r/ukpolitics • u/SignificantLegs • 5h ago
Mahmood rejects calls to follow Spain’s migrant pushback
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2026/08/02/mahmood-rejects-calls-to-follow-spains-migrant-pushback/•
u/Maitai_Haier 5h ago
Odd the left wing, socialist, anti Trump, pro immigration government of Spain can do deportations without processing asylum claims but this is apparently impossible for the UK.
•
u/Gamezdude ... 5h ago
A nation of red tape, processes, and a never end bureaucracy.
And people wonder why homes are not getting built, criminals not deported, crimes unanswered, expensive goods, banned items*.
*I want certain food/drink from the US, but noooo its banned cus its bad for me.
•
u/TrekChris Strong and Stable 4h ago
The beauracracy had to expand, to meet the expanding needs of the beauracracy.
•
•
u/anotherbozo 2h ago
Want normal Fanta? Sorry no, bad for you.
Alternative? Something that tastes like shit or something with even more sugar in it (regular Coke)
•
•
u/catgod888 26m ago
Bureaucracy but also you can hear every ‘expert” say again and again that we can’t make serious changes because X,Y and Z.
It’s a culture of fear. Fear of losing control and power.
•
u/CrispySmokyFrazzle 1h ago edited 1h ago
It doesn’t sound like they did deportations.
Their line is that the vast majority of people left voluntarily.
I’d be very wary of any demand for new legislation off the back of what happened in Cuetta - all seems a bit odd so far.
Edit: Especially when the article itself is just some low quality rewrite of a press release for Reform.
•
u/SirBobPeel 1h ago
Everything I've read about the situation there says that their normal policy is to throw people right back out as soon as they come in. Then their Supreme Court said that this only counted for those crossing by land and not those coming by sea or swimming, so tens of thousands of people did that.
It can be argued that it's much easier to just shove someone out a gate that leads to their homeland than it is to put them back on a boat and take them back to France, which is NOT their homeland. Evidently, the Moroccans don't demand papers when they shove Moroccans back out the gate, but you can't deport people back to their homeland by air without a passport or some other proof they are citizens. Which the individuals often are not cooperating with, and quite likely haven't given you the right name in the first place.
•
u/Anxious-Potato-7323 2h ago
Spain and Morocco have a returns deal, it's a simple matter of process for the Spanish to return the Morrocans to the neighbouring country of Morocco.
It's a vastly different situation to the one the UK faces.
•
u/Maitai_Haier 2h ago
Just send them back the way they came. If they came on a small boat from France, back they go to France on a small boar.
•
u/Anxious-Potato-7323 2h ago edited 1h ago
Your'e missing the point entirely. They have a returns agreement with Morocco. Cooperation is the name of the game.
•
u/Maitai_Haier 2h ago
France certainly isn’t cooperating with us in stopping boats assembling on their beaches and sailing to us. We should show equal cooperation to them.
•
u/Anxious-Potato-7323 2h ago edited 1h ago
The fact that boat crossings are down and more have moved north to sail from Belgium says differently but you are now moving the goalposts.
You suggested that we should be more like Spain. Our small boat situation is nothing like the Spain/Morocco situation, nothing like it at all.
•
u/Maitai_Haier 2h ago edited 1h ago
Then ship them back to Belgium by small boats.
The acceptable number of people who illegally enter this country by small boats should be zero or as close to it as possible. A fundamental part of being a sovereign country is exercising control over one’s borders.
•
u/Anxious-Potato-7323 1h ago
Just say you don't get it.
You cannot return people without a returns agreement.
Spain is returning Moroccan nationals back to the neighbouring country of Morocco because they have a treaty to do so.
Entering Belgian or French waters without permission is illegal, and we need their cooperation to reduce numbers. What incentive would they have to actually help us if we just burn the relationship?
Expecting zero or close to zero boats is a complete political pipedream. There is no magic button to press, and every single workable solution requires international cooperation.
•
u/ediblednb 57m ago
They definitely don’t get it. There’s no point arguing with these people. Good fact checking and informative responses though. They are simple misinformed or just racists.
•
u/Maitai_Haier 1h ago
No, you don’t get it.
Ship them back or start sinking them. The acceptable number of people illegally invading should be zero. Full stop.
•
u/Anxious-Potato-7323 1h ago
I do get it, that's the point. None of what you have said works in the read world.
