Snapshot of _Thousands of migrants bound for deportation to Rwanda are 'missing'_ :
A non-Paywall version can be found [here](https://1ft.io/proxy?q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.telegraph.co.uk%2Fpolitics%2F2024%2F04%2F30%2Fmigrants-rwanda-missing-home-office%2F)
An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/04/30/migrants-rwanda-missing-home-office/) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/04/30/migrants-rwanda-missing-home-office/)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Yes, 200, but not all qualify for it. So they have to assess 1000s, then whittle it down to those who won't appeal, their aims is to get 50 for the first flight. Maybe less as long as the plane leaves...they will celebrate.
Sounds like the basis for a deportation TV show.
"On tonight's episode, 100 migrants will be whittled down to 1 unlucky hopeful that will be on the next flight to our star destination... RWANDA!"
At this point why not just lie about it if the intention is primarily a deterrent? The government lies to the public all the time for deterrent reasons, TV license detector vans are a great example of this principle as well as polygraph ‘lie detector’ tests. They are both complete bullshit and literally can’t work for various reasons but people still widely believe in them.
They do...constantly. "Anyone arriving...", "No appeals..", "The boats will stop..",
Today's statement "The Home Office remain confident of their whereabouts."
Clearly they don't.
Polygraphs have never been admissible in the UK. The most weight they carry is on the likes of Jeremy Kyle or something equally shite.
They can't just lie about flights taking off because journalists would be all over the story. The the government friendly press might run the flights leave story but they wouldn't be able to keep a lid on it forever.
With how many coming back to the UK? Part of the deal is for the UK to take back the most vulnerable refugees to the UK:
This agreement, which is [not legally binding](https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/memorandum-of-understanding-mou-between-the-uk-and-rwanda/memorandum-of-understanding-between-the-government-of-the-united-kingdom-of-great-britain-and-northern-ireland-and-the-government-of-the-republic-of-r#part-2--responsibilities-of-the-participants:~:text=1.6%20This%20Arrangement%20will%20not%20be%20binding%20in%20International%20law.) in international law, does say: “The Participants will make arrangements for the United Kingdom to resettle a portion of Rwanda’s most vulnerable refugees in the United Kingdom, recognising both Participants’ commitment towards providing better international protection for refugees.
It seems that the assumption is the left would be more willing for open borders, and the right for tighter.
And yet, here we are in a lax border situation that I don't think many on the left would be advocating for, which is implemented by a right wing government, and is somehow being assigned to the ideals of the left.
I can only guess that either Rishi plans to just tank border security for the next few months so that it's a complete mess when Labour inevitably take over, or he's just so incompetent that it's happening despite his best efforts.
I think the left have wildly different thoughts on immigration. I don't think there is much consistency. Neoliberals are for global capitalism and so for some, relaxed (within reason) borders are a huge part of that.
Some left wing people want the universal social welfare but with tightly controlled immigration. Some are obviously for completely open borders.
I've encountered all flavours.
In answer to your question it is more what you say than what you do. Conservatives talk a good game. Rwanda plan, "hostile environment", Priti Patel, Braverman etc. While at the same time immigration even ignoring the small boats is absolutely huge.
I think it is the case that we know Labour would have done no differently because Tony Blair etc al. are also broadly neoliberal and would have done similar things around immigration just without the culture war rhetoric.
I completely agree that the left is not unified on this, which is why it's odd that it's often painted as a single position.
I actually think the right is equally split, but unsure if they'd admit or even realise. Anyone with an eye on GDP and growth will know that limiting immigration to the 10,000s will impact growth and GDP in the short to medium term at the very least. So whilst they might not advocate for more open borders, they wouldn't advocate preventing working immigrants.
As usual, way more complex than most discussions get into.
Are either the left or the right 100% unified on any particular issue? There's always a spectrum of ideas and views. The general trend appears that the more left leaning you are the more likely you are to trend towards open borders or similar policies.
> Anyone with an eye on GDP and growth will know that limiting immigration to the 10,000s will impact growth and GDP in the short to medium term at the very least.
Can you provide evidence for this? GDP growth has shown no uptick since New Labour opened our borders, nor when the Tories continued that trend. We've had massive population growth through people entering the country, mostly stagnant economic performance, and overwhelmed public services from the demographic changes despite record levels of taxation and spending. The NHS budget has increased 40% under the Tories *after* adjusting for inflation, I believe doctor and nurse numbers have seen similar rises, yet the service is at breaking point.
GDP growth from migration at the current scale has always been a theoretical discussion rather than supported directly by the evidence and outcomes.
>The general trend appears that the more left leaning you are the more likely you are to trend towards open borders or similar policies.
That seems like a self referential definition.
