Labour to Permit 100,000 Migrants to Apply for Asylum

[James105]

4 more people have died trying to get to the UK.  

 

https://news.sky.com/story/four-people-die-during-migrant-crossing-attempt-in-english-channel-13176203

 

To be expected I suppose when the only deterrent (such as it was) is taken away with nothing to replace it.  

 

Not going very well this new Labour government is it?  

[Pickwick]

6 minutes ago, James105 said:

To be expected I suppose when the only deterrent (such as it was) is taken away with nothing to replace it.  

 

Not going very well this new Labour government is it? 

Do you expect them to fix the problem in one week - a problem which took the Tory government years to create?

 

Your comments are unreasonable and unrealistic.

[transam]

2 minutes ago, Pickwick said:

Do you expect them to fix the problem in one week - a problem which took the Tory government years to create?

 

Your comments are unreasonable and unrealistic.

I hear they are going to put Angela Rayner on the beach with a loud hailer telling them to "Flush Off", whilst lugging on a ciggy, and will probably do the trick........

[James105]

3 minutes ago, Pickwick said:

Do you expect them to fix the problem in one week - a problem which took the Tory government years to create?

 

Your comments are unreasonable and unrealistic.

 

Labour consistently voted against Tory plans to toughen up the legislation so one would presume that after spending 14 years in opposition they had plenty of time to come up with a solution to this so no, I do not think this is unreasonable.   I personally would have this resolved in about 48 hours using the proven to work strategy used by Australia so I think a week is quite generous really.

 

They spent 14 years in opposition complaining seemingly without spending any time coming up with any workable solution so the blood is on their hands now.   

[Pickwick]

Just now, James105 said:

Labour consistently voted against Tory plans to toughen up the legislation

The Tories had a majority in parliament. It's a surprise that you are blaming Labour (both in opposition and government) for the Tories failures.

 

2 minutes ago, James105 said:

I personally would have this resolved in about 48 hours using the proven to work strategy used by Australia so I think a week is quite generous really

No you wouldn't.

 

4 minutes ago, James105 said:

They spent 14 years in opposition complaining seemingly without spending any time coming up with any workable solution so the blood is on their hands now.   

Your use of hyperbole makes it difficult to know if you are serious or not. If you are, blaming the opposition for the problem - then blaming the government once that opposition is elected - is a little lopsided and indicates a strong personal bias.

[georgegeorgia]

55 minutes ago, James105 said:

4 more people have died trying to get to the UK.  

 

https://news.sky.com/story/four-people-die-during-migrant-crossing-attempt-in-english-channel-13176203

 

To be expected I suppose when the only deterrent (such as it was) is taken away with nothing to replace it.  

 

Not going very well this new Labour government is it?  

Oh this is absolutely shocking 

Why weren't they rescued much quicker?

Why isn't there rescue boats waiting 24 hours ?

And what was the deterrent that was taken away ? Please tell

Edited July 12 by georgegeorgia

[James105]

27 minutes ago, Pickwick said:

The Tories had a majority in parliament. It's a surprise that you are blaming Labour (both in opposition and government) for the Tories failures.

 

No you wouldn't.

 

Your use of hyperbole makes it difficult to know if you are serious or not. If you are, blaming the opposition for the problem - then blaming the government once that opposition is elected - is a little lopsided and indicates a strong personal bias.

 

Yes, I would (if I had the power of course).  Deterrents are the answer.  If you take away all the benefits and make it very, very clear that any migrants who manage to arrive illegally would be refused asylum on the basis they committed a crime then this would act as a deterrent.  Another deterrent would be to do what Australia did.  This is proven to work.  Deterrents are the only way to stop the boats and is the way to "smash the gangs" as it would take away their business model.   Those people would not have risked their lives if there was no benefit to making that journey.  

 

The Tories might have had a majority of Conservative MPs but they didn't have a majority that were actually conservative, hence the reason that Labour were able (along with their like minded non-conservative conservative MPs) to put a stop to any "conservative" policies.   

 

I detest Labour and Conservative in equal measure as they are both signed up to the globalist agenda, which is why neither of them have any desire to stop the small boat crossings as it would make them look bad when they go to Davos.  

[Chomper Higgot]

1 hour ago, James105 said:

4 more people have died trying to get to the UK.  

