Thread by @ZoeJardiniere

The UK & Denmark still locked in a despicable race to the bottom on how to slither out of responsibility for refugee protection.

Both of these two rich countries have given themselves permission to send asylum seekers away to any other country on Earth... amp.theguardian.com/world/2021/jun…

Of course the problem for both is it's not just your own permission you need to palm off your asylum responsibilities on other countries, but those other countries' permission too.

Neither has yet managed to convince another country why on Earth they should take on our refugees?

Interesting (in a completely sickening way) that each takes a slightly different tactic for ducking reviewing the protection claims of a few thousand desperate people.

Denmark seeks to just process people's claims elsewhere, presumably allowing those recognised back in again...

While the UK claims that no one should gain refugee protection here if they can be sent elsewhere & wishes to just snap our fingers and banish those people forever to anywhere else on Earth.

Both approaches turn my stomach in the worst way, but each also has its practical flaws.

If you want to run your asylum system *somewhere else* you have to *run* it. Why should another country let you set up such operation on their territory? UNHCR won't touch it with a barge pole. What stops it becoming a magnet point for refugee journeys? What jurisdiction applies?

If you just want to send people away a la UK model and frankly not care about their asylum claim, how do you even come close to fulfilling the 1951 Refugee Convention? What incentive does a country have to take people in? Why do you think people will just stay where you put them?

I'm only scratching the surface of the huge practical obstacles to being quite this much of a dick, frankly, in the context of refugee protection.

These aren't fresh, new ideas. There's a reason they've never worked before. Meanwhile, though, the politicians look tough, so...🤷‍♀️

Both UK & Denmark have piddling pathetic numbers of people seeking asylum on their shores per year. Both are extremely rich, stable countries more than capable of adequately supporting a few thousand people per year to get back on their feet & set up new lives free from danger.

These are facts, not up for debate by anybody serious at all.

Neither country has a real interest in establishing norms of passing the buck for asylum responsibility too far.
What if Ukraine, Turkey & Lebanon all decide to follow suit? Why shouldn't they? What makes us special?

The reality is that both governments know that people move, & that a small number of those people will make it to our shores & build their lives.

They're playing out hysteria in the headlines because whipping up hate has simply been too good of an electoral strategy to pass up.

Who cares about the human beings whose lives are considered expendable to this greater goal of consolidating power for a few people sitting at the top of the world?
We give ourselves the right to send people here or there while feigning respect for borders? Borders go both ways.

The careless inhumanity of these plans, either I the UK or in Denmark, are only matched by their blind arrogance.

One day we'll tear them down.

The couple of sad bootlickers sharing this thread with their 14 racist uncle followers do a lot more to support my point than they think 🤦‍♀️