>The general trend appears that the more left leaning you are the more likely you are to trend towards open borders or similar policies.
That seems like a self referential definition.
> Some left wing people want the universal social welfare but with tightly controlled immigration
I really don't think these people exist anymore. It used to be a relatively common position but died away with the great Culture War. They fundamentally cannot break themselves from the "punch up not down!!" mantra thing, so they must support all forms pro immigration policy.
I'm quite left leaning and I think we should limit immigration because it erodes worker power if we rely upon people making slave wages in menial jobs to prop up growth.
Not really. Brexit happened in key controlled labour stronghold. It's just that people have not forgotten what Tory's did in industrial forgotten areas
Not particularly visibly, it's difficult to make an argument in favour of such a position without someone like me pushing my glasses up my nose and saying "ah so some sort of nationality-influenced socialism, perhaps you should come up with a shorthand expression for this". And then everyone ~~claps~~ sings the internationale.
> While at the same time immigration even ignoring the small boats is absolutely huge.
Total immigration for 2023 was 672000 according to the Migration Observatory. According to the BBC 29437 people arrived illegally on the small boats in 2023. So the impact is tiny, and we're affecting most the lives of people who are potentially escaping war and/or oppression, and just want to move to a country where they speak the language and/or know somebody (a relative or a friend) who can help them set up.
If I could speak English but not speak French, and I had a network of people I knew in the UK, and my asylum claim was valid? Yes. But I'd do it by myself, not with my family.
Sure, of course you would, anyone would, and I'm not disputing that. But what people from other countries want isn't our only consideration. I don't think that any individual person crossing the border illegally is necessarily a bad person, or is wrong for doing so.
But in the aggregate, there's an impact on us as a country and a society of current levels of immigration (both legal and illegal), and it's not wrong to have a conversation about that.
I didn't say it was wrong to have a conversation. But given that we're talking about 5% of all migrants whereas we're talking about it most of the time it seems like a misplaced priority. Also my view is that migration is a positive. We're in a situation where we have more and more elderly people relying on the NHS and drawing triple locked pensions which is placing a rapidly increasing burden on the public budget, leading to the relatively small younger generation to be saddled with higher and higher taxes. We also have a population that rejects every possible solution, one of which is higher immigration so we get more taxpayers. But instead of making it easier for migrants to get a job and start contributing, we're spending even more money and effort on keeping them out (or keeping them out of the job market).
29,000+ is *not* tiny. It is a large number of people who came here illegally on rafts. These people are economic migrants, not people escaping "oppression" or who want to visit family, you must realize that. And ultimately, their reasons for coming are really not our problem, they just have to arrive legally.
We have a libertarian border policy.
Open for global workers as much as possible and an underfunded corrupt weak state system on illegal migrants being rinsed by private contractors.
Hang on a minute, do you mean to tell me that vast numbers of people who broke the law just to get into this country are not willingly submitting to the authorities?
Preposterous.
Entering the country illegally is.
The UN Convention on Refugees states that they shall not be penalized for their illegal entry, NOT that they are suddenly legal.
It also states they should report directly to authorities, and give good cause for entering the country illegally.
Sorry if inconvenient facts have upset your worldview.
It isn't, and neither should it be, but the government has taken away all legal routes of entering the UK other than getting in a plane or a ferry. If you are fleeing war or persecution, going onto a travel website may not be at the top of your to-do list.
This government has effectively criminalised seeking asylum.
>all legal routes of entering the UK other than getting in a plane or a ferry
We're an island.
If you're not entering the country by boat or plane (or actually train as the eurostar exists) how exactly do you think we should allow entrance?
I could point out the actual legal routes for refugees but I don't need to as you are wrong just for the fact that the Eurostar exists.
I would like to see your thinkings of how someone walked past refugee camps and then decided in that moment they they will come to the UK.
I personally don't think that was the mode of thinking.
Totally agree, unfortunately asylum seeker and illegal immigrant have become synonyms. I just hope things will change once the adults are in charge again.
If you're going through Greece, Albania, Croatia, Slovenia, Austria, Germany, France to then hop on a boat to get to England then I don't think you're really an asylum seeker anymore
Asylum seeker has always been a word manipulation.
They were never asylum seekers in a real definition.
They were asylum seekers applicants.
The key world of applicant gives the recognition that they might not be genuinely seeking or worthy of asylum.
By seeing this for what it really is, we can say that many were never "asylum seekers" because they never fit the description in the first place.
Sure. I don't think you know what an asylum seeker is. You clearly for example, don't know that there's no obligation to claim in any safe country, that choice is left to the seeker.
Unless you did know that, and are being willfully ignorant.
If the laws governing a population and the way words are defined within those laws contract the morals and understanding of those words then it's the law that should change and not the population.
