UN Official Criticizes UK's "Stop the Boats" Policy as a "Fake Response" to Migration Issues

[Social Media]

 

A top official from the United Nations has raised concerns about the UK government's "stop the boats" policy, describing it as a "fake response" to migration challenges. Filippo Grandi, the UN high commissioner for refugees, expressed worries that such policies target migrants as "easy targets" and criticized politicians for manipulating immigration issues with "fake news" to gain votes.

 

Rishi Sunak, the UK Chancellor, had made the "stop the boats" promise a key priority for the government, but Grandi argued that such approaches are not effective in addressing the complex issue of arrivals. He highlighted the risk of diverting attention from the real and challenging work needed to manage migration more effectively.

 

During an interview with BBC Radio 4's Today program, Grandi explicitly referenced the UK's "stop the boats" policy and likened it to Donald Trump's "build a wall" approach in the United States, labeling both as "fake responses" that fail to address the root causes of migration.

 

Grandi also voiced concerns about the UK government's Rwanda asylum scheme, which aims to process asylum claims in Rwanda. He criticized the practice of some countries with more resources devising systems to shift responsibilities for asylum seekers to other states, contrary to the principles of refugee protection. The UN official emphasized the importance of ensuring fair procedures for all asylum seekers, especially in countries that are signatories to international conventions.

 

The UK Home Office defended its policies, stating that the country is not abdicating its responsibilities and emphasizing its commitment to preventing small boats from crossing the English Channel. The government has faced criticism, with the Supreme Court ruling the Rwanda asylum scheme unlawful in November 2023. Despite this ruling, the Home Office introduced a new bill to establish Rwanda as a safe country in UK law.

 

As migration issues continue to be a point of contention, the UN's stance underscores the need for comprehensive and ethical approaches to address the complexities of refugee protection and asylum processes.

 

26.01.24

Source

 

[jak2002003]

Why don't they just have the same policy as thaikand? 

 

And get some army boats patrolling the channel and arrest the migrants on the boats?  

 

Put them in a detention center for illegally entering the UK. 

 

As it is there is zero deterrent for illegal immigrants in the UK. 

 

 

[pgrahmm]

Migration????

[JonnyF]

3 hours ago, jak2002003 said:

Why don't they just have the same policy as thaikand? 

 

And get some army boats patrolling the channel and arrest the migrants on the boats?  

 

Put them in a detention center for illegally entering the UK. 

 

As it is there is zero deterrent for illegal immigrants in the UK. 

 

 

 

Because the UK has been infested with Woke politics and liberal virtue signalling. Like a cancer, it is growing and destroying the host. 

 

As a result we have to battle through the courts to do very simple common sense things like you suggested. The Rwanda issue is a great example.

 

The UN are simply piling trash on the top of the fire.  

[Chomper Higgot]

1 hour ago, JonnyF said:

 

Because the UK has been infested with Woke politics and liberal virtue signalling. Like a cancer, it is growing and destroying the host. 

 

As a result we have to battle through the courts to do very simple common sense things like you suggested. The Rwanda issue is a great example.

 

The UN are simply piling trash on the top of the fire.  

When in reality the UK Government cut immigration staff and failed to clear asylum claims which would have enabled the deportation of bogus applicants.

 

Nobody objects to bogus asylum seekers being deported, no court blocks bogus asylum seekers from being deported.

 

Nothing ‘woke’ nothing ‘liberal’, no ‘virtue signaling’ just plain old Government failure to govern and the presentation of hare brained schemes that are doomed to fail from the start. The Rwanda plan is a great example.

[thaibeachlovers]

8 hours ago, Social Media said:

Rishi Sunak, the UK Chancellor, had made the "stop the boats" promise a key priority for the government, but Grandi argued that such approaches are not effective in addressing the complex issue of arrivals. He highlighted the risk of diverting attention from the real and challenging work needed to manage migration more effectively.

 

One might assume that by "manage migration more effectively" he is speaking code for "let more in and let the taxpayer support them".

 

It's not at all a complex subject. If they don't stop at the first safe country, and try to reach their destination of choice, push the boats back over the sea border line with enough fuel to return to France.

[Purdey]

For a country that went around the world and boasted about how great their country was, there ain't half a load of people complaining when those they conquered believe them and want to find out for themselves. 

The Brits could have developed the colonies, in which case people would have stayed at home. 

 

I agree with the OP that Brit complaints about migrants and the US border wall complaints are both deflecting internal issues onto others. 

[Red Forever]

4 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

When in reality the UK Government cut immigration staff and failed to clear asylum claims which would have enabled the deportation of bogus applicants.

 

Nobody objects to bogus asylum seekers being deported, no court blocks bogus asylum seekers from being deported.