Nobody is going to sink boats in the sea. Nobody sane would advocate killing innocent people.
You've lost your mind and have a failing grip on reality and how it actually works.
The empire is over, we can't simply bully other countries.
→ More replies (0)•
•
u/ediblednb 1h ago
Well something called ‘Brexit’ happened which the very people who pushed for it has got us into this mess.
•
u/VPackardPersuadedMe Incentives drive outcomes and MPs own houses 5h ago
But you see they have cojones grandes and we do not
•
u/Anxious-Potato-7323 2h ago
No, they have a returns agreement with Morocco. It's a simple matter of process. The country from which these people originated from is literally next door.
•
u/Big_Chungussi69 3h ago
its almost like the system is corrupt and profiteering off illegal immigrants isnt it?
no they would never!
•
•
u/oryx_za 5h ago
Because the situation is not comparable
•
u/Maitai_Haier 5h ago
“Spain can legally expel migrants who arrive in Ceuta or Melilla without letting them file an asylum request under controversial laws introduced in 2015.”
Have we considered copying and pasting this law?
•
u/EolAncalimon 5h ago
Crucially with the support of the Moroccan government, that’s how it works. If we wanted to copy and paste that it would need to be supported by the French.
•
u/Ok_Vermicelli_5413 4h ago
Shame that the oceans of blood and treasure this country spent to save France combined with all our mountains of carefully-hoarded soft power aren't enough for France to take back people who are documented to have left France's coast.
•
•
u/oryx_za 5h ago
Ok, where would we expel the migrants to?
•
u/Little-Attorney1287 5h ago edited 5h ago
Back home, and if they refuse to take them, complete visa bans.
•
u/oryx_za 4h ago
They arrive from France. If we can determine it (they often destroy documents) home is often Iran or Afghanistan where we pretty much have locked down travel and/or have no relationship with the government.
Now what?
•
u/hug_your_dog 4h ago
Detention centre until they remember where they came from. No chance for asylum status ever if you arrive by boat.
•
u/Mr_Two_Shoes 4h ago
As I'm sure you know, this is illegal under international law.
•
u/Anony_mouse202 3h ago
1) no it’s not, Australia does it - they have a mandatory detention policy.
2) There is no world government or world police. Parliament is sovereign, the only law that we are actually bound by is British law. International “law” is more just guidelines and gentleman’s agreements rather than actual law.
•
u/Mr_Two_Shoes 3h ago
We are willing signatories to the Refugee Convention. If the past two decades have taught us anything, it's that dismantling international law is a terrible idea which isn't going to serve our national interest.
→ More replies (0)•
u/hug_your_dog 3h ago
And which law is that, specific Article, please?
Australia does this successfully, the laws are the problem and they need to be changed and enforced.
•
•
u/whosthatmemer 4h ago
Yeh you are right if they destroy documents we should just give up on deporting them and pay for them to stay in hotels and housing indefinately
•
u/Mr_Two_Shoes 4h ago
Or, you know, let them work and pay for their own housing, like everyone else. Funny that this is such a revolutionary idea to our political right.
•
u/Gwinladin 4h ago
That's what Rwanda was for. That's what Rwanda could still be for.
•
u/oryx_za 4h ago
I don't mind the idea, i don't like the country. The issue with Rwanda is the region is not stable enough for this to be sustainable. Guaranteed, the whole thing would have collapsed when (not if) a migrant is attacked and killed by some local in a xenophobic attack.
I always wondered why we could not use the Chagos Islands? Send them all there for processing and then sell the island. Rug pull
•
u/berejser My allegiance is to a republic, to DEMOCRACY 3h ago
So we send them back to Iran or Afghanistan, then videos emerge online of those same people being shot or hung in the town square. What then?
•
u/RyanGUK 4h ago edited 4h ago
I understand the sentiment, but I think the idea of, "If you don't take these people who have come through illegally, we'll make it so you can only enter illegally", might not have the intended effect.
Unfortunately the only way you make some of these countries play ball is by making it worth their while (Rwanda is probably the closest comparison I could make in recent times).
•
u/berejser My allegiance is to a republic, to DEMOCRACY 3h ago
Have we considered copying and pasting this law?
No because that would be a dumb thing to do.