 

https://news.sky.com/story/four-people-die-during-migrant-crossing-attempt-in-english-channel-13176203

 

To be expected I suppose when the only deterrent (such as it was) is taken away with nothing to replace it.  

 

Not going very well this new Labour government is it?  

Counter factual nonsense.

 

The reason people try to cross the channel in rubber boats is because the Tories closed almost all safe routes and the means to apply for asylum prior to arrival near the origins countries.

 

You can expect this to change.

 

 

That aside, a problem the Tories couldn’t resolve and only made worse in 14 years.

 

You’ve given Labour a week before you start your whinging.

 

 

Edited July 12 by Chomper Higgot

[Will B Good]

28 minutes ago, James105 said:

Labour were able (along with their like minded non-conservative conservative MPs) to put a stop to any "conservative" policies.   

Which policies were those?

[Chomper Higgot]

1 hour ago, James105 said:

 

Labour consistently voted against Tory plans to toughen up the legislation so one would presume that after spending 14 years in opposition they had plenty of time to come up with a solution to this so no, I do not think this is unreasonable.   I personally would have this resolved in about 48 hours using the proven to work strategy used by Australia so I think a week is quite generous really.

 

They spent 14 years in opposition complaining seemingly without spending any time coming up with any workable solution so the blood is on their hands now.   

Because all of the Tory policies were doomed to fail, as indeed they did.

[Chomper Higgot]

30 minutes ago, James105 said:

 

Yes, I would (if I had the power of course).  Deterrents are the answer.  If you take away all the benefits and make it very, very clear that any migrants who manage to arrive illegally would be refused asylum on the basis they committed a crime then this would act as a deterrent.  Another deterrent would be to do what Australia did.  This is proven to work.  Deterrents are the only way to stop the boats and is the way to "smash the gangs" as it would take away their business model.   Those people would not have risked their lives if there was no benefit to making that journey.  

 

The Tories might have had a majority of Conservative MPs but they didn't have a majority that were actually conservative, hence the reason that Labour were able (along with their like minded non-conservative conservative MPs) to put a stop to any "conservative" policies.   

 

I detest Labour and Conservative in equal measure as they are both signed up to the globalist agenda, which is why neither of them have any desire to stop the small boat crossings as it would make them look bad when they go to Davos.  

Let’s see if you can work this out James.

 

You’ve already posted report of 4 deaths crossing the channel today. You and I both know that’s just four in many hundreds.

 

The migrants are obviously aware of the risk of drowning.

 

So you think you can come up with a deterrent to dissuade people who are already willing to risk their life to make the crossing.

 

Or is it, as I suspect, you haven’t thought this through?!

[transam]

5 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Because all of the Tory policies were doomed to fail, as indeed they did.

You just wait till your lefty lot to get in gear, it will be a blast........😂

[Nick Carter icp]

1 minute ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Let’s see if you can work this out James.

 

You’ve already posted report of 4 deaths crossing the channel today. You and I both know that’s just four in many hundreds.

 

The migrants are obviously aware of the risk of drowning.

 

So you think you can come up with a deterrent to dissuade people who are already willing to risk their life to make the crossing.

 

Or is it, as I suspect, you haven’t thought this through?!

 

   I have a good idea , why not tell the potential dinghy mob that if they attempt the crossing and arrive in the U.K , they will be put on the first flight to Rwanda ?

   That would stop them attempting to make the crossing , knowing that they would ne in Rwanda the next day 

[Chomper Higgot]

4 minutes ago, transam said:

You just wait till your lefty lot to get in gear, it will be a blast........😂

I’m looking forward to it.

 

There are reports that the King’s speech shall include 30 bills to be passed in the coming parliamentary session.

 

 

[Chomper Higgot]

4 minutes ago, Nick Carter icp said:

 

   I have a good idea , why not tell the potential dinghy mob that if they attempt the crossing and arrive in the U.K , they will be put on the first flight to Rwanda ?

   That would stop them attempting to make the crossing , knowing that they would ne in Rwanda the next day 

It seems James isn’t the only person who hasn’t thought this through.

 

Asylum seekers have a right to enter the country to seek asylum - that’s the law.