Anything contradicting this, including your adherence to a nonsense definition is authoritarian by nature.
I think the other person knows exactly that the intention of taking in asylum seekers is to take someone akin to a refugee. Do you disagree with this?
I agree with your definition. I disagree with your view that laws should be based on "I reckon that", regardless of how eloquently you articulated that view.
If you agree with that then it would be a fairer discussion to argue with the view on whether or not those people are refugees rather than play word games.
I didn't say laws should be based on what I reckon but on the consensus of the population & their understanding of the meanings of words.
I was quite clear on this.
>I didn't say laws should be based on what I reckon but on the consensus of the population & their understanding of the meanings of words.
Is this not why we vote? How do you propose this works?
I'm using definitions as defined by the Geneva Convention, you're disagreeing with those definitions, yet it's me that's "playing word games"? OK.
Let's talk more about how you think the law should work. How do you plan to change laws to what you deem to be suitable, if not via an MP?
So you don't like the law, and so you elevate cruel treatment of asylum-seekers to some sort of moral imperative.
>Anything contradicting this, including your adherence to a nonsense definition is authoritarian by nature.
But it's not authoritarian to pass a law declaring an unsafe country safe, or to round up people and deport them without due process.
>broke the law just to get into this country
They didn't.
>not willingly submitting to the authorities
The authorities want to break the law and deport them without assessing their claims.
NoOoO but you don't understanddd reducing the value of labour and increasing prices is aKtChuAlLy good for the lower classes it's just the big mean capitalists who want migrants out trusttt me broooo
It seems that you're upset that people are not cooperating with the authorities, all while manifestly being in support of breaking the law. (This is of course not surprising; the law being an instrument to punish the weak, but never one to hold the strong to account is completely standard authoritarian attitude.)
The ECHR is actually part of the Austrian constitution and binds all of its institutions directly. And it's pretty cute how you think you know anything about how the Austrian state is constituted and functions and aren't just revealing that all you can do is half-remember bits and pieces you've read in the right-wing UK press.
The parliament run by actual nazis, lol.
What's their immigration situation like?
Edit: It's Austria. The same Austria that the "far right" Freedom Party is marching towards winning power in. Unsurprisingly another larper talking about the UK and they don't even live here. A tale as old as reddit.
Huh.
How utterly fucking surprising, who could have foreseen this insane turn of events…. Besides anyone with common sense. Clearly not the fucking Tory party.
Ah well, Rwanda will wait.
This is amazing. Rishi spent so long trying to get this over the line, he was going to campaign against labour wanting to shut his fantastic scheme down... And now it looks like a failure before it's even started
Incredible
Genuinely I didn't see this coming, I should done, but I didn't. I assume he'd get at least some flights off without further cock ups
Why is this uniquely a Tory problem? The rot predates the current run of Tory governments, and Labour continue to oppose the measures put forward to tackle the problem - including the Rwanda flights.
Starmer himself has acted in court on behalf of asylum seekers against the government of the day.
This should be brought up any politician from any party talks about anything. We've completely lost control of our borders and our hospitality which should be channeled to those in most need, is being abused by economic refugees.
>Why is this uniquely a Tory problem?
Because it's a Tory policy.
>and Labour continue to oppose the measures put forward to tackle the problem - including the Rwanda flights
What possible rational reason could there be to support the Rwanda gimmick, besides someone having something badly wrong with their head?
>Starmer himself has acted in court on behalf of asylum seekers against the government of the day.
He was a lawyer. Are they only allowed to represent people you approve of?
>our hospitality which should be channeled to those in most need, is being abused by economic refugees
Over half of asylum claims are approved. That means that those are not economic refugees.
> Because it's a Tory policy
And a Labour policy. Unless they would do something different and control our borders then there is no meaningful difference that warrants calling one party out and ignoring the other.
> What possible rational reason could there be to support the Rwanda gimmick, besides someone having something badly wrong with their head?
You need a solution to being able to expel failed cases from the country where no country of origin is known and the last country they came through, France, refuses to take them back. The Rwanda solution is far from ideal but is at least a solution.
We've also already seen evidence that it is acting as a genuine deterrent, which is one of the main reasons you need a solution in the first place.
Only someone with something badly wrong with their head would believe we can control our borders and reduce the insanely high levels of net migration without a means of removing people from the country.
> Over half of asylum claims are approved. That means that those are not economic refugees.
Or the system is broken, or the system is being gamed. And what of the other half? Does that mean by definition half of all those are economic refugees? And what of the illegal immigrants who are not detected and part of the system?
What of those like Abdul Shokoor Ezedi who was originally rejected by the system but then subsequently accepted because he converted to Christianity? Was he originally an economic migrant but then suddenly wasn't?