 

Nothing ‘woke’ nothing ‘liberal’, no ‘virtue signaling’ just plain old Government failure to govern and the presentation of hare brained schemes that are doomed to fail from the start. The Rwanda plan is a great example.

Shh Chomper. You should know that the Kippers on here can't deal with facts.

They're obsessed with small boats arriving on our shores (which is not illegal) yet remain silent about the million per year who arrive in plain sight by air. 

Aw bless their xenophobic cotton socks. 

[JonnyF]

19 hours ago, Purdey said:

For a country that went around the world and boasted about how great their country was, there ain't half a load of people complaining when those they conquered believe them and want to find out for themselves. 

The Brits could have developed the colonies, in which case people would have stayed at home. 

 

I agree with the OP that Brit complaints about migrants and the US border wall complaints are both deflecting internal issues onto others. 

Hatred and jealousy is a terrible thing to carry with you.

 

Maybe better to just accept that the British have contributed massively to many of the colonies. Of course to make an omelette you have to break a few eggs but the good far outweighed the bad. 

[Chomper Higgot]

2 hours ago, JonnyF said:

Hatred and jealousy is a terrible thing to carry with you.

 

Maybe better to just accept that the British have contributed massively to many of the colonies. Of course to make an omelette you have to break a few eggs but the good far outweighed the bad. 

Thanks for demonstrating precisely why the teaching of the history of British imperialism needs improving.

[Purdey]

4 hours ago, JonnyF said:

Hatred and jealousy is a terrible thing to carry with you.

 

Maybe better to just accept that the British have contributed massively to many of the colonies. Of course to make an omelette you have to break a few eggs but the good far outweighed the bad. 

[thaibeachlovers]

On 1/26/2024 at 8:11 PM, Purdey said:

For a country that went around the world and boasted about how great their country was, there ain't half a load of people complaining when those they conquered believe them and want to find out for themselves. 

The Brits could have developed the colonies, in which case people would have stayed at home. 

 

I agree with the OP that Brit complaints about migrants and the US border wall complaints are both deflecting internal issues onto others. 

If one looks at the Congo, perhaps they should be grateful it was the British and not the Belgians that occupied them. Given the world as it was back then, they were going to be occupied by one Euro nation or another.

The Spanish were not very nice either, as Sth American tribal people can attest.

[Chomper Higgot]

2 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

If one looks at the Congo, perhaps they should be grateful it was the British and not the Belgians that occupied them. Given the world as it was back then, they were going to be occupied by one Euro nation or another.

The Spanish were not very nice either, as Sth American tribal people can attest.

Oh, whataboutary.

 

Now that is new.

[rickudon]

The UK just needs to make illegal migration uneconomic. 

1. Make illegal entry a crime, apply a fine.

2. Charge them for the NHS.

3. Restrict benefits until all debts are paid.

4. Still have to go through the UK migration/citizenship financial costs. THEN they get treated equally.

 

Make it clear that they will get nothing for free, if they fail to find work after a specified period, and start paying the debts, get deported.

 

Want your debts cancelled? Buy a plane ticket back home.

 

Simple.

[JonnyF]

On 1/27/2024 at 12:37 PM, Chomper Higgot said:

Thanks for demonstrating precisely why the teaching of the history of British imperialism needs improving.

 

I wouldn't expect anything less from the a woke, far left, Anti-Brit, American.

 

Thanks for not disappointing.  

[RayC]

On 1/26/2024 at 1:38 PM, thaibeachlovers said:

One might assume that by "manage migration more effectively" he is speaking code for "let more in and let the taxpayer support them".

 

It's not at all a complex subject. If they don't stop at the first safe country, and try to reach their destination of choice, push the boats back over the sea border line with enough fuel to return to France.

 

Most illegal immigrants to Europe arrive via Italy, Greece or Turkey. Using your rationale, you would support the other European nations pushing these people back to one of those three countries and leave it to them to a) sort out the genuine refugees b) be responsible for the ongoing welfare of these individuals. 

 

The "I'm alright Jack solution".

[RayC]

On 1/27/2024 at 2:41 PM, thaibeachlovers said:

If one looks at the Congo, perhaps they should be grateful it was the British and not the Belgians that occupied them. Given the world as it was back then, they were going to be occupied by one Euro nation or another.

The Spanish were not very nice either, as Sth American tribal people can attest.

 

Sounds like a good argument against imperialism in general.

[RayC]

Few myths exposed in the attached article.

 

Although this is obviously a serious subject, I couldn't help laughing at the final paragraph of 'Dublin system' section. Oh the irony. Another Brexit benefit. (Guilty as charged if accused of not letting go of Brexit).

 

https://freemovement.org.uk/are-refugees-obliged-to-claim-asylum-in-the-first-safe-country-they-reach/