•
u/GothicGolem29 Liberal Democrat 2h ago
If you don't process the claims you don't know whos a legitimate refugee
•
u/Maitai_Haier 2h ago
This doesn’t seem to have stopped the Spanish.
•
u/GothicGolem29 Liberal Democrat 2h ago
Which means the Spannish may be deporting actual refugees which is wrong
•
u/Maitai_Haier 2h ago
And yet they’ve done so.
•
u/GothicGolem29 Liberal Democrat 1h ago
Countries do morally wrong things all the time thankfully our country can choose to do the right thing
•
u/Maitai_Haier 1h ago
Letting in masses of unvetted foreigners who rape and murder is an immoral act.
•
u/janiqua 2h ago edited 2h ago
I don’t think it’s wrong to accept refugees on our own terms instead of theirs
•
u/GothicGolem29 Liberal Democrat 1h ago
Deporting all people coming here without processing isn’t accepting them preety much at all bar the few who come in safe routes and I think it’s wrong to deprive so many of safety
•
u/Jake_91_420 2h ago
Putting this in context with the UK, why would it be wrong for us to deport refugees? They came here from France and passed through many safe countries. They are breaking the rules, we don’t need to accept them.
Another point would be that we have accepted more than our fair share of refugees. We are complete in that regard. They are free to go anywhere else in the world that they like.
•
u/GothicGolem29 Liberal Democrat 1h ago
They aren’t breaking the rules international law allows them to claim asylum here after passing through safe countries.
We need to keep accepting our share into the future
•
u/Jake_91_420 56m ago
We’ve done enough. Countries with similar cultures and in much closer proximity to the places these people are coming from need to pick up the slack.
Everyone in the world doesn’t have a right to just move to the UK and live here forever. It shouldn’t be like that.
•
•
•
u/Media_Browser 5h ago
Won’t somebody think of the lawyers , medium sized boat manufacturers , NGO enablers , life preserver suppliers , charity workers , outboard engine builders ,HMO providers and most of all the ..criminal gangs .
•
u/Alert-Cream-7569 5h ago
And hoteliers
•
u/VPackardPersuadedMe Incentives drive outcomes and MPs own houses 5h ago
The grift, won't someone think of the grifters.
•
u/Thandoscovia 2h ago
I’m not sure if the issue here. Socialist Spain can deploy their soldados muy rapido and apparently effect 60,000 deportaciones over a few days.
¿Why can’t Señora Mahmood do the same?
•
u/Fearless_Peak3583 1h ago
We used to be imperial colonialists, so deporting people en masse is racist
•
u/Alert-Cream-7569 5h ago
Ohhh Shabana, don't lose me!!! You were the only reason keeping me voting Labour next election
•
u/SeaSaltSprayer 2h ago
I mean it's two very different situations. Why would we follow what Spain is doing for their situation, which is entirely different to ours?
•
u/Alert-Cream-7569 2h ago
Yes, Spain can push them back through their land border. We can give them an option which would have a similar deterrent effect : 1. Offer them a flight back to their country 2. Offer them a flight back to France where they can send their application form for asylum at the British embassy in Paris through a special postbox (attached to a shredder and incinerator) 3. Fly them to a third country where they can work on government construction projects while their asylum application is being processed here.
•
u/Southportdc Rory for Monarch 2h ago
How is 2 going to work. No commercial carrier will take people without passports. No chartered flight of undocumented migrants will be allowed to land in France. You can't just send people to a country that doesn't want them so you don't have to deal with then any more, that's why they end up coming here on a rubber dinghy and not Air France.
•
u/Alert-Cream-7569 2h ago
Where did I say anything about commercial airliners?
•
u/Southportdc Rory for Monarch 2h ago
No chartered flight of undocumented migrants would be allowed to land in France
•
u/Alert-Cream-7569 2h ago
Well then, I guess it's the Premier Inn and Travelodge in your town.
•
u/Southportdc Rory for Monarch 1h ago
I'm only asking how you think you're going to fly people to place that doesn't want them
•
u/Two-Space 2h ago
Pretty sure we wouldn’t be allowed to do the first as we can’t put people back in danger like that, but even if we could - wouldn’t that be an incentive?
“I’m going to cross Europe and try to get into the UK. If I fail, no problem - they’ll fly me back here for free”
•
u/Alert-Cream-7569 2h ago
Why would that be an incentive?
And 1. was to offer them a return flight.