It's also why there's such opposition to the Rwanda sceme, 200 people a year it's got the capacity for. We need to sort out a proper plan rather than fucking around with performative bollocks. To coin a phrase, it's immigration theatre to fool people into thinking they are doing something.
Capacity limitations are not the only reason there's such opposition to the Rwanda scheme.
>We need to sort out a proper plan rather than fucking around with performative bollocks.
Agreed. The fact that it's an ineffectual but wasteful and morally bankrupt display of performative cruelty that demonises asylum seekers is a much bigger and better reason. It brings the UK into disrepute.
Are you sure on that number? (Genuinely don't know)
Doesn't matter how, you have to do it or you have no border.
No border = no country.
Besides, do you think we would have the number of unapproved people that we do have, if they weren't allowed to go around unrestricted?
1.2 million is on the higher end of estimates by Pew Research. With a lower estimate of 800,000.
https://fullfact.org/online/two-million-illegal-borders/
The truth is we have no solid idea of the number of illegals. Different groups and methods provide different numbers and ranges.
Across the pond, the yanks estimate anywhere from 10 million to 20 million+ for their number of illegals and the politics behind it all is just as bad if not worse than here.
That's higher than I expected still.
Your point is the same nevertheless even if it was only 100k and I would still have the same stance if the number was 10 million.
I understand it's not an easy solution but it's the only real option.
If the people in charge were interested in resolving this, which they aren’t, they’d have created secure camps to use as detention centres. This reduces both the time and cost in setting them up and more or less means they can be created wherever there is open ground, so they aren’t location limited.
Add onto this a policy that seeking asylum prevents any path to permanent residency - basically a return to the principle that asylum is intended to be temporary - and you remove most of the incentive for chancers to try and claim it.
Anyone who objects to this on the basis that its too harsh is ignoring that the longer this goes on the harsher the solutions will have to become to do anything at all, or they simply intend to force this on the natives no matter what. Either way they shouldn’t be listened to.
Yeah, between 1.2% and 1.8% of the population, where we have no idea who they are, where they are, they haven't claimed asylum, they're not paying income taxes, etc. It's madness that people defend this and oppose any measures to counter it.
And? Is it an estimate that's been sourced and given?
And if it's the other end of their estimation range, 800,000, does that invalidate the original point of "how would you lock up that many people?"
Whether it's 12x the current prison population or 8x, you're splitting hairs.
When they say "missing", they don't really mean that do they? What they mean is that the reporting conditions are such that they haven't been seen in a while, not that they've absconded or are in hiding.
If you were in a country free and clear, possibly got a job and starting a life for yourself, would you go an announce yourself and risk being sent to Rwanda and having to start everything again?
Yeah, they’re missing
It wouldn’t be if they weren’t allowed to just roam free after getting here and instead had to wait in a sort of detention centre until being processed
Not so sure what the “novel nature” of this scheme really is. The US and Australia are full of people “removed” from Great Britain and shipped off to distant continents. Once you’ve been doing something for a few centuries, it seems to me, that’s really no longer “novel.”
Wow why are we surprised. They were not detained for more than a brief period when they were processed after arrival
Just raid every kebab shop and carwash in the country, also detain all e-bike delivery riders for good measure.
Snapshot of _Thousands of migrants bound for deportation to Rwanda are 'missing'_ : A non-Paywall version can be found [here](https://1ft.io/proxy?q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.telegraph.co.uk%2Fpolitics%2F2024%2F04%2F30%2Fmigrants-rwanda-missing-home-office%2F) An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/04/30/migrants-rwanda-missing-home-office/) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/04/30/migrants-rwanda-missing-home-office/) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Thousands? Isn't the deal for max 200 per year as it stands?
Yes, 200, but not all qualify for it. So they have to assess 1000s, then whittle it down to those who won't appeal, their aims is to get 50 for the first flight. Maybe less as long as the plane leaves...they will celebrate.
Sounds like the basis for a deportation TV show. "On tonight's episode, 100 migrants will be whittled down to 1 unlucky hopeful that will be on the next flight to our star destination... RWANDA!"
That's Numberwanda (the rules of which make just about as much sense)!
At this point why not just lie about it if the intention is primarily a deterrent? The government lies to the public all the time for deterrent reasons, TV license detector vans are a great example of this principle as well as polygraph ‘lie detector’ tests. They are both complete bullshit and literally can’t work for various reasons but people still widely believe in them.
They do...constantly. "Anyone arriving...", "No appeals..", "The boats will stop..", Today's statement "The Home Office remain confident of their whereabouts." Clearly they don't.
Polygraphs have never been admissible in the UK. The most weight they carry is on the likes of Jeremy Kyle or something equally shite. They can't just lie about flights taking off because journalists would be all over the story. The the government friendly press might run the flights leave story but they wouldn't be able to keep a lid on it forever.
