Labour to Permit 100,000 Migrants to Apply for Asylum

[Nick Carter icp]

19 minutes ago, josephbloggs said:

Do you understand what a majority is?

 

  
Do you understand that the Conservatives didn't have a majority ?

[Chomper Higgot]

7 hours ago, Nick Carter icp said:

 

   That isn't true, I didn't call you a liar 

Short memory perhaps:

 

23 hours ago, Nick Carter icp said:

 

   I have already posted a link showing that claim to be untrue , you are either lying or you didn't read the link .

   There was an unlimited amount of people who could be processed in Rwanda  

 

[Chomper Higgot]

5 hours ago, Nick Carter icp said:

 

  
Do you understand that the Conservatives didn't have a majority ?

The Conservatives had a majority of 80 seats:

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_United_Kingdom_general_election#:~:text=The governing Conservative Party led,margin than that achieved by

[Pickwick]

7 hours ago, Nick Carter icp said:

OK, so it wasn't you that was lying when you claimed that Rwanda could only process 200 Asylum seekers per year , it was the UK Government who were lying when  they stated the amount of Asylum seekers per year would be uncapped 

 

No I wasn't lying - please stop repeating this as if it were a fact.

 

I have provided ample reasons and sources to back up what I have written - all you have done is harp on about the one link that you provided which has one sentence that begins 'the government says' but then goes on to cast doubt on 'what the government says'. Do you even read your links past the first page? (deja vu)

 

I ask because if you scroll down and click through it confirms my quote by the then Conservative Deputy Prime Minister that the numbers processed would be in the 'hundreds'. The government told the Supreme Court that initially there would only be 'small numbers'. Conservative Home Secretary James Cleverly confirmed to the House of Lords the numbers would be low and quote 'slowly increase'. He projected that one day there would be no limit, but declined to give any specifics or time frame.

 

The numbers of 200 a year to start with, amounting to 1000 in 5 years stands scrutiny. That there might be some mythical uncapped Nirvana at some point years down the line is based on nothing but conjecture.

 

7 hours ago, Nick Carter icp said:

Independent  fact checkers also checked the claims and they agreed with the Government that the amount of Asylum seekers per year would be uncapped . 

 

This is absolutely untrue. There is no agreement by fact checkers anywhere. They write an independent court said 'there was evidence Rwanda had the capacity to house 100 asylum seekers' and subsequently the not independent government said 'the eventual capacity will be uncapped' - with zero evidence, specifics or corroboration by fact checkers on this unsubstantiated claim.  

 

You ignore the evidence and rest your entire case on 'the government says'. on a third party website. I gave you a direct quote that the government said, but you bizarrely ignore that. You then continue to repeatedly call me a liar and imply the last Tory government told the truth all the time. The same government rebuked by the UK Statistics Authority (accountable to parliament) for telling untruths 'which undermine the trust in government'. A government run by a Prime Minister who the website you linked to states: 'It is important people in public life correct their mistakes. We have contacted Rishi Sunak 11 times; he corrected his record twice'.

 

Even if this mythical 'uncapped' number was a real goal then how long would it take and at what cost? I previously provided you with a direct link to the Home Office (during the Tory government) that confirmed sending asylum seekers to Rwanda would cost more per person than the current unacceptable situation of putting them up in hotels.

 

If you want to ignore all this by all means do so, but then I assume you are only interested in your own narrow agenda and not in the actual topic.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited July 14 by Pickwick
typo

[thaibeachlovers]

10 hours ago, GammaGlobulin said:

We need to raise the drawbridge....

NOW!

The people that agree with you are not in a position to do anything about it.

 

I'm constantly boggled by economic immigrants that say they need the money because they have so many children. One guy had 16!

 

I don't see why they think they can just move to the UK or wherever to have a better life because they couldn't stop creating more kids. They created the problem, they should solve it.

[josephbloggs]

10 hours ago, Nick Carter icp said:

 

  
Do you understand that the Conservatives didn't have a majority ?

Erm, oh dear.

[GammaGlobulin]

2 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I don't see why they think they can just move to the UK or wherever to have a better life because they couldn't stop creating more kids

 

If the kids are intelligent kids, and young enough to become easily acculturated, then I say allow them in.

We in the US and the UK, we true brothers, do need many more super smart kids to immigrate to our two great nations.