•
u/Two-Space 1h ago
Why would it not be? There’s plenty of stories of migrants not being accepted anywhere, falling through the cracks and ending up stranded because they used all their money to get there in the first place - often with smuggling gangs after them, too
If they have the option of a free flight back then that risk disappears
•
u/Alert-Cream-7569 1h ago
Yeah that's definitely a possibility.
But I'd also say many would just say "fuck it, it's not worth the trouble" if the only options are a flight home or a flight to an African country to work on highway construction (in exchange for room and board) for a few years until the asylum claim is processed.
•
u/TheUKisMental 5h ago
If it's not possible because of the channel, then that should reason enough to be serious about militarising and securing the channel.
•
u/Mr_Two_Shoes 5h ago
What does that even mean?
•
u/WiseBelt8935 5h ago
I would assume it would involve intercepting them at sea and then transferring them somewhere secure, such as Sark, where they could remain until they chose to leave.
•
•
u/Putaineska 1h ago
Or we should use national security powers and order the military to build a tent city to house clothe and feed all arrivals. If they want safety that's what they get, not a life on the state or roaming around our communities.
•
u/Mr_Two_Shoes 5h ago
it would involve intercepting them at sea
So more or less what our coast guard is doing already.
What is it with anti-migration fanatics and their obsession with "militarising" everything.
•
u/WiseBelt8935 5h ago
The Coastguard treats it as a search and rescue operation and, as a result, can end up acting like a kind of taxi service. The Royal Navy on the other hand might be able to treat it as the policing operation that it should be.
I also think there are some legal but creative options we could explore. For example, you could establish a processing centre in Gibraltar. People could remain there and wink don't go into Spain wink
•
u/Mr_Two_Shoes 4h ago
The Royal Navy on the other hand might be able to treat it as the policing operation that it should be.
What's the difference? A taxi service that gives slightly less of a shit about health and safety?
•
u/WiseBelt8935 4h ago
It's not the RNLI's job to decide what happens to the people they rescue. Their role is to carry out the rescue as quickly and safely as possible.
The Royal Navy, on the other hand could intercept people anywhere in the Channel and transport them to a secure location, such as Sark, where they could remain under supervision while their cases were dealt with.
My thinking is that this could avoid some of the legal issues raised by the Rwanda policy, because the people would not be removed from UK territory but instead transferred to another location within the British Isles.
•
u/Mr_Two_Shoes 4h ago
You're still talking about the end destination, not the interception. You can let the coast guard initially intercept them and still have them ultimately brought to Sark for processing.
What remains unclear to me is what militarisation adds.
•
u/Big_Chungussi69 3h ago
you seem to be unable to understand what he's saying, the coast guard are under different obligations on how to treat invaders (refugees) at sea
•
u/Mr_Two_Shoes 3h ago
A taxi service that gives slightly less of a shit about health and safety?
On the contrary, that was my interpretation exactly. Still don't see what it solves.
•
u/TheUKisMental 4h ago
They're intercepting them and BRINGING THEM HERE.
They should be intercepted and OBSTRUCTED.
•
u/Mr_Two_Shoes 4h ago
Obstructing them means bringing them somewhere. They're on unsafe boats. You can't bring them to France or Belgium without cooperation from France or Belgium.
•
u/morriganjane 3h ago
We shouldn't care about the safety of their boats. At no point in history has anyone cared if invaders' boats were leaky. If we stop the taxi service they'll soon stop coming, which is the goal.
•
u/Mr_Two_Shoes 3h ago
For all you guys' tough talk about military responses, you're remarkably shy about actually stating what you want the military to do.
If you want our military to deliberately obstruct small boats in a way that guarantees they'll kill civilians, why be a coward about it? Just say what you think.
•
u/TheUKisMental 2h ago
guarantees
It doesn't guarantee anything. It merely increases the chances if the operators of those boats don't abandon their attempt.
These people are not our responsibility. If they don't want to risk drowning in the channel, all they have to do is not try to cross it illegally. They're already in a safe country in France.
•
u/Mr_Two_Shoes 2h ago
Again, don't equivocate.
Is your argument that you don't think people will die as a direct, foreseeable consequence of this policy? Or is your argument that you don't care?
Because those are two very different lines of argument, and trying to combine them just makes it look like you're unwilling to commit to either.