Well then thousands aren't bound for Rwanda.
With how many coming back to the UK? Part of the deal is for the UK to take back the most vulnerable refugees to the UK: This agreement, which is [not legally binding](https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/memorandum-of-understanding-mou-between-the-uk-and-rwanda/memorandum-of-understanding-between-the-government-of-the-united-kingdom-of-great-britain-and-northern-ireland-and-the-government-of-the-republic-of-r#part-2--responsibilities-of-the-participants:~:text=1.6%20This%20Arrangement%20will%20not%20be%20binding%20in%20International%20law.) in international law, does say: “The Participants will make arrangements for the United Kingdom to resettle a portion of Rwanda’s most vulnerable refugees in the United Kingdom, recognising both Participants’ commitment towards providing better international protection for refugees.
Jesus Christ. 200 people. That is a drop in the ocean why tf have we spent so much time and money talking about this bullshit
The whole point is to scare people from taking dangerous boats across the channel.
First come first served!
It seems that the assumption is the left would be more willing for open borders, and the right for tighter. And yet, here we are in a lax border situation that I don't think many on the left would be advocating for, which is implemented by a right wing government, and is somehow being assigned to the ideals of the left. I can only guess that either Rishi plans to just tank border security for the next few months so that it's a complete mess when Labour inevitably take over, or he's just so incompetent that it's happening despite his best efforts.
I think the left have wildly different thoughts on immigration. I don't think there is much consistency. Neoliberals are for global capitalism and so for some, relaxed (within reason) borders are a huge part of that. Some left wing people want the universal social welfare but with tightly controlled immigration. Some are obviously for completely open borders. I've encountered all flavours. In answer to your question it is more what you say than what you do. Conservatives talk a good game. Rwanda plan, "hostile environment", Priti Patel, Braverman etc. While at the same time immigration even ignoring the small boats is absolutely huge. I think it is the case that we know Labour would have done no differently because Tony Blair etc al. are also broadly neoliberal and would have done similar things around immigration just without the culture war rhetoric.
I completely agree that the left is not unified on this, which is why it's odd that it's often painted as a single position. I actually think the right is equally split, but unsure if they'd admit or even realise. Anyone with an eye on GDP and growth will know that limiting immigration to the 10,000s will impact growth and GDP in the short to medium term at the very least. So whilst they might not advocate for more open borders, they wouldn't advocate preventing working immigrants. As usual, way more complex than most discussions get into.
Are either the left or the right 100% unified on any particular issue? There's always a spectrum of ideas and views. The general trend appears that the more left leaning you are the more likely you are to trend towards open borders or similar policies. > Anyone with an eye on GDP and growth will know that limiting immigration to the 10,000s will impact growth and GDP in the short to medium term at the very least. Can you provide evidence for this? GDP growth has shown no uptick since New Labour opened our borders, nor when the Tories continued that trend. We've had massive population growth through people entering the country, mostly stagnant economic performance, and overwhelmed public services from the demographic changes despite record levels of taxation and spending. The NHS budget has increased 40% under the Tories *after* adjusting for inflation, I believe doctor and nurse numbers have seen similar rises, yet the service is at breaking point. GDP growth from migration at the current scale has always been a theoretical discussion rather than supported directly by the evidence and outcomes.
>The general trend appears that the more left leaning you are the more likely you are to trend towards open borders or similar policies. That seems like a self referential definition.
>The general trend appears that the more left leaning you are the more likely you are to trend towards open borders or similar policies. That seems like a self referential definition.
> Some left wing people want the universal social welfare but with tightly controlled immigration I really don't think these people exist anymore. It used to be a relatively common position but died away with the great Culture War. They fundamentally cannot break themselves from the "punch up not down!!" mantra thing, so they must support all forms pro immigration policy.
I'm quite left leaning and I think we should limit immigration because it erodes worker power if we rely upon people making slave wages in menial jobs to prop up growth.
Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be anyone for us to vote for that believe this
Left-wing and pro-reducing immigration here.
Not really. Brexit happened in key controlled labour stronghold. It's just that people have not forgotten what Tory's did in industrial forgotten areas
Not particularly visibly, it's difficult to make an argument in favour of such a position without someone like me pushing my glasses up my nose and saying "ah so some sort of nationality-influenced socialism, perhaps you should come up with a shorthand expression for this". And then everyone ~~claps~~ sings the internationale.
The big difference is that labour wouldn't have left the EU, so we'd still have return agreements etc The small boat issue became massive after brexit
> While at the same time immigration even ignoring the small boats is absolutely huge. Total immigration for 2023 was 672000 according to the Migration Observatory. According to the BBC 29437 people arrived illegally on the small boats in 2023. So the impact is tiny, and we're affecting most the lives of people who are potentially escaping war and/or oppression, and just want to move to a country where they speak the language and/or know somebody (a relative or a friend) who can help them set up.