 

The failed Rwanda ‘asylum seeker exchange’* scheme has been cancelled. 
 

Unfortunately the UK will not be getting a refund of the hundreds of £millions the Tories handed the Rwandans, but at least their plan to handover even more hundreds of £millions has been scuppered.

 

*I take it you are aware the Rwanda plan was an ‘exchange program’.

 

 

[Nick Carter icp]

2 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

It seems James isn’t the only person who hasn’t thought this through.

 

Asylum seekers have a right to enter the country to seek asylum - that’s the law.

 

The failed Rwanda ‘asylum seeker exchange’* scheme has been cancelled. 
 

Unfortunately the UK will not be getting a refund of the hundreds of £millions the Tories handed the Rwandans, but at least their plan to handover even more hundreds of £millions has been scuppered.

 

*I take it you are aware the Rwanda plan was an ‘exchange program’.

 

 

 

   None of those points detracts from the fact that sending them straight to Rwanda when they arrive  would sop them from attempting the boat journey in the first place 

[James105]

33 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

It seems James isn’t the only person who hasn’t thought this through.

 

Asylum seekers have a right to enter the country to seek asylum - that’s the law.

 

The failed Rwanda ‘asylum seeker exchange’* scheme has been cancelled. 
 

Unfortunately the UK will not be getting a refund of the hundreds of £millions the Tories handed the Rwandans, but at least their plan to handover even more hundreds of £millions has been scuppered.

 

*I take it you are aware the Rwanda plan was an ‘exchange program’.

 

 

 

You clearly haven't thought this through.  The law of a country is what the elected government of that country defines it to be.   One of those laws is that it is illegal to enter the country via this route.  Why is the UK not allowed to enforce this law?  

[Pickwick]

1 hour ago, James105 said:

Another deterrent would be to do what Australia did.  This is proven to work. 

You keep mentioning Australia - I assume because on the surface it looks like they are 'stopping the boats' and stopping the 'invasion of asylum seekers' (Braverman). Except, when you dig into the data it is not so neat and tidy.

 

Firstly, there are obvious differences to note between Australia and the UK. The Timor Sea is not the English channel. The Royal Navy has also said it is not feasible for them to patrol the channel for a variety of reasons - please note I am not a serving member of the Royal Navy, you will have to ask them why.

 

One of the main issues with illegal immigrants is that they get accommodation in hotels, food, cash, free healthcare etc - ie the cost. It is estimated that for every person Australia relocates offshore it costs around £200,000 a year. Again, that's for each person. They have also paid between one quarter and half a billion gbp to the offshore islands to process these people and at least £70 million to people their own courts had found were treated inhumanely and against agreed international standards.

 

Also, much like Rwanda, they did not have the capacity to deal with this for the first few years. What did they do? They took 30,000 of them to Australia to process them. As of 2022 (the last time I can find figures and subsequently reported in the Sydney Morning Herald) there was a backlog inside Australia of 130,000 asylum seekers (more than the UK), which includes the 30,000 legacy from the stop the boats campaign.

 

You also mentioned 'the only deterrent has been removed' in a previous post, which I assume to be the Rwanda plan - please correct me if I am wrong. Some people think this was a gimmick (me included), others think it is a viable solution - but the following point is very important: the Rwanda plan had the capacity to process 200 people a year. So, it could clear one Monday morning every year. How anyone can think this remotely tackles the problem is beyond me. Additionally, the cost has - and would have continued to be - astronomical.

 

1 hour ago, James105 said:

The Tories might have had a majority of Conservative MPs but they didn't have a majority that were actually conservative, hence the reason that Labour were able (along with their like minded non-conservative conservative MPs) to put a stop to any "conservative" policies

 

I have tried very hard to understand this but I must admit failure. I have, however, noticed a shift in the narrative on here since Thursday 4th July. While the blame for everything is still placed on lazy and weakly formulated labels like 'liberal loonies, lefties and wokeflakes', now Labour are being held to account for the failures of the Tories because the Tories are not actually Tories and are in fact Labour in disguise. It's comical.

 

You claim to detest the Tories, yet your posts display a disproportionate amount of opprobrium for the new government.