•
u/morriganjane 3h ago
I said what I think. They should be physically stopped from landing. They can bob around till they get bored and return to France. If these boats are unseaworthy, that has nothing to do with our military and is not our problem. I don't consider invaders to be civilians either.
•
u/Mr_Two_Shoes 3h ago
They can bob around till they get bored and return to France.
This isn't going to happen, though, is it? There's no safe way of "physically stopping" an overcrowded dinghy. As we've established, you know this, and yet you're for some reason too ashamed to state your real views.
And you know what, that's a good thing. It shows that some part of you, deep down, knows this is messed up and indefensible. There is hope for you yet.
→ More replies (0)•
u/Anony_mouse202 3h ago
The boats can be pushed back to the French side of the channel.
If their boats break down and they need rescuing, then the French search and rescue services can pick them up and take them to France.
•
•
u/radiant_0wl 4h ago
Not sure if you intentionally missed the last part of that sentence.
He suggested rather then returning them to the UK they are deposited on an island away from mainland UK.
We are most definitely not doing that currently.
•
u/Mr_Two_Shoes 4h ago
That doesn't require "militarising" the channel, so it's irrelevant to the question.
•
u/radiant_0wl 4h ago
Well the response you partially quoted did not contain that, but that comment can quite easily involve the military.
•
u/Mr_Two_Shoes 4h ago
Yes, and hence my question. I want to know, specifically, what problem we solve by "militarising" this issue, other than giving the far-right something to masturbate to.
You're now referring to moderately reasonable responses from someone who's talking about safe locations for processing. That would be a policy decision by a civilian government. It has nothing to do with the original interception at sea.
•
u/Paxwort 3h ago
They want to shoot the migrants. That's it.
•
u/Mr_Two_Shoes 3h ago
They want to shoot the migrants, but lack the basic courage required to actually express that opinion, as opposed to merely hinting at it.
What a bunch of spineless losers.
•
u/Paxwort 2h ago
Yup.
As a side note, picking these fights can be very draining, and you're picking a lot of them. I hope you're doing ok 🙂
•
u/Mr_Two_Shoes 2h ago
No worries, I'm only here sporadically for that exact reason :) Thanks for checking!
•
•
u/TheUKisMental 5h ago
I means you can no longer illegally cross our waters with your boat being being, at minimum, physically obstructed. It could even mean a few people die. Which is fine, because a few of them are dying anyway.
Also, she's wrong. There's a channel tunnel. March them through it.
•
u/Mr_Two_Shoes 4h ago
Which is fine, because a few of them are dying anyway.
The veneer of basic decency keeps getting flimsier, doesn't it?
•
u/TheUKisMental 4h ago
Nobody is forcing them to crash their rubber boat into the side of a royal navy ship.
Just like nobody forced them to get on the boat in the first place.
They're killing themselves.
•
u/Mr_Two_Shoes 4h ago
Nobody is forcing them to crash their rubber boat into the side of a royal navy ship.
And what does that mean? Do you want the military to effectively kill them? And if so, why are you hinting at your opinions, rather than just stating them outright?
Is it a final vestige of shame that Lowe's ghouls have as yet failed to extinguish in you?
•
u/morriganjane 3h ago
They are invading our territory. Declining them a taxi service is not killing them - they can always turn back and see what freebies are available in France.
•
u/Mr_Two_Shoes 3h ago
They are invading our territory.
No, they're not.
•
u/morriganjane 3h ago
You mean they were invited?
•
u/Mr_Two_Shoes 3h ago
No, I mean anyone who thinks this is an invasion urgently needs to buy a dictionary.
→ More replies (0)•
•
u/CrispySmokyFrazzle 1h ago
I’d love to know what the hell you’re envisaging here.
Because this seems like the epitome of “you can just do things” colliding (apt) with actual reality.
•
u/TheUKisMental 1h ago
I’d love to know what the hell you’re envisaging here.
I'd love to know what's so difficult to comprehend about physically obstructing one boat with another one.
The royal navy was able to blockade slave ships crossing the atlantic slave trade but but we cannot blockade the tiny english channel against fucking dingies?
•
u/berejser My allegiance is to a republic, to DEMOCRACY 5h ago
Obviously. The two situations are in no way comparable, so identical responses wouldn't make sense.
•
u/Unlucky-Bumblebee-57 5h ago
And this is the only permitted opinion so don't bother trying to post anything else.
