I have been reading the Illegal Migration Bill because someone has to since sensible debate about it seems to be entirely absent in the media.
There is much to be shocked about in it, but I found this most egregious:
The UK's protections against modern slavery - all of which are out in place to protect the most vulnerable people including those trafficked for exploitation in the sex trade - are suspended in the case of a person who arrives on a small boat, even though there is significant evidence that this route is being used for modern slavery purposes.
I did, however, note that there was an exception if a competent authority says the modern slavery provisions should apply. So I checked what competent authority meant and got this:
In other words, it is someone appointed by the Secretary of State who will then, no doubt, do their bidding in accordance with the instructions that they have been given.
The second reading of this Bill is on Monday. The second reading endorses the principles inherent in the Bill. Unusually, no support documentation has been produced by the government as yet to support that debate. And it will all be over by Monday evening. By then the House of Commons will have approved the removal of the human rights of tens of thousands of vulnerable people coming to the UK, some of them against their will.
The obvious question to ask is to what depth have we dropped when the government is sure it will get this measure through the House on the back of its compliant MPs?
The other question to ask is why the government is trying to pass this legislation when they can be sure that the Lords and the Courts will object to it, for very good reason. A poll in which you can vote for as many options as you wish:
Why is the government proposing the Illegal Migration Bill?
- It is trying to create a group who it can use to create division in society to expolit for political gain (21%, 377 Votes)
- It is distracting attention from its other failings (20%, 364 Votes)
- It is seeking to draw attention to a migration crisis it has created to exploit for political advantage (18%, 324 Votes)
- This is not a serious attempt at legislating: it is political posturing (17%, 318 Votes)
- It is creating division before local elections in May (16%, 297 Votes)
- It is admitting its previous attempts to control migration have failed (7%, 127 Votes)
- It is making a serious attempt to solve the 'small boats crisis' (1%, 10 Votes)
- I'm abstaining, but show me the results anyway (0%, 2 Votes)
- None of the above (0%, 0 Votes)
Total Voters: 503
Loading ...
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Colin Yeo writes well about the Bill:
https://freemovement.org.uk/what-is-in-the-illegal-migration-bill/
Worth reading….
Near where I live there is a women’s immigration removal centre called Hassockfield. The government prefers to call it Derwentside as Hassockfield has evil connotations, with cases still going through the courts.
Most of the women in there were trafficked to the UK, many on small boats. They are frightened enough of the idea of going back to where they came from or Rwanda. They have little access to legal representation, the mobile signals do not work, it is out of the way on purpose.
If you watched Politics Live last Wednesday, you will have seen the MP for the area complaining about all the demonstrations out side this IRC. They will carry on demonstrating until it is closed.
If this bill gets passed there will be little chance of any of these women getting justice.
Full Fact about the numbers.
https://fullfact.us6.list-manage.com/track/click?u=4e4c5a6a441f72299683193db&id=b8bcba5046&e=ca399d51bc
Organised intimidation by the government, even before people assemble outside
https://care4calais.org/news/child-kurdish-refugee/
This is what the government are trying to stop. However, there was no legal route for this family to have taken. Even before this bill there were officers wanting to take this family to prison and separate them.
The women in Hassockfield have been split up from their families.
I have read an article that says that women are being paid £1 an hour to clean out their centres, by the private companies that run them. It’s still slave labour.
Why is none of this in the MSM?
I know you commented unfavourably on QT yesterday Richard, but for once I watched it and apart from the oily creep Jenrick who supported this illegal bill, nobody else on the panel was taken in.
Richard Maddelely and Ken Clark said that it is useless political posturing that won’t work, just as you have done. Yasmin Alibiah Brown pointed out that the tories anti immigration legislation recently has all been implemented by Asian Britians like her (Patel, Sunak, Braverman) who are all descendants of immigrants, and therefore have no moral credibility at all.
And the Labour MP pointed out all the previous ‘attempts’ to deal with this issue had failed. Although predictably, she made no attempt to argue the case that refugees have a legal right to be here.
https://care4calais.org/news/environmental-refugees/
Another brilliant story from careforcalais. I note it doesn’t say how they got here, but they are living in hotels, and trying to do useful community work. Even the council are helping them, which must really annoy their tory MP.
Stories like this need to be spread everywhere to show how wrong the tories are.
Obviously it is political posturing.
But the key question is, why? Why are they choosing to do this, now? Why would the government knowingly introduce a bill that is so toxic and divisive, that is unlikely to get through the Lords, that may get eviscerated in domestic courts or the ECHR, that is unlikely to be implemented anyway because we don’t have places to detain people or countries that have agreed to accept them when they are deported. And that is just the direct impact. How does this look, in France or Germany or the US? Why are they hell bent on trashing the UK’s international reputation? Who will want to deal with a pariah state that does something like this?
It is not about “stopping the boats” because there are other less offensive and more effective means to do that.
Why are they using inflammatory “them or us” rhetoric ? Why are they enabling the English nationalists and the neo-nazis on the far right?
The only reason I can think of is that that realise the game is up, and this is a last desperate throw of the dice to try to win the next general election by any means, fair or foul.