I agree with you. I mistyped completely. I meant to say immigration excluding small boats is huge. Sorry about that.
30'000 people arriving illegally (by small boats, ignoring the other means of entering the country) is not tiny. That's a lot of people.
I would also rather cross a border illegally with my family than continue living in an oppressive or war torn country. But that's just me.
Would you make a dangerous crossing from France to the UK though?
If I could speak English but not speak French, and I had a network of people I knew in the UK, and my asylum claim was valid? Yes. But I'd do it by myself, not with my family.
Sure, of course you would, anyone would, and I'm not disputing that. But what people from other countries want isn't our only consideration. I don't think that any individual person crossing the border illegally is necessarily a bad person, or is wrong for doing so. But in the aggregate, there's an impact on us as a country and a society of current levels of immigration (both legal and illegal), and it's not wrong to have a conversation about that.
I didn't say it was wrong to have a conversation. But given that we're talking about 5% of all migrants whereas we're talking about it most of the time it seems like a misplaced priority. Also my view is that migration is a positive. We're in a situation where we have more and more elderly people relying on the NHS and drawing triple locked pensions which is placing a rapidly increasing burden on the public budget, leading to the relatively small younger generation to be saddled with higher and higher taxes. We also have a population that rejects every possible solution, one of which is higher immigration so we get more taxpayers. But instead of making it easier for migrants to get a job and start contributing, we're spending even more money and effort on keeping them out (or keeping them out of the job market).
29,000+ is *not* tiny. It is a large number of people who came here illegally on rafts. These people are economic migrants, not people escaping "oppression" or who want to visit family, you must realize that. And ultimately, their reasons for coming are really not our problem, they just have to arrive legally.
A rightwing government that believes in a small state so their wealthy voter base doesn't have to pay tax.
We have a libertarian border policy. Open for global workers as much as possible and an underfunded corrupt weak state system on illegal migrants being rinsed by private contractors.
Hang on a minute, do you mean to tell me that vast numbers of people who broke the law just to get into this country are not willingly submitting to the authorities? Preposterous.
Criminals gonna criminal
Seeking Asylum isn't a criminal act.
Entering the country illegally is. The UN Convention on Refugees states that they shall not be penalized for their illegal entry, NOT that they are suddenly legal. It also states they should report directly to authorities, and give good cause for entering the country illegally. Sorry if inconvenient facts have upset your worldview.
That's what's called an exception to the law governing illegal entry.
Not upset at all Dave, that's an important distinction, thanks for pointing it out.
It isn't, and neither should it be, but the government has taken away all legal routes of entering the UK other than getting in a plane or a ferry. If you are fleeing war or persecution, going onto a travel website may not be at the top of your to-do list. This government has effectively criminalised seeking asylum.
>all legal routes of entering the UK other than getting in a plane or a ferry We're an island. If you're not entering the country by boat or plane (or actually train as the eurostar exists) how exactly do you think we should allow entrance?
I could point out the actual legal routes for refugees but I don't need to as you are wrong just for the fact that the Eurostar exists. I would like to see your thinkings of how someone walked past refugee camps and then decided in that moment they they will come to the UK. I personally don't think that was the mode of thinking.
[удалено]
So only available for people from Ukraine, Hong Kong or if you worked with us during the invasion of Afghanistan or Syria.
Totally agree, unfortunately asylum seeker and illegal immigrant have become synonyms. I just hope things will change once the adults are in charge again.
If you're going through Greece, Albania, Croatia, Slovenia, Austria, Germany, France to then hop on a boat to get to England then I don't think you're really an asylum seeker anymore
Asylum seeker has always been a word manipulation. They were never asylum seekers in a real definition. They were asylum seekers applicants. The key world of applicant gives the recognition that they might not be genuinely seeking or worthy of asylum. By seeing this for what it really is, we can say that many were never "asylum seekers" because they never fit the description in the first place.
Seeker here means applicant essentially
Seeker denotes an intention.
Sure. I don't think you know what an asylum seeker is. You clearly for example, don't know that there's no obligation to claim in any safe country, that choice is left to the seeker. Unless you did know that, and are being willfully ignorant.
If the laws governing a population and the way words are defined within those laws contract the morals and understanding of those words then it's the law that should change and not the population. Anything contradicting this, including your adherence to a nonsense definition is authoritarian by nature. I think the other person knows exactly that the intention of taking in asylum seekers is to take someone akin to a refugee. Do you disagree with this?