[Pickwick]

1 hour ago, Nick Carter icp said:

That would stop them attempting to make the crossing , knowing that they would ne in Rwanda the next day 

 

Given that the Rwanda plan had the capacity to process 200 people a year, I very much doubt they would find themselves in Rwanda the next day. A rather expensive gimmick.

[Chomper Higgot]

1 hour ago, Nick Carter icp said:

 

   None of those points detracts from the fact that sending them straight to Rwanda when they arrive  would sop them from attempting the boat journey in the first place 

Apart from the following:

 

1. The law doesn’t permit doing so.

2. There is no agreement with Rwanda to do so.

3. There’s been an election, the ineffective performative cruelty of the last Government has ended.

 

[Chomper Higgot]

1 hour ago, James105 said:

 

You clearly haven't thought this through.  The law of a country is what the elected government of that country defines it to be.   One of those laws is that it is illegal to enter the country via this route.  Why is the UK not allowed to enforce this law?  

You need to put more effort into working it out.

 

When a Government passes a law, the new law can’t breach existing laws, otherwise it gets struck down by the courts.

 

Sometimes members of the opposition write letters to the Government explaining they should halt process under new laws where there are clear indications of conflict with existing laws.

 

A wise Government listens to such advice.

 

The idiots that just got handed their backsides failed to do so.

 

It’s not the fault of those who noticed and pointed out the problems.

[Pickwick]

 

 

1 hour ago, James105 said:

The law of a country is what the elected government of that country defines it to be.

 

The country is also bound by international law. There has been much noise about leaving the European Convention on Human Rights, but that is a complex issue and not at all straightforward.

 

The Human Rights Act would need to be repealed and UK citizens would lose a whole host of protections for themselves - the right to life, the right to liberty, the right to a fair trial etc (as would potential investors in the country). We would have to join Russia and Belarus as the only European countries barred from the Council of Europe. Our trade agreement with the EU would be gone, and our international standing would be reduced. It would contravene the Good Friday Agreement and our relationship with Ireland and the US would deteriorate.

 

It would also most likely not stop the boats. The UK is bound by other acts and conventions, such as the UN Refugee Convention etc. and refoulement is also not permitted under domestic UK law, so the UK couldn't just send people back to countries willy-nilly. I suppose we would have removed the right to life...

 

This is a complex issue that requires hard work and strong international effort - not hollow soundbites and expensive gimmicks. It is a hugely complex problem, and if you think it can be solved in 48 hours you have certainly 'not thought this through'  and I would suggest you have not understood the problem.

 

I note that President Macron thinks part of the reason the UK is targeted is the lack of ID cards - that once on land you can disappear quite easily in the UK with no formal ID requirements. I am not sure, though I suppose the criminal gangs will have subsequent networks and criminal alliances within the UK to facilitate this. 

[pegman]

5 hours ago, James105 said:

 

Labour consistently voted against Tory plans to toughen up the legislation so one would presume that after spending 14 years in opposition they had plenty of time to come up with a solution to this so no, I do not think this is unreasonable.   I personally would have this resolved in about 48 hours using the proven to work strategy used by Australia so I think a week is quite generous really.

 

They spent 14 years in opposition complaining seemingly without spending any time coming up with any workable solution so the blood is on their hands now.   

George Galloway suggested bringing back the Royal Navy from provocative offensive manoeuvres around the world to patrol the English channel during the election. 

[Nick Carter icp]

5 hours ago, Pickwick said:

 

Given that the Rwanda plan had the capacity to process 200 people a year, I very much doubt they would find themselves in Rwanda the next day. A rather expensive gimmick.

 

   Keir Starmer was lying when he made that claim 

https://fullfact.org/news/keir-starmer-rwanda-capacity/

 

[Nick Carter icp]

5 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Apart from the following:

 

1. The law doesn’t permit doing so.

2. There is no agreement with Rwanda to do so.

3. There’s been an election, the ineffective performative cruelty of the last Government has ended.

 

 

   This suggests something different 

 

Rwanda bill to become law in major illegal migration milestone

Final phase of implementing the flagship policy to commence, marking a crucial step in the global response to illegal migration.

 

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/rwanda-bill-to-become-law-in-major-illegal-migration-milestone#:~:text=UK government efforts to stop,Parliament overnight%2C Monday 22 April.

