Today's discussion about the news
Comments
-
One major problem with this. Legislation brought in the inadmissibility clause whereby people could be refused their claim automatically if they arrived here via a safe third country. The problem is that those safe third countries are almost exclusively in the EU and as we left the EU we have no agreements to return them there. I am hoping that even as a Tory voter the irony is not lost on you Stevo!
0 -
What evidence is there of anyone being 'soft' on asylum applications? If anything I've seen the opposite - trying to make the experience as shitty as possible.
1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
One would be inclined to draw that conclusion. It also has the undesired effect of actually benefitting the small percentage that are not genuine claimants, as they are able to stay here far longer than could be allowed. On the whole, the whole process is a massive mess, and has largely been created by the previous govt/Home Office.
0 -
Can't be bothered, gone to bang my head against a wall as it's more productive
0 -
Who'd have thought that an accusation in the Daily Mail of antisemitism against a Black comedian might have not been wholly borne out by the facts, eh?
0 -
Appeal first.
Then it is up to the UK government to deport people, but this isn't possible for quite a few countries, so those people end up staying. The reason for this is that some countries will refuse the return of their nationals and others will only allow it if they have supporting documentation proving their nationality which none of them do, because they almost always destroy it on arrival. The UK government then needs to negotiate with the other country to accept the return of the applicants which isn't trivial. All of which means that quick decisions and deportation is not very easy.
0 -
It's more that I have more confidence in Labour than the previous iteration of the conservatives who had a fundamentally unserious approach to the issue.
The reality of the situation is that any fix to the issue is gonna be quite challenging. If you're prepared to take the risk of crossing the channel in a small boat, you're probably happy to take a small risk of deportation to Rwanda.
0 -
I wonder if the Telegraph has ever heard of things called statistics.
0 -
They know they don't have the Rwanda problem now. So what deterrents are Labour putting in place that gives you more confidence?
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
I think the deterrent idea is a fantasy. If handing over your life savings to criminals in exchange for a high risk of enslavement, general abuse, living for weeks off whatever food you can beg or steal and multiple opportunities for drowning isn't sufficient deterrent, I don't think anything that a civilized government can offer is going to compete.
1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
This. The deterrent was a fallacy.
The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
I never understood how it could be both a perfectly lovely and safe place to start a new life away from persecution, thereby rendering the policy supposedly legal, but also a deterrent.
0 -
There were plenty of reports about wannabe illegal immigrants being put off going to the UK because of Rwanda, as previously posted.
However more importantly, what are Labour doing to deter them now?
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
See my post above.
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
'Plenty' 😆 Surely you can point to some marked decrease in the number arriving by small boat, no? I remember you arguing that talking about it for three years was already having a deterrent effect even though it was never actually implemented. You'll be able to show some figures, no doubt.
1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
"Excuse me sir, we are from GBNews. If I give you this crisp 50 Euro note, will you please read out the word on this piece of paper to the camera before you climb about that dinghy?"
0 -
I was curious so had a look. Official stats only go as far as January 2023 so any Rwanda reporting figures is just guesswork.
The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
Which stats PB, small boat crossings do you mean?
Small boat crossings dropped in 2023, down to around 29,000 (from 46,000 in 2022). This was largely due to the drop in Albanian nationals crossing by boats. The first few months of 2024 detected around 12,000 people crossing which was up compared to the same period in 2023. There also generally tends to be far higher number in the second half of the year, taking into account better weather conditions in summer and early autumn.
As has been pointed out, you are not going to deter desperate people from taking the risk of a boat crossing, and when you remove the Albanian figures, the relatively stable number would suggest that the previous threat of Rwanda offered no deterrent either.
As I pointed out above, you cannot deter people, best to improve the asylum process to make it quicker, more humane and much more cost effective in the process.
0 -
Yes, official stats on small boat crossings only go to January 2023.
The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
No, they are published quarterly under 'Irregular migration to the UK' statistics. You can access them all via the link below.
0 -
Prior to the implementation of tighter controls around the Tunnel entrance, people would attempt to board and cling on to moving trains and lorries. People have also tried to stow away on aircraft landing gear and notably a few years back a lorry full of suffocated immigrants was discovered in the UK. It's embarrassing that anyone ever took this joke of a policy seriously.
1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition1 -
Sounds like Abanians were deterred.
0 -
Looks like they have multiple reports depending on your search keywords. Nuts.
The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
They were, but largely because we made an agreement with Albania to speed up the returns process. The majority crossing were men and largely denied asylum (only around 12% were granted initially). Whereas, nearly 90% of women had their claims accepted. The working theory is that the combination of men not being genuine asylum claimants, coupled with the high risk of a quick return, has drastically reduced the numbers.
This is quite specific to one country though, and as highlighted, has no bearing on genuine Asylum seekers who are very unlikely to be deterred.
0 -
Your issue is that you're trying to understand.
If anything some reports gave getting sent to Rwanda would have been preferable to living for years in an overcrowded room in a Britannia hotel and would therefore have been the opposite of a deterrent!
0 -
Think that's more likely to be a specific project with the Albanian government.
Difficult to set up a similar agreement with Afghanistan or Syria. Bangladesh might also be tricky as they currently have an interim government. Something similar with India would seem sensible if a high proportion of applications are unfounded.
1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Completely agree. Also interesting that people who complain about the economic cost of Asylum seekers make no absolutely mention of the waste of millions of taxpayers money on the Rwanda scheme that was doomed to failure.
0 -
Yeah, all a bit confusing. I worked in comms for a migration research institute for a couple of years so I know where to find these things, but if you don't have that kind of knowledge to fall back on it is rather complex.
0 -
So risk of deportation does not affect the number of asylum seekes except in the case of Albanians? I don't think that makes sense. The main difference between Rwanda and Albania was one of certainty - if the Rwanda scheme was certain numbers would have dropped significantly (see Australia).
0 -
I think there are two key differences: Albanian applications had a very low rate of acceptance and it was possible to return unsuccessful applicants easily to the same country.
That's quite different from removal to a third country before an application is even considered; successful applications stay in the third country and unsuccessful applicants are free to do whatever.
1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0