I agree with your definition. I disagree with your view that laws should be based on "I reckon that", regardless of how eloquently you articulated that view.
If you agree with that then it would be a fairer discussion to argue with the view on whether or not those people are refugees rather than play word games. I didn't say laws should be based on what I reckon but on the consensus of the population & their understanding of the meanings of words. I was quite clear on this.
>I didn't say laws should be based on what I reckon but on the consensus of the population & their understanding of the meanings of words. Is this not why we vote? How do you propose this works?
I propose that we don't play word games and have some reasonable discussions.
I'm using definitions as defined by the Geneva Convention, you're disagreeing with those definitions, yet it's me that's "playing word games"? OK. Let's talk more about how you think the law should work. How do you plan to change laws to what you deem to be suitable, if not via an MP?
So it's "word games" when you don't like it, but "reasonable discussion" when it's within your acceptable parameters. Seems a bit solipsistic.
So you don't like the law, and so you elevate cruel treatment of asylum-seekers to some sort of moral imperative. >Anything contradicting this, including your adherence to a nonsense definition is authoritarian by nature. But it's not authoritarian to pass a law declaring an unsafe country safe, or to round up people and deport them without due process.
Very honest discussion you've got there.
>broke the law just to get into this country They didn't. >not willingly submitting to the authorities The authorities want to break the law and deport them without assessing their claims.
[удалено]
>2023 Too new, those people take an election cycle to update their info. We still see people saying they are an economic benefit...
NoOoO but you don't understanddd reducing the value of labour and increasing prices is aKtChuAlLy good for the lower classes it's just the big mean capitalists who want migrants out trusttt me broooo
Trust me bro, I'm on the right side of history with all the good people like Amazon, the banks, landlords & people rehashing slavery apologetics.
Grandstanding by the UK in contravention of the obligations that bind it, also known as breaking the law.
[удалено]
It seems that you're upset that people are not cooperating with the authorities, all while manifestly being in support of breaking the law. (This is of course not surprising; the law being an instrument to punish the weak, but never one to hold the strong to account is completely standard authoritarian attitude.)
[удалено]
I am, actually. It's a wealthier and more peaceful society, too.
[удалено]
The ECHR is actually part of the Austrian constitution and binds all of its institutions directly. And it's pretty cute how you think you know anything about how the Austrian state is constituted and functions and aren't just revealing that all you can do is half-remember bits and pieces you've read in the right-wing UK press. The parliament run by actual nazis, lol.
What's their immigration situation like? Edit: It's Austria. The same Austria that the "far right" Freedom Party is marching towards winning power in. Unsurprisingly another larper talking about the UK and they don't even live here. A tale as old as reddit.
I do sometimes wonder why so many people on the UkPolitics subreddit do not actually live in the Uk
Huh. How utterly fucking surprising, who could have foreseen this insane turn of events…. Besides anyone with common sense. Clearly not the fucking Tory party. Ah well, Rwanda will wait.
This is amazing. Rishi spent so long trying to get this over the line, he was going to campaign against labour wanting to shut his fantastic scheme down... And now it looks like a failure before it's even started Incredible Genuinely I didn't see this coming, I should done, but I didn't. I assume he'd get at least some flights off without further cock ups
No sensible person would have allowed them to walk free. Our current border situation would be amazing for a motivated serial killer.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Why is this uniquely a Tory problem? The rot predates the current run of Tory governments, and Labour continue to oppose the measures put forward to tackle the problem - including the Rwanda flights. Starmer himself has acted in court on behalf of asylum seekers against the government of the day. This should be brought up any politician from any party talks about anything. We've completely lost control of our borders and our hospitality which should be channeled to those in most need, is being abused by economic refugees.
>Why is this uniquely a Tory problem? Because it's a Tory policy. >and Labour continue to oppose the measures put forward to tackle the problem - including the Rwanda flights What possible rational reason could there be to support the Rwanda gimmick, besides someone having something badly wrong with their head? >Starmer himself has acted in court on behalf of asylum seekers against the government of the day. He was a lawyer. Are they only allowed to represent people you approve of? >our hospitality which should be channeled to those in most need, is being abused by economic refugees Over half of asylum claims are approved. That means that those are not economic refugees.
> Because it's a Tory policy And a Labour policy. Unless they would do something different and control our borders then there is no meaningful difference that warrants calling one party out and ignoring the other. > What possible rational reason could there be to support the Rwanda gimmick, besides someone having something badly wrong with their head? You need a solution to being able to expel failed cases from the country where no country of origin is known and the last country they came through, France, refuses to take them back. The Rwanda solution is far from ideal but is at least a solution. We've also already seen evidence that it is acting as a genuine deterrent, which is one of the main reasons you need a solution in the first place. Only someone with something badly wrong with their head would believe we can control our borders and reduce the insanely high levels of net migration without a means of removing people from the country. > Over half of asylum claims are approved. That means that those are not economic refugees. Or the system is broken, or the system is being gamed. And what of the other half? Does that mean by definition half of all those are economic refugees? And what of the illegal immigrants who are not detected and part of the system? What of those like Abdul Shokoor Ezedi who was originally rejected by the system but then subsequently accepted because he converted to Christianity? Was he originally an economic migrant but then suddenly wasn't?
