EU Rwanda flavoured immigration plan

[motorbiking]

You might want to reread the original post.

It is quite clear.

 

[denso13]

Asylum seekers will be processed in a "safe" third country

I've being saying this could be an option for ages. France offered to open a processing centre previously and we said no.

But some equated more safe routes with opening our borders. Which is nonsense.

 

[motorbiking]

You understand that they stay there under the proposal ?

 

[denso13]

If you mean the party proposal, it is quite clear, as is what they say about the UK position.

 

[JonathanM]

And the OP posted info from a party briefing which isn't the EU position?

Yes, but that was clear to me from the text of the OP; perhaps maybe not the title.

Italy for example is using current laws not new ones?

It seems so. At least the preliminary assessment is that it doesn't violate EU law.

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/italy-albania-migrants-deal-does-not-breach-eu-law-brussels-says-2023-11-15/

 

[JonathanM]

I've being saying this could be an option for ages. France offered to open a processing centre previously and we said no.

But some equated more safe routes with opening our borders. Which is nonsense.

These new "safe" countries would be outside the EU.

 

[denso13]

These new "safe" countries would be outside the EU.

Yes, does it matter? We are outside of the EU.

 

[IT Minion]

You might want to reread the original post.

It is quite clear.

I read it, and the research paper, and the Guardian article. Only the Guardian article has anything relevant and it implies that they wouldn't be outlawing people who arrive and seek asylum.

Which is fundamentally different, and much less objectionable. Offshoring asylum claims and letting successful refugees come back is different to the UK plan to outlaw all asylum seekers and then offer some asylum in a different country.

 

[ellal]

Yes, does it matter? We are outside of the EU.

Well the UK is in the words of our PM a democracy at risk from 'extremists'...

Does that make the UK a safe country?

 

[denso13]

Does that make the UK a safe country?

What has that to do with the thread?

 

[JonathanM]

Offshoring asylum claims and letting successful refugees come back is different to the UK plan to outlaw all asylum seekers and then offer some asylum in a different country.

The Guardian article and the FT article both appear to be saying that, under this proposal/suggestion, the default position would be that successful asylum seekers would be settled in the "safe" third country. Then a quota of the "vulnerable" successful ones would be settled in the EU. I know this is only a proposal by one group in the parliament, but it does have the backing of the Commission president. This may be the direction of travel.

European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen has embraced a UK-style immigration plan that would force people claiming asylum in the EU to settle outside the union.

"In the case of a positive outcome, the safe third country will grant protection to the applicant on site.” ... "The EU would then set “annual humanitarian quotas of vulnerable individuals” who could settle there."

it proposes the EU then “admit a quota of people in need of protection through annual humanitarian quotas of vulnerable individuals”.

 

[ajohn]

The original link stresses a safe country and what that means. Rwanda's main problem. Intent anyway is process them there.
Finding a suitable country might prove to be difficult. I'm not sure even the one we live in one.

 

[denso13]

The Guardian article and the FT article both appear to be saying that, under this proposal/suggestion, the default position would be that successful asylum seekers would be settled in the "safe" third country

It would be good to read the actual proposals.

 

[ellal]

What has that to do with the thread?

You brought it up

 

[denso13]

You brought it up

Safe countries? Not me...