 

This will benefit our two economies, greatly.

 

But, I would also say that we might wish to keep their parents out.

Sure, we can allow them visiting rights, maybe twice a year.

But, we should send these kids to some of our elite boarding schools.

Then, we can allow them to either return to their home countries to visit their families, or their families can fly to America to visit their children's boarding schools.

Of course, we will not pay for the airfare!

 

 

[Nick Carter icp]

5 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Short memory perhaps:

 

 

 

   Can you not understand what was written ?

I cannot be bothered to explain what basic English means (to you) 

[Chomper Higgot]

1 minute ago, Nick Carter icp said:

 

   Can you not understand what was written ?

I cannot be bothered to explain what basic English means (to you) 

Yes, and I called you out at the time for accusing others of lying.

[Nick Carter icp]

4 hours ago, Pickwick said:

 

 

This is absolutely untrue.

 

   It is completely true 

 

 Here look, here it is , once again .

Are you denying that this link exists ?

 

This figure appears to be out of date, and refer to the scheme’s initial capacity rather than the total number it may take. Exact capacity figures remain unclear, however. The court did say there was evidence Rwanda had capacity to house only 100 asylum seekers, but the government says this has since increased. It also says the scheme’s eventual capacity is uncapped.

 

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

 

[Pickwick]

2 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

The people that agree with you are not in a position to do anything about it.

How do we raise the drawbridge? What do you want to do - a genuine question? For the avoidance of doubt (again) - I am not suggesting there is no problem, that would be frankly ridiculous. I am suggesting a complex problem that cannot be solved in a week by gimmick and soundbite.

 

All I see on here is a barrage of posts that seem based on either conjecture, political grandstanding or one-sided political bias, none of which actually bothers to even look at the problem.

 

Do you want to shoot people dead in the sea? Or do you want to remove them to other countries? Given that moving 0.4% to Rwanda costs at least £400,000,000, what do you suggest?

 

Given that the Home Office, when under Tory rule, confirmed in writing that the costs to process people in a third party country costs more per person than the currently unacceptable costs of placing people in hotels, what is your plan?

 

Do you want to stop all migration? How would you do that? And without legal migration (not by boat) how would you fund the lack of workers in our ageing society? Trying to tackle the people who game the welfare system would be a good start, but does not cut the mustard in terms of numbers (unless you are going to argue that everyone who is sick is not actually sick, i.e. that sickness and ill health does not exist) at all. Even then we would still need more working people to support the increasingly elderly population.

 

Do you want to scrap automatic retirement and the state pension? That might work (as reported in the Daily Telegraph), though I doubt the British electorate would stand for it.

 

2 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I'm constantly boggled by economic immigrants

 

While Conservative Home Secretary (Braverman) made a speech about economic migrants, curiously the Home Office then refused to release any data about this to back up her claims - no data, no actual evidence. Each person can draw their own conclusion as to why (and will note that some of her own Conservative MPs complained about her speech).

 

The UK should not accept economic migrants. That some are undeniably abusing the system demands change to the system. Why this hasn't been done in the last 14 years despite a huge increase in immigration, most noticeably since Brexit, you will have to ask Suella Braverman and her colleagues. They were responsible after all (not the week old Labour government).

[Pickwick]

4 minutes ago, Nick Carter icp said:

 

   It is completely true 

 

 Here look, here it is , once again .

Are you denying that this link exists ?

 

This figure appears to be out of date, and refer to the scheme’s initial capacity rather than the total number it may take. Exact capacity figures remain unclear, however. The court did say there was evidence Rwanda had capacity to house only 100 asylum seekers, but the government says this has since increased. It also says the scheme’s eventual capacity is uncapped.

 

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

 

 

You keep repeating this one vague sentence from one website -  against a mountain of contradictory evidence.

 

The website reports what the government said (without any evidence - as compared to the court evidence on the same page).

 

But you read 'the government says' as being the same as 'independent experts agree with what the government says'. That is absolutely not true. It is not the same thing at all. 

 

That you cannot see the difference is not my problem. 

 

Your last post denied the Conservative government had a majority at the previous election - I cannot fathom why you would write such a thing.

 

Maybe you are just being obstinate; maybe you just want a fight; maybe you are a Russian stooge displaying a reasonable argument against democracy; maybe you are just bored  - I really don't know. But it is becoming increasingly difficult to think you want a serious discussion.

