Labour to Permit 100,000 Migrants to Apply for Asylum

[Social Media]

 

In a significant policy shift, Labour has announced that it will allow over 100,000 migrants to apply for asylum after abolishing Rishi Sunak’s Rwanda scheme. This announcement coincides with the first migrant boat crossing the Channel since Sir Keir Starmer took office. A spokesperson for Sir Keir Starmer confirmed that the 90,000 migrants previously earmarked for deportation to Rwanda will be included among the 102,000 who will now be processed through the asylum system.

 

The arrival of the first migrant boat since the election has highlighted the challenges the new government will face this summer. With 13,600 migrants having crossed the Channel so far this year—a record number for this period—there is an urgent need to address the asylum process. This figure represents a three percent increase from the 13,172 crossings at the same point in 2022 and an eight percent increase from the 12,503 crossings at the same point in 2023.

 

When asked if those arriving by small boats would now have the right to claim asylum, the Prime Minister’s official spokesman emphasized the importance of processing arrivals promptly to avoid the prolonged and costly practice of housing migrants in taxpayer-funded hotels. Shadow Home Secretary James Cleverly criticized the move, calling it an effective amnesty. He argued that the Labour government’s actions would make the UK more attractive to asylum seekers, undermining previous efforts to deter illegal immigration.

 

As of April 2024, there were 102,888 asylum seekers awaiting decisions on their claims. The Refugee Council has estimated that around 60,000 of the 90,000 migrants will likely be granted asylum, given the countries from which they originate. Home Secretary Yvette Cooper is collaborating with Home Office officials to determine whether it is necessary to repeal Conservative immigration legislation to transition migrants into the asylum system and to introduce new legislation. These changes are expected to be part of a new Border Security Bill to be presented in next week’s King’s Speech.

 

Currently, nearly 36,000 migrants are accommodated in hotels, with more than half coming from countries with high asylum grant rates, costing taxpayers £2.9 million a day. Ms. Cooper has pledged to end the use of hotels within a year and to begin saving money immediately. However, this pledge comes with the challenge of addressing the increasing backlog of asylum claims unless the flow of migrants crossing the Channel is stemmed.

The Refugee Council predicts that an additional 27,000 migrants will cross the Channel by the end of this year, further adding to the backlog. In response, the government has introduced the new Border Security Command, supported by 1,000 extra police officers with enhanced powers to combat people smugglers, treating them with the same severity as terrorists.

 

On Sunday, Ms. Cooper announced the first steps in establishing the command, beginning with the search for a former police, military, or intelligence chief to lead it. Sir Keir’s spokesman reiterated the government’s commitment to securing borders and dismantling smuggling gangs, stating, “The Rwanda scheme is dead and buried. The scheme was cancelled, and flights won’t go ahead. The government is now focused on the work needed to secure our borders and smash the gangs in addition to recruiting for the Border Security Command.”

 

The spokesman also mentioned that the Home Secretary has commissioned an investigation from the Home Office and the National Crime Agency into the tactics used by people smuggling gangs to inform a major law enforcement drive over the coming months. The government acknowledges the challenges ahead, particularly as the summer is expected to be a testing period for their new policies and initiatives.

 

Credit: Daily Telegraph 2024-07-10

 

Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

 

 

[Chomper Higgot]

So the cutting through the misrepresentation of facts:

 

There are 102,000 people awaiting assessment of their asylum claims.

 

Of course these need to be processed, not left to rot at tax payers expense as has been the policy up until last week.

 

And an added bonus, the multi £million drain on tax payers money, AKA the Rwanda scam, is ended.

 

Unfortunately the £370,000,000 already handed to Rwanda for nothing in return cannot be recouped. 
 

https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/commentaries/the-uncertain-financial-implications-of-the-uks-rwanda-policy/#

[impulse]

45 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

And an added bonus, the multi £million drain on tax payers money, AKA the Rwanda scam, is ended.

 

Unfortunately the £370,000,000 already handed to Rwanda for nothing in return cannot be recouped. 

 

Maybe they can do a sub-lease to the USA after January?  

 

102,000?  Pffffft. 

 

[JonnyF]

And so it begins...

[James105]

5 hours ago, Social Media said:

In response, the government has introduced the new Border Security Command, supported by 1,000 extra police officers with enhanced powers to combat people smugglers, treating them with the same severity as terrorists.

 

Do these extra 1000 police have the powers to arrest people in France then?  Now I do not wish to question the undoubted intelligence of the new home secretary, but from what I understand is that the people smugglers do not travel on the dinghy's to the UK and remain in France which makes it slightly tricky for the UK police officers to arrest them. 