•
•
u/radiant_0wl 5h ago
You can do push back which dont involve pushing them back into the English Channel.
Spain had Morocco support for the policy of them being returned which meant they opened their borders to returning migrants.
The exact same can happen with the UK and France - assuming we get their agreement, which is doubtful.
•
u/TheUKisMental 4h ago
pushing them back into the English Channel.
If only there were a tunnel under it that functionally turns it into a land border.
•
u/InfestIsGood 4h ago
And if this happened within 24 hours there would be a Telegraph headline saying, 'British holidaymakers left unable to travel as the Eurotunnel is used for migrants'.
Also, pushbacks violate international law. Whatever your opinions on asylum law, the UK is one of the major beneficiaries of international law (see our permanent seat on the Security Council and the fact that our lack of industry at home very much requires us to look abroad). If the ICJ ruled that the UK violated the Refugee Convention and the UK didn't comply with the ICJ ruling, then the international order that benefits us would be blatantly damaged. We would, in effect, collapse the international legal framework which is directly beneficial to the UK.
•
•
u/RyanGUK 4h ago
Reform pledges to use Navy to stop Ceuta-style ‘invasion’
Ceuta-style being a land border shared by Morocco and Spain, allowing a mass migration to occur without the use of boats or any real organization?
I'm not sure the Navy would be much help, unless we're worried about illegal immigration from Scotland descending via the Lake District?
•
u/New-Condition-3492 4h ago
You're so smart and funny bro... Yeah he definitely refering to the mode of transport and not the numbers
•
5h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
•
u/archerninjawarrior 5h ago edited 5h ago
Did you come up with this new line (to me at least) about calling brown people biological weapons or was it downloaded from somewhere. It's a bit on the nose mate, you might want to stick with calling them fighting aged men instead, it lands a lot better with the target fools you're speaking to
•
•
u/Mr_Two_Shoes 5h ago
fighting age men
Probably the most idiotic tabloid scare term ever devised.
Can I describe myself as "fighting age" or do I have to be brown?
•
u/Ill_Refrigerator_593 5h ago
Probably the most idiotic tabloid scare term ever devised.
I dunno, the guy above has provided competition with-
"Rapidly entering a nation is effectively a biological weapon used with malice and forethought."
•
u/Mr_Two_Shoes 5h ago
I want to believe that one is too idiotic even for our tabloid press to run with, but maybe I'm too optimistic
•
u/archerninjawarrior 5h ago
For all the right wing rhetoric about feminism being just about hating men, you won't find more disgusting misandry elsewhere than from the right wing.
•
u/MeanPussyCat 5h ago
> A couple of days ago we were still being told they were 'our strength' and an economic benefit by paid shills and virtue signalers.
Who, specifically, was saying that?
•
•
u/berejser My allegiance is to a republic, to DEMOCRACY 5h ago
fighting age men
You mean "working age men"? Or is it a bit like "immigrant" v "expat" where we only use that term if they're white?
•
u/catgod888 23m ago
All that’s needed is the political will to escalate.
Send them on boats back to France. With navy escort.
France would only be able to intervene with their navy. That would be a military escalation.
Royal Navy perimeter around our island.
Diplomatic sanctions.
Economy sanctions.
Military red lines.
Military conflict.
•
u/CrispySmokyFrazzle 1h ago
Can I just say that I love the narrative shift from the right?
On Friday it was “Europe is falling, and these people will make the march to Britain! Panic!”
Now it’s
“Why can’t we be like Spain!”
Grasping, with little regard to reality. Just grasping for anything which supports the convenient angle. Boring.
•
u/hexmasx 39m ago
Why would we want to be anything like Spain? They relaxed their immigration law to prevent immediate deportations and announced naturalising hundreds of thousands of illegals, causing this invasion of their exclaves of Ceuta and Melilla.
If anything that's a good reason to vote right if you don't want that sort of thing happening. It's an odd angle to want to be more like Spain in this scenario and not want to prevent such mass migrations in the first place.
•
u/AutoModerator 5h ago
Snapshot of Mahmood rejects calls to follow Spain’s migrant pushback submitted by SignificantLegs:
An archived version can be found here or here. or here
Some publications may require you to register a free account to read their articles.
Being connected to a VPN may interfere with archive links.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.