> protecting borders from illegal immigration

Asylum-seeking is not illegal immigration.

> Asylum-seeking is not illegal immigration

Economic migration under the guise of asylum seeking is though. And pretending that all the people who make the attempt to gain Asylum in the UK are legitimate non-economic migrants is absurd.

> Economic migration under the guise of asylum seeking is though.

Correct. As is murder, theft, etc. I don't think anything in my comment suggested they're not?

What happens when/if their asylum application gets denied though? At least in France they don't get forced to leave and they find themselves in a strange grey area.

right, and they're going back once the situation in their home country stabilizes, correct?

They can seek asylum in or from Rwanda then, right? I mean, it’s not like they are trying to immigrate to UK, they are just running for their lives, so safety in Rwanda should be good enough, no?

> it's some people pushing Overton window extremely to the left.

Everyone that learns about the Overton window is immediately convinced the other side has been pulling it in their direction for years.

Are you trying to say that migration laws and practices and coverage in mass media didn't drift in certain direction compared to 20/40/60 years ago?

20? Probably not hugely. 40? Maybe in some aspects of policy. 60? Probably.

But you're talking about Denmark and I know nothing about Danish domestic policies - which is why I was intentionally broad in my wording.

The Overton window is poorly named. It's an irregularly shaped blob rather than a rectangular frame. Some things can move in different directions at different times.

I don't think even the most fundamental left leaning people are against sending illegal immigrants away - the problem is that UK is choosing to send people away to Rwanda, basically telling them that it's a safe African country, good luck there. Ministers have confirmed that yeah, it's "possible" that for instance Ukrainian refugees could be sent there if they didn't follow the right procedures and are deemed "illegal".

I can only imagine that if not for horrible optics, UK would send them to Australia.

But oh well, I guess if your dream is to resurrect the British Empire, having a foreign penal colony is one of the requirements.

What’s wrong with Rwanda?

From the point of view of Africans, we see this as a Rwanda led initiative to take care of refugees in a country that is safe, and in an environment that is closer to their homelands. Although in the past Rwanda has had is troubles but … so did Ireland and the UK on different scale. Rwanda of today is a different place, and the current president has long experience in handling refugee situations and defusing the natural tensions of people in a refugee crises.

Is it absolutely necessary for refugees to leave to go to a different continent, to live on an island where they will forever look like an “other” and have a culture and weather that is totally alien to them?

There should be more to this equation than the thought of sending people to the most prosperous country that they can.

I have literally never heard an African perspective on this before your comment. Thank you for this, it's very enlightening!

The UK can't send asylum seekers to Australia because Australia is a sovereign entity and wouldn't accept them. Indeed Australia already has anti-asylum policies locally, and these influenced the model for the UK's decision.

Well of course, it was a tongue in cheek comment - that UK would probably send people to Australia, just like it used to. I'm not saying that it's possible, realistic, or even a good idea in the first place.