 

Seems the new policy seems to be the same as the old policy, minus Rwanda.   Quelle surprise.   

[herfiehandbag]

Golly, didn't take long then did it!

[thaibeachlovers]

6 hours ago, Social Media said:

The government is now focused on the work needed to secure our borders and smash the gangs

If ever wishful thinking was awarded a prize that would take the biggest prize of all. Britain probably has no control over the gangs that transport intending criminals ( illegal immigrants are criminals IMO ) from other countries and the countries that the gangs operate from are obviously not interested in stopping them. We all probably know why that is.

 

IMO Labour just said why it will be a one term government.

[thaibeachlovers]

1 hour ago, James105 said:

Quelle surprise. 

Surprise NOT.

[impulse]

7 hours ago, Social Media said:

Currently, nearly 36,000 migrants are accommodated in hotels, with more than half coming from countries with high asylum grant rates, costing taxpayers £2.9 million a day.

 

Holy snarpin' buttcheeks, Batman.

 

That's 805 GBP per day for each, over 24,000 GBP per month, over  a quarter million a year.  That can't be right, is it?

 

Edited July 10 by impulse

[thaibeachlovers]

6 hours ago, Social Media said:

When asked if those arriving by small boats would now have the right to claim asylum, the Prime Minister’s official spokesman emphasized the importance of processing arrivals promptly to avoid the prolonged and costly practice of housing migrants in taxpayer-funded hotels. Shadow Home Secretary James Cleverly criticized the move, calling it an effective amnesty. He argued that the Labour government’s actions would make the UK more attractive to asylum seekers, undermining previous efforts to deter illegal immigration.

In other words, the Prime Minister’s official spokesman deflected from telling the truth.

 

Didn't take long for the new government to stuff it up.

[thaibeachlovers]

1 minute ago, impulse said:

 

Holy snarpin' <deleted> Batman.

 

That's 805 GBP per day for each over 24,000 GBP per month, over half a million a year.  That can't be right, is it?

 

Never underestimate the ability of governments to pay several times over the actual cost for any service. After all, the money grows on a tree out back of Number 10, doesn't it?

[Chomper Higgot]

3 hours ago, JonnyF said:

And so it begins...

Yes, the Tory Client Press have started their misinformation.

[Chomper Higgot]

2 hours ago, James105 said:

 

Do these extra 1000 police have the powers to arrest people in France then?  Now I do not wish to question the undoubted intelligence of the new home secretary, but from what I understand is that the people smugglers do not travel on the dinghy's to the UK and remain in France which makes it slightly tricky for the UK police officers to arrest them. 

 

Seems the new policy seems to be the same as the old policy, minus Rwanda.   Quelle surprise.   

The new policy is to clear the backlog left by the previous government and cancel the Rwanda asylum seeker exchange scheme.

[James105]

20 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

The new policy is to clear the backlog left by the previous government and cancel the Rwanda asylum seeker exchange scheme.

 

Yes yes I have saw that amnesty that is not called an amnesty.   What extra powers do the extra 1000 police have though to "tackle the people smugglers"?  Will these 1000 extra police be heading across to France to "smash the people smuggling gangs" and do they have the power to arrest people in France?   If not, what is the point as it just sounds like just another way to waste money on not solving a problem that Australia has already proven is not that difficult to solve.   

[Chomper Higgot]

4 minutes ago, James105 said:

 

Yes yes I have saw that amnesty that is not called an amnesty.   What extra powers do the extra 1000 police have though to "tackle the people smugglers"?  Will these 1000 extra police be heading across to France to "smash the people smuggling gangs" and do they have the power to arrest people in France?   If not, what is the point as it just sounds like just another way to waste money on not solving a problem that Australia has already proven is not that difficult to solve.   

Quit with your gaslighting.

 

It’s not an amnesty.

[john donson]

what is a few hundred thousand more people who will DEMAND free housing, food, allowance, healthcare, ...  people voted for this, right ? 

[James105]

4 minutes ago, john donson said:

what is a few hundred thousand more people who will DEMAND free housing, food, allowance, healthcare, ...  people voted for this, right ? 

 

20% of the electorate voted for this.   80% didn't.   

[JonnyF]

2 hours ago, impulse said:

 

Holy snarpin' buttcheeks, Batman.

 

That's 805 GBP per day for each, over 24,000 GBP per month, over  a quarter million a year.  That can't be right, is it?

 

 

It's not cheap making Liberals feel good about themselves.

 

Providing migrants with hotel rooms, 3 meals a day, NHS access, Wifi etc. all adds up.

