It also dilutes each country’s intake if a mass migration takes place.Has it ever been different? You will not get fairness from govts because well they need to get elected. I amazed the Rwanda nonsense has got this far.
Is there a country on this earth that totally shuns the Saudis Chinese or the Russians for example If there is money in it they will do business. Whatever the law the truth is countries don't want or cannot sell big numbers of immigration. And the right to choose a country is a little against the spirit of saving someone under threat tbh.
The experiment must be concluded, in quick time.They’ve gone after the international students now. Is there no end to their populist, xenophobic ravings?
International students can no longer bring any dependents with them AND they’re reviewing to 2 year work visa they currently get when completing their degrees.
Staggeringly incompetent even for this lot of charlatans, which is really saying something..
Knock on effect will be fewer places for locals, higher and higher fees, even more loss of ‘soft power’, a further diminution of our place in the world and, yet again, a loss of income/reduction in GDP.
How can the law be improved?
That would depend on ones point of view. Those who want a total open door policy would probably want stricter sanctions for countries who don't fulfil their obligations and within certain time limits.
Sane people like me:-) would prefer a system of unified processing centres where countries get to take roughly equal numbers. There should be an agreement though that emergency suspensions can be inacted.
Those aren’t changes to the law though. They’re changes to the way the existing law is applied.
Which is fair enough, but (a) that requires wider international cooperation (which we are not especially well placed to foster) and (b) requires substantially more funding than is currently available.
The reason I asked is that the current law requires each individual case to be judged on its own merits against the criteria set out in the Vienna convention. Calling for a change in the law suggests this simple process can be easily improved and the problem is not the law, it’s the resources that the government is willing to apply towards meeting its international obligations
This seems unlikely because I thought the migrants were paying traffickers thousands of £ to get here?On the Rwanda scheme it seems they paid someone £3k plus airfare and board and lodgings for five years to go. Firstly, good luck to the person involved although I reckon they could have shook the Govt down for a larger up front payment and secondly, I don’t think paying and subsidising people to leave is going to be a deterrent- indeed for some it may be an incentive :)
These international obligations do not apply until somebody sets foot on UK soil, there is therefore no real reason to expend resources to meet obligations that do not exist.Those aren’t changes to the law though. They’re changes to the way the existing law is applied.
Which is fair enough, but (a) that requires wider international cooperation (which we are not especially well placed to foster) and (b) requires substantially more funding than is currently available.
The reason I asked is that the current law requires each individual case to be judged on its own merits against the criteria set out in the Vienna convention. Calling for a change in the law suggests this simple process can be easily improved and the problem is not the law, it’s the resources that the government is willing to apply towards meeting its international obligations
If the cap fits…What a **** of a post.
So much wrong with it.
If the cap fits…