pm
Location: Portugal

Re: Nationality and Borders Bill

Post by Bird on a Fire » Fri Feb 18, 2022 1:13 pm

Discussion of tom's (erroneous) etymology tidbit now has its own thread viewtopic.php?f=10&t=3158 ;)
We have the right to a clean, healthy, sustainable environment.

tom p
After Pie
Posts: 1876
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:14 pm
Location: the low countries

Re: Nationality and Borders Bill

Post by tom p » Fri Feb 18, 2022 2:11 pm

Bird on a Fire wrote:
Fri Feb 18, 2022 1:13 pm
Discussion of tom's (erroneous) etymology tidbit now has its own thread viewtopic.php?f=10&t=3158 ;)
Cheers.
I can only apologise to fishnut for cast nasturtiums over her spelling

Al Capone Junior
Clardic Fug
Posts: 221
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2019 6:40 pm

Re: Nationality and Borders Bill

Post by Al Capone Junior » Fri Feb 25, 2022 7:08 pm

Criminalizing someone's humanitarian work, eh?

Over here in the land of hubris and stupidity, we're definitely on board with this idea. Oh, and making it where anyone can sue you for doing your work too. No matter how necessary or beneficial, and especially if what you do offers compassion and dignity to the "wrong" ppl. With massive preference for the "right" ppl*.

Somehow I doubt this is news tho.

*bitter old white guys, aka repugnican evangelicals

User avatar
Fishnut
After Pie
Posts: 2447
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:15 pm
Location: UK

Re: Nationality and Borders Bill

Post by Fishnut » Fri Feb 25, 2022 10:41 pm

Colin Yeo has a couple of short but important threads on how the Nationality and Borders Bill is being used to prevent Ukrainians from claiming asylum in the UK. The TL:DR is that the government is insisting that people get visas before flying to the UK, but as there are no direct flights from Ukraine to the UK they will have to go to another country to get that flight. As they are then in a 'safe' country they are no longer allowed to claim asylum in the UK and if they try they will be deported. It's so f.cking evil.
it's okay to say "I don't know"

raven
Catbabel
Posts: 645
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 8:58 pm

Re: Nationality and Borders Bill

Post by raven » Sun Feb 27, 2022 5:20 pm

That is just par for the very effed up course when it comes to our immigration system.

I'm sure all these hoops you have to jump through sound relatively reasonable to the person in the street when taken out of context, but soon as you have a concrete example of how they work in reality you realise how cruel they actually are.

(And getting into the UK is only the half of it. It appalls me that we can take in unaccompanied teenagers, find them foster homes, educate them, give them a taste of a settled life here, then as soon as they turn 18, say f.ck off, that's your lot. It's inhumane.)

User avatar
Fishnut
After Pie
Posts: 2447
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:15 pm
Location: UK

Re: Nationality and Borders Bill

Post by Fishnut » Mon Feb 28, 2022 8:19 pm

The House of Lords has voted to remove the clause that would allow the government to remove citizenship without informing the person. I don' know enough about parliamentary process to know if this is the end of the clause - I doubt it - but it's a big step.
it's okay to say "I don't know"

monkey
After Pie
Posts: 1906
Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2019 5:10 pm

Re: Nationality and Borders Bill

Post by monkey » Mon Feb 28, 2022 8:34 pm

Fishnut wrote:
Mon Feb 28, 2022 8:19 pm
The House of Lords has voted to remove the clause that would allow the government to remove citizenship without informing the person. I don' know enough about parliamentary process to know if this is the end of the clause - I doubt it - but it's a big step.
Ping pong happens next.

Post Reply