 

Meanwhile the people paying the taxes to pay for it are struggling to make ends meet. Veterans are living on the streets. 

 

Lefties, selling out their own citizens. Nothing new. 

[Pickwick]

4 hours ago, JonnyF said:

And so it begins...

 

Wrong tense. The backlog has long been a problem but has increased significantly under Tory rule, especially since 2018. I'm not convinced there is a quick or easy solution, but I won't be blaming a six day old government for the previous one's failings, no matter my personal politics.

[riclag]

5 hours ago, JonnyF said:

And so it begins...

Disheartening 

[JonnyF]

3 minutes ago, Pickwick said:

 

Wrong tense. The backlog has long been a problem but has increased significantly under Tory rule, especially since 2018. I'm not convinced there is a quick or easy solution, but I won't be blaming a six day old government for the previous one's failings, no matter my personal politics.

 

The Tories did a terrible job on immigration.

 

Labour are going to make it exponentially worse. 

 

The British electorate have cut off their nose to spite their face by ditching the Tories for Labour. Sad times ahead. 

[Pickwick]

3 hours ago, James105 said:

Do these extra 1000 police have the powers to arrest people in France then? 

I am not sure. it is difficult to find robust information on this (happy to stand corrected) but there is a lot of co-operation between France and the UK. Is it enough (regarding French action)? Again, I am not sure. They apparently spend more (of their own) money than us on the issue but they have their own problems and financial constraints like the UK. But I am not in the Tory 'let's do nothing then blame the EU/France/Labour/Napoleon/the Queen of Sheba when things get worse' camp.

 

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-9681/

[Pickwick]

2 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

We all probably know why that is.

Yes, money. Unfortunately, it's an incredibly lucrative trade for the criminal gangs. 

 

2 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

IMO Labour just said why it will be a one term government.

 

Great to see you gave them a whole six days to prove themselves.

[Pickwick]

22 minutes ago, James105 said:

20% of the electorate voted for this.   80% didn't.   

 

Can you point me to the myriad posts dated before last Thursday decrying the FPTP voting system? As system in place for the last 74 years.

 

I don't like the system either but have been vocal about that for 35 years at least. Not that many people (from both sides of the spectrum) seemed too bothered until last Thursday. That is not the democratically elected Labour Party's fault, whether you like them or not.

[Chomper Higgot]

15 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

 

It's not cheap making Liberals feel good about themselves.

 

Providing migrants with hotel rooms, 3 meals a day, NHS access, Wifi etc. all adds up.

 

Meanwhile the people paying the taxes to pay for it are struggling to make ends meet. Veterans are living on the streets. 

 

Lefties, selling out their own citizens. Nothing new. 

Jonny, these are the scapegoating excuses the Tories tried to con the electorate with.

I don’t know if you missed the news, they failed.

 

 

 

 

[Chomper Higgot]

12 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

 

The Tories did a terrible job on immigration.

 

Labour are going to make it exponentially worse. 

 

The British electorate have cut off their nose to spite their face by ditching the Tories for Labour. Sad times ahead. 

The Electorate voted for change, Labour are delivering change.

 

Making wild predictions about how Labour will perform doesn’t change that fact. 

[JonnyF]

2 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Jonny, these are the scapegoating excuses the Tories tried to con the electorate with.

I don’t know if you missed the news, they failed.

 

 

 

 

 

These are facts.

 

Labour has taken a week to demonstrate that they will make things much worse.

 

Brit haters must be loving this. 

[Pickwick]

15 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

Lefties, selling out their own citizens. Nothing new.

 

10 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

The Tories did a terrible job on immigration.

Your two posts don't tally. You blame the Tories (and Labour) but write 'Lefties, selling out their own citizens'. Your personal bias is evident. 

 

13 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

Labour are going to make it exponentially worse. 

 

This is your opinion, not fact. While I will not be holding my breath, I am of the opinion they probably can't do any worse. Your opinion is no more valid than mine (nor mine yours).

 

15 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

The British electorate have cut off their nose to spite their face by ditching the Tories for Labour.

 

Above you wrote that the Tories did a terrible job, yet by ditching them the British have committed an act of self-harm. It's difficult to know how to view that, other than through the prism of narrow political bias.

[mokwit]

After all, the UK is the "first safe country" for all these presumably now calling themselves "Gazans", right?

 

Abuse of Asylum reduces the ability to take in genuine asylum seekers. There are 800,000 Yazidi, 2.6m Pakistani Christians etc. How many of even those can we take.

[Pickwick]

4 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

These are facts.

 

 

See post above. They are not facts at all. They are your opinions. People are allowed to disagree.