[Aeolun]

> So Rwanda was apparently safe enough for the UNHCR to offer to process some refugees there.

I think the key word here is safer. It wasn’t safe by any definition of the word, but a fair deal safer than the place they came from.

[logifail]

> It wasn’t safe by any definition of the word, but a fair deal safer than the place they came from

(Playing devil's advocate) why would this not also apply to those refugees fleeing to Europe?

Isn't Rwanda "a fair deal safer" than Afghanistan? (This is a genuine question)

[tpm]

When they are being removed from the UK to Rwanda (which is the aim of UK government), "the place they came from" is the UK.

[logifail]

Q: Is France "safe" compared to the UK?

[tpm]

What does this have to do with anything?

The reason people are trying to get to the UK from France (and other countries) is they are trying to apply for asylum in the UK. Not in France, in the UK. And the reason they have to do that in the UK is the fact the UK cancelled the possibility to apply for asylum at its embassies. So if you don't want people coming from France to ask for asylum, enable the option to apply at the embassy and you are done. Simple, and you will save many lives.

Now of course the same applies to all western countries. There are lots of people trying to come here, some for legitimate reasons, some not, and also we need some of them because of shortage of workers, even if we don't say it loud, because even more would try to come. All western countries allow to apply for asylum only on their soil, thus creating a humanitarian catastrophe, because while the right to asylum is enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, it does not say how hard can it be to apply.

But all of this is to say it does not matter whether France is or is not a safe country. We could arrange for international cooperation where asylum seekers could ask for asylum and while their application is processed they would stay in some safe country, but next to no safe country will do this because of internal political reasons, so what remains is treating asylum seekers like hot potatoes and not people. It's a sad state of affairs, but there are too many factors and no easy way to direct the blame.

[logifail]

> The reason people are trying to get to the UK from France (and other countries) is they are trying to apply for asylum in the UK

Why is applying for asylum in the UK more appealing to them than applying for asylum in France?

> But all of this is to say it does not matter whether France is or is not a safe country

If we accept that France is a safe country then doesn't it follow that there is no need for anyone to cross the English channel in a small boat in order to claim asylum?

Unless of course you are someone who is being persecuted by the French and are therefore seeking safety with the English, but since it's been over 200 years since those two countries were at war with each other so that sounds somewhat unlikely.

Gerald Knaus[0] observed last year that although there is a right to asylum, there is no right to migration[1].

[0] https://www.esiweb.org/esi-staff/gerald-knaus [1] https://www.zeit.de/politik/ausland/2023-11/asylpolitik-asyl...

[tpm]

> Why is applying for asylum in the UK more appealing to them than applying for asylum in France?

I don't really care about that. There are plenty of people applying for asylum in many countries.

> If we accept that France is a safe country then doesn't it follow that there is no need for anyone to cross the English channel in a small boat in order to claim asylum?

No, this is not how this works. You can't force them to apply in France. They are people and they have their rights. And France is a sovereign country, you can't force them either. Maybe you could try to negotiate with France and the EU, like the EU negotiated a deal with Turkey, but I understand currently UK prefers to do questionable deals with Rwanda before engaging with EU members.

> there is no right to migration

Of course, that's not an open question.