 

[Nick Carter icp]

5 hours ago, Pickwick said:

 

 

You ignore the evidence and rest your entire case on 'the government says'. on a third party website.

 

 

   Official Government website , not a 3rd party website 

 

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]

2 minutes ago, Nick Carter icp said:

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.

 

 This is a report from James Cleverly, who I quoted above as admitting the numbers in reality 'would be very small'. In your link the only confirmation is  a target of 2,200 detention places. 

 

I will not go round in circles with you. I am quite confident that most can see through you. You have consistently failed to read your own links, most certainly have never read mine, and are wilfully ignoring all of the evidence, whilst parroting the same line based on one sentence of conjecture (attributed to no-one).

 

I have tried to have a sensible discussion and I am confident most will be able to see that effort, whether they agree with my point of view or not.

 

I understand you will need to have the last word, possibly with some kind of provocative remark, but I won't respond. 

 

Take care and have a nice day.

[Nick Carter icp]

11 minutes ago, Pickwick said:

 

Your last post denied the Conservative government had a majority at the previous election - I cannot fathom why you would write such a thing.

 

 

   It was the Court cases that caused the delays in sending people to Rwanda , Conservatives do not have a majority in Court Judges decisions or cases bought before the Court 

[Will B Good]

6 minutes ago, Nick Carter icp said:

 

   It was the Court cases that caused the delays in sending people to Rwanda , Conservatives do not have a majority in Court Judges decisions or cases bought before the Court 

 

I thought it was Labour defeating the Tories in every Commons vote that caused all the problems......although I don"t recall the government ever being defeated??

[Nick Carter icp]

On 7/12/2024 at 3:03 PM, 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.

 

   OK, so we have established that the capacity to process people in Rwanda wasn't 200 people per year .

   The plan was to have an unlimited amount  of people being sent to Rwanda and NOT just 200 per year .

[Will B Good]

3 minutes ago, Nick Carter icp said:

 The plan was to have an unlimited amount  of people being sent to Rwanda and NOT just 200 per year .

 

That was just hogwash spewed out for those Tories considering switching to Reform....surely you must know it was never 'unlimited'?

[Nick Carter icp]

Just now, Will B Good said:

 

That was just hogwash spewed out for those Tories considering switching to Reform....surely you must know it was never 'unlimited'?

 

  What was the limit  then ?

[Will B Good]

1 minute ago, Nick Carter icp said:

 

  What was the limit  then ?

Not 'unlimited'....that's for sure....555

[Nick Carter icp]

1 minute ago, Will B Good said:

Not 'unlimited'....that's for sure....555

 

  So, what was the limit ?

[Will B Good]

5 minutes ago, Nick Carter icp said:

 

  So, what was the limit ?

I give in, you must right, so let's say.........100,000 a year.....oh wait! That can't be correct as it is unlimited....555

[Pickwick]

1 minute ago, Will B Good said:

 

That was just hogwash spewed out for those Tories considering switching to Reform....surely you must know it was never 'unlimited'?

Indeed. Although it's unsurprisingly difficult to get long term robust data, all of the evidence - including direct quotes from high-level Government ministers -  suggests a starting number of 200 each year over a 5 year period, often reported as 1000 over 5 years. The only confirmed target number as per contracts signed is for 2.200 detention places over an unspecified number of years (it's worded as a target, not a certainty). Given that both the Conservative Home Secretary and Deputy Prime Minister confirmed by direct quote that the numbers would be 'in the hundreds' and 'start very slow,' there is no timescale placed on that target.

 

Whether this would be over 10-11 years, or whether it would speed up after year 5 is unclear. What is very clear is that the number of 200 per year initially seems to correlate entirely with the quotes from the Home Office/Conservative government; whereas any talk of 'uncapped' is based on nothing but conjecture. I have provided ample sources and links in this thread to back that up.

 

Of course, the elephant in the room that some seem intent on avoiding is the cost. According to the Home Office, in writing, the cost of sending persons to Rwanda is more per person than the currently unacceptable situation of keeping them in hotels. It would seem apart from the logistical problems, we could not send higher (or unlimited numbers) due to the increased financial burden on the already strained finances.