Who goes Nazi? Not necessarily the people you expect. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_Goes_Nazi%3F
Thanks for the link
The argument is plausible
I have repeatedly been told that there is no such thing as an illegal immigrant, therefore the title of the bill must be wrong, mustn’t it?
I think it highlights that the Bill itself is illegal…
Depends how you read the title. Is it an illegal “immigrant bill” or an “illegal immigrant” bill ?
I tend to read the former, but presume the proposers intended the latter.
Whoever dreamed up such an ambiguous title was perhaps hedging his/her bets!
I think someone was subtly winding their boss up
£200m handed to France to clean up our mess, by a Brexit Government. They are pitching that as a solution to their right-wing audience.
Why not spend £200m on creating an immigration clearing system that actually works – in Britain. Commons Library Research Briefing, 1 March 2023 (https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN01403/SN01403.pdf). Go to Graph: ‘Outcome of initial decisions on asylum applications’ (Section 2.1 Asylum applications and initial decisions) 1984-2022 (p.11).
Here is a quote (p.12) on the key fall in initial refusals as a percentage of applications, that has created so much controversy. It shows that the process has effectively collapsed under the Conservatives; and is only partially caused by the pandemic. This is a failure of Government:
“The percentage of main applicants refused at initial decision reached its highest point at 88% in 2004. After that the percentage fell to 59% in 2014, before increasing and then falling again to 48% in 2019 – the lowest annual rate at that point since 1993. In 2021 and 2022 the rate was much lower, at 28% and 24% in those years, respectively.”
The Chart also shows that the applications circa 1999-2002 were higher than in 2022, which may imply that the underlying problem is again Conservative austerity policies wrecking the resilience of our security systems and processes (more than the pandemic, or worse because a depeleted serive hit by a pandemic is more likely to fail; which is why austerity was an irresponsible policy).
Well, it appears that in his press conference in Paris he finally made clear that the aim is to stop not the boats and the criminal gangs but people.
I wasn’t able to listen as I was out, but according to the Guardian, Sunak “defended the UK’s £300m investment in French patrols as good investments for the UK to make if they stop people coming and reduce pressure on our asylum system”. Nothing at all about working to provide safe alternative routes for desperate people seeking refuge from oppressive regimes who have no other option than to risk their lives in the hands of people smugglers and small boats.
Seems Sunak has agreed to send £500m to France to pay for them:
* to employ an additional 500 more French people as law enforcement officers for 3 years (without the next item, so that is £333kpa per officer – where do I apply?).
* to pay for a new detention centre in France (taking the number to 27, but it won’t open before the end of 2026 – so that is a great deal of help for this and the next three years)
£500 million is about £5,600 for each of the 89,000 people who claimed asylum in the UK in 2022. Is this a sensible use of public funds? Employing French law enforcement officers, and building detention centres in France to open in nearly four years time? Does anyone think this will reduce the number of people coming to the UK in small boats by any material amount?
Has the French government indicated how many of the 40,000 or more people we may expect to see arriving in the UK by small boats this year can be returned to France?
It has made clear that none can be returned
Well, it seems I was wrong; because I was following reports of Government decisions today. I should have realised that Conservative decisions do not last into the afternoon, or the media reporting was wrong (probably both). It seems we are providing France with £480m over three years to help us ‘Stop the Boats’.
£480m might help to resource a humane asylum policy here in the UK, but that, it appears is the last thing on Sunak and Bravermans’ minds. Throw money at France, and keep an under-resourced system here that doesn’t work.
Meanwhile, it appears the BBC will not schedule one episode of Richard Attenborough’s series on British Wildlife, the Press media is suggesting because the BBC has caved in to political pressure from Conservative politicians who do not like what one episode has to say on the damage to nature inflicted on Britain for decades; with dangerous PR implications for Government, which ultimately carries responsibility.
The problem here is that Attenborough represents a very powerful and influential voice on the environment issue. I confess I never watch Attenborough, but I recognise his persuasiveness with the British public. The offending episode will be available on iPlayer, but will not be aired.
This is spineless by the BBC, but it is now part of a very troubling trend. Referring back to the Overton window; the car, the window and the occupants have now turned sharp right, driven several hundred miles; simply in order to establish an acceptable ‘centre’ for the dogmatic right wing ideologues who are steering our country to perdition with reckless bravado.
The presentation, in Parliament and seemingly co-ordinates across parts of the media, has has the impact of a ‘flashbang’; used to temporarily disorient the population’s senses. Johnson was the political master of throwing verbal stun grenades.
Has this game has been found out? People are waking up to how they are bring played. Interesting to hear the tactic being called out directly by more than one audience member on Question Time last night.
That audience was overall better than the panel, one panellist excepted
Thank you for enabling multiple answers.
This policy is straight out of the Lynton Crosby book of election dark arts. And it just might work on the ‘silent majority’ – those who never come out and say what they feel because they know society knows it is wrong.
Amongst all this selective outrage about impartiality, this is about releasing the power of deep rooted destructive partiality in society. It’s typical fascist behaviour.
The Tories are open about the way they seek to win and maintain power by being “Utterly Ruthless.” Labour only reaction is to ditch anything that would be a target and has no strategy to be anything other-than “don’t frighten the financial markets”.