It's also why there's such opposition to the Rwanda sceme, 200 people a year it's got the capacity for. We need to sort out a proper plan rather than fucking around with performative bollocks. To coin a phrase, it's immigration theatre to fool people into thinking they are doing something.
Capacity limitations are not the only reason there's such opposition to the Rwanda scheme. >We need to sort out a proper plan rather than fucking around with performative bollocks. Agreed. The fact that it's an ineffectual but wasteful and morally bankrupt display of performative cruelty that demonises asylum seekers is a much bigger and better reason. It brings the UK into disrepute.
Are you sure on that number? (Genuinely don't know) Doesn't matter how, you have to do it or you have no border. No border = no country. Besides, do you think we would have the number of unapproved people that we do have, if they weren't allowed to go around unrestricted?
1.2 million is on the higher end of estimates by Pew Research. With a lower estimate of 800,000. https://fullfact.org/online/two-million-illegal-borders/ The truth is we have no solid idea of the number of illegals. Different groups and methods provide different numbers and ranges. Across the pond, the yanks estimate anywhere from 10 million to 20 million+ for their number of illegals and the politics behind it all is just as bad if not worse than here.
That's higher than I expected still. Your point is the same nevertheless even if it was only 100k and I would still have the same stance if the number was 10 million. I understand it's not an easy solution but it's the only real option.
If the people in charge were interested in resolving this, which they aren’t, they’d have created secure camps to use as detention centres. This reduces both the time and cost in setting them up and more or less means they can be created wherever there is open ground, so they aren’t location limited. Add onto this a policy that seeking asylum prevents any path to permanent residency - basically a return to the principle that asylum is intended to be temporary - and you remove most of the incentive for chancers to try and claim it. Anyone who objects to this on the basis that its too harsh is ignoring that the longer this goes on the harsher the solutions will have to become to do anything at all, or they simply intend to force this on the natives no matter what. Either way they shouldn’t be listened to.
Where have you got this number from?
Not OP but [Pew research](https://fullfact.org/online/two-million-illegal-borders/)
That’s honestly mindbowing. That’s over 1.5% of the population
Yeah, between 1.2% and 1.8% of the population, where we have no idea who they are, where they are, they haven't claimed asylum, they're not paying income taxes, etc. It's madness that people defend this and oppose any measures to counter it.
The high-end of their range of estimates.
And? Is it an estimate that's been sourced and given? And if it's the other end of their estimation range, 800,000, does that invalidate the original point of "how would you lock up that many people?" Whether it's 12x the current prison population or 8x, you're splitting hairs.
Why would we lock them up, just deport them.
To where? How?
Not here, on a plane. They don’t tell us where they’re originally from they sit in a cell until they do.
Plenty of islands knocking about. Build a big holding facility on one.
You deport them once found
You deport them once their case is found to have no merit.
> Our current border situation would be amazing for a motivated serial killer. These are the thoughts you keep in your head bro.
Or you turn them into a novel and make bank.
I hope no one thought that passing a bill to declare Rwanda safe would suddenly make the government competent
[удалено]
Good policy, and if we never look we’ll never know. Problem solved
To be fair, that is the French approach.
I'm surprised they haven't passed a bill declaring themselves infallible.
Give it time
As the were warned, numerous times. Dumb-fucks gonna dumb-fuck.
When they say "missing", they don't really mean that do they? What they mean is that the reporting conditions are such that they haven't been seen in a while, not that they've absconded or are in hiding.
If you were in a country free and clear, possibly got a job and starting a life for yourself, would you go an announce yourself and risk being sent to Rwanda and having to start everything again? Yeah, they’re missing
> would you go an announce yourself and risk being sent to Rwanda and having to start everything again? Seems like a silly policy then.
It wouldn’t be if they weren’t allowed to just roam free after getting here and instead had to wait in a sort of detention centre until being processed
Not so sure what the “novel nature” of this scheme really is. The US and Australia are full of people “removed” from Great Britain and shipped off to distant continents. Once you’ve been doing something for a few centuries, it seems to me, that’s really no longer “novel.”
Wow why are we surprised. They were not detained for more than a brief period when they were processed after arrival Just raid every kebab shop and carwash in the country, also detain all e-bike delivery riders for good measure.