 

 

[Will B Good]

Just now, Pickwick said:

Indeed. Although it's unsurprisingly difficult to get long term robust data, all of the evidence - including direct quotes from high-level Government ministers -  suggests a starting number of 200 each year over a 5 year period, often reported as 1000 over 5 years. The only confirmed target number as per contracts signed is for 2.200 detention places over an unspecified number of years (it's worded as a target, not a certainty). Given that both the Conservative Home Secretary and Deputy Prime Minister confirmed by direct quote that the numbers would be 'in the hundreds' and 'start very slow,' there is no timescale placed on that target.

 

Whether this would be over 10-11 years, or whether it would speed up after year 5 is unclear. What is very clear is that the number of 200 per year initially seems to correlate entirely with the quotes from the Home Office/Conservative government; whereas any talk of 'uncapped' is based on nothing but conjecture. I have provided ample sources and links in this thread to back that up.

 

Of course, the elephant in the room that some seem intent on avoiding is the cost. According to the Home Office, in writing, the cost of sending persons to Rwanda is more per person than the currently unacceptable situation of keeping them in hotels. It would seem apart from the logistical problems, we could not send higher (or unlimited numbers) due to the increased financial burden on the already strained finances.

 

 

 

Which clearly illustrates it was never anything more than a political stunt.......what a waste of time, money and effort.

[Nick Carter icp]

10 minutes ago, Will B Good said:

I give in, you must right, so let's say.........100,000 a year.....oh wait! That can't be correct as it is unlimited....555

 

  My point was that it wasn't limited to 200 per year and there were no limits imposed . 

[Nick Carter icp]

4 minutes ago, Will B Good said:

 

Which clearly illustrates it was never anything more than a political stunt.......what a waste of time, money and effort.

 

  It was a genuine attempt to stop illegal immigrants  sailing across the Channel to get to the UK , they would be discouraged from making the journey if they knew that they would be sent straight to Rwanda .

   How will Labour deal with the issue ?

[James105]

4 minutes ago, Pickwick said:

Of course, the elephant in the room that some seem intent on avoiding is the cost. According to the Home Office, in writing, the cost of sending persons to Rwanda is more per person than the currently unacceptable situation of keeping them in hotels. It would seem apart from the logistical problems, we could not send higher (or unlimited numbers) due to the increased financial burden on the already strained finances.

 

I think you have missed the point of the scheme.   It was a "deterrent".   In a parallel universe somewhere, where the democratically elected government was actually allowed to implement its policies, then migrants arriving illegally to the UK are transported directly to the airport on a flight to Rwanda.  For the first few months this was indeed expensive (in the parallel universe) but once word had spread that anyone arriving by small boat was not allowed to remain in the UK and were immediately sent to Rwanda then the migrants decided that spending £5-10K on a risky journey across the channel was not worth the effort and stopped coming.   So despite the initial exorbitant cost it became cheaper over time than not having a deterrent.  

[Nick Carter icp]

1 hour ago, Pickwick said:

 

 

Maybe you are just being obstinate; maybe you just want a fight; maybe you are a Russian stooge displaying a reasonable argument against democracy; maybe you are just bored  -

 

 

   I have asked you previously to stop the personal attacks .

 

[Nick Carter icp]

1 hour ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Yes, and I called you out at the time for accusing others of lying.

 

  Quick English lessons for you :

 

  "You are lying" is accusing someone of lying .

(Which I didnt say)

"You are either lying or you didn't read the link"

Isn't accusing someone of lying ' 

(Which I did say)

[Pickwick]

2 hours ago, James105 said:

 In a parallel universe somewhere, where the democratically elected government was actually allowed to implement its policies

 

I don't live in a parallel universe and the Supreme Court which ruled the government's plans unlawful is an important part of a functioning democracy. Unless your democracy does not include the rule of law.

 

That it would serve as a deterrent is speculation and to be perfectly honest there's little evidence based support. The Home Office itself (under the former Conservative Government) wrote in their 'Impact Assessment of the Illegal Migration Bill, 2023 (linked to previously):

 

'the consensus is that there is little to no evidence that changes to a country's policies have an impact on deterring people without valid permission' to travel.

 

I can quite understand the theory of the Rwanda plan and why it looks attractive to some on the surface. But ignoring the real issues, you then have to resort to writing about speculation and parallel universes. 

 

 

 

 

Edited July 14 by Pickwick
typo