 

[Pickwick]

5 hours ago, Nick Carter icp said:

 

   Keir Starmer was lying when he made that claim 

https://fullfact.org/news/keir-starmer-rwanda-capacity/

 

 

No he wasn't, he repeated information from the Court of Appeal and according to your link It appears the information was out of date. I have no idea if he knew the information was out of date or not. I do know that politicians of all colours, including the rosette of Reform, like to embellish the truth, some more so than others.

 

Your link also talks about Rwanda having the capacity to process 100 people a year (which the Court of Appeal stated). This was subsequently increased to 200 - which is exactly what I wrote. You can easily find reports, from multiple sources about this, including the right wing media, but they write 1000 in 5 years, presumably because they think 1000 sounds more and people can't do the maths. Dominic Raab (Conservative Deputy Prime Minister) admitted the amount of people processed in Rwanda would be 'hundreds, not thousands',

 

So, for £340,000,000 Rwanda would have taken two days' worth of small boats in 5 years.  (Actually, after Rwanda processed the first 300 people an additional £120,000,000 would be due.)

 

I understand some people are seduced by third party or offshore processing of asylum seekers but the reality is it costs more. The Home Office itself wrote in the official impact statement of operation costs that the plan is more expensive per asylum seeker - to the tune of an additional £63,000 per person per year (independent modelling suggests double that cost).

 

Few people processed but at a higher cost. Take 200 asylum seekers out of the Premier Inn and put them in the Hilton. It's not a good plan, I think.

 

I have stated in my previous reply that we have a real and complex problem. Expensive gimmicks are not the solution - quite the opposite I'd argue.

 

Edited July 13 by Pickwick
incorrect figures. should be 200 per year

[Pickwick]

4 hours ago, Nick Carter icp said:

 

   This suggests something different 

 

Rwanda bill to become law in major illegal migration milestone

Final phase of implementing the flagship policy to commence, marking a crucial step in the global response to illegal migration.

 

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/rwanda-bill-to-become-law-in-major-illegal-migration-milestone#:~:text=UK government efforts to stop,Parliament overnight%2C Monday 22 April.

 

 

I am not sure of your point here. The main thrust of this bill was that parliament would be granted the right to declare Rwanda a safe country - even if there was concrete evidence to suggest otherwise. It says if the facts are not convenient we will change them.

 

Now that parliament has a significant Labour majority, I'd imagine no Conservative (or free thinking British citizen of any political persuasion) wants the government to be able to 'change the facts' with no accountability or consequence. (Though it seems some were ok with this when there was a right-wing government.)

[Nick Carter icp]

5 minutes ago, Pickwick said:

 

I am not sure of your point here. The main thrust of this bill was that parliament would be granted the right to declare Rwanda a safe country - even if there was concrete evidence to suggest otherwise. It says if the facts are not convenient we will change them.

 

Now that parliament has a significant Labour majority, I'd imagine no Conservative (or free thinking British citizen of any political persuasion) wants the government to be able to 'change the facts' with no accountability or consequence. (Though it seems some were ok with this when there was a right-wing government.)

 

   What is that "concrete evidence" that suggests that Rwanda isn't safe ?

[Nick Carter icp]

10 hours ago, Pickwick said:

- but the following point is very important: the Rwanda plan had the capacity to process 200 people a year.

 

18 minutes ago, Pickwick said:

 

 

 

Your link also talks about Rwanda having the capacity to process 100 people a day (which the Court of Appeal stated). This was subsequently increased to 200 - which is exactly what I wrote.

 

 

 

   First you wrote 200 a year  , then you wrote 200 a day

[Pickwick]

7 hours ago, pegman said:

George Galloway suggested bringing back the Royal Navy from provocative offensive manoeuvres around the world to patrol the English channel during the election. 

 

George Galloway is not the most credible source you could have chosen. The Royal Navy does not have an infinite supply of ships on provocative offensive manoeuvres. I suppose we could cede the Falkland Islands to Argentina and Gibraltar to Spain and free up some resources, though I can't recall an appetite for that.

 

The Royal Navy and the Ministry of Defence have said patrolling the channel is not feasible anyway. They do not go into detail but do mention a 'variety of reasons'. We can assume adherence to SOLAS and UNCLOS. You would have to ask them to clarify.