5 ms·

Almost none of what you are saying is accurate. The reason it "cost" so much is because it was never used. You have confused stack with a flow. Basic error. In

Almost none of what you are saying is accurate. The reason it "cost" so much is because it was never used. You have confused stack with a flow. Basic error. In addition, the expectation was that it would be a deterrent because people are coming here primarily for economic reasons. The reason the government believed this to be the case is because the same thing has been tried in other countries and worked, Australia did this and now (in a turn of events that will presumably shock you) people are complaining that the cost of the deterrent is too large...because no-one tries to get there by boat anymore. We have to find temporary accommodation anyway. Rwanda changed absolutely nothing about that policy, I am not sure how anyone could think otherwise. It is enshrined in our law functionally: if someone comes here illegally, we have to house them in a hotel and then we have to provide them with a council house if their claim is successful. One of the bills, theoretically, created the legal basis to detain anyone who comes to the UK by irregular means. However, and despite the usual noisy crowd saying it was the end of democracy, there is no functional capacity within the Home Office to effectuate this...quite simply, there is isn't the administrative capacity (or, with Labour, the political will). This power exists and is completely unused. We are also unable to return people which makes indefinite detention of 300-400k people at a minimum challenging. But this act is used to detain some illegal migrants in prison in some cases. Usually this is terrorism-related but, I believe, this has also been used in the many cases of sexual assault. It was not illegal to process claims whilst the Rwanda scheme was running. One, it was never started, it was due to start after the last election if the Tories ran. Two, it did not change the status of people arriving, the Tories put substantial resources into the Home Office to reduce the backlog (one of the issues here is productivity because so many claims are accepted and there is a large industry dedicated to helping claimants, average processing time is 14 days...it is very slow). Labour policy is to create a wedge because, to be frank, reducing immigration is devastating for a party that relies so heavily on voters who feel a kinship with the vast majority of illegal migrants. In some areas, Labour majority is almost all this demographic, and almost all illegal migrants make up this same demographic. We are speeding down the path to balkanization, this happened under the last Labour government and has happened under this one. There is a long historical record here of this happening in other countries that people are determined to ignore. One of the reasons why Labour went for student visas immediately, in addition to the massive level of fraud, is because people from these countries do not vote for Labour in the UK. Leaving Pakistan off the list, when it is a country that also does not accept returns and has huge number of fraudulent student visa was very obvious (and btw, some UK unis no longer accept students from Pakistant because of the fraud...this is exceptional). That is the wedge.

KaiserPro 5mo ago
> Basic error. In addition, the expectation was that it would be a deterrent because people are coming here primarily for economic reasons. You cannot get asylum on economic grounds. > Australia did this And it didn't work. They spent $12 billion(aussie dollars) on ~4000 people. which is a pointless waste of cash, even more so when they had to evacuate those granted asylum back to aus because they were so badly looked after. > We have to find temporary accommodation anyway. Rwanda changed absolutely nothing about that policy, Correct, but temporary accommodation is >>£ than normal accommodation. If you can't progress a claim because the destination is blocked, then you need more temporary accommodation. The crucial thing is, when your claim is processing, you can't work, which means we have to pay for everything. Once the claim is processed and they have asylum, they can work, which means we don't need to pay anywhere near as much to look after them. > But this act is used to detain some illegal migrants in prison in some cases. Usually this is terrorism-related but, I believe, this has also been used in the many cases of sexual assault. No this is just the law. anyone who commits those acts are meant to be in jail, because it's illegal. thats how the law works. > detain anyone who comes to the UK by irregular means. What the bill actually does is make it almost impossible to claim asylum in a catch 22 style. Basically if you come here any any means, with the intention of claiming asylum, it invalidates any visa you may have. This means your entry in the UK was illegal. So there are no legal routes to claim asylum out side of the two special schemes for ukrainains and Hong Kongers. the problem is, because they didn't do the ground work that would remove the contradicting laws. Which means its not really possible to defend it in court. > Rwanda changed absolutely nothing about that policy, I am not sure how anyone could think otherwise https://lordslibrary.parliament.uk/illegal-migration-dealing-with-inadmissible-asylum-applications/ https://lordslibrary.parliament.uk/illegal-migration-dealing... Basically because it was illegal to send people to anywhere other than rwanda, and rwanda was ready, and wasn't legal to send anyone to for processing, it meant that no-one could be processed. This was a known and telegraphed problem of the bill. This act: https://www.legal500.com/developments/thought-leadership/illegal-migration-act-2023-amendment-regulations/ https://www.legal500.com/developments/thought-leadership/ill... made it legal to process claims again. > the Tories put substantial resources into the Home Office Yes, and it was spent on accommodation and rwanda. > We are speeding down the path to balkanization, No, we really are not. Go to Rotterdam and look at how integration happens there (hint, it fucking doesnt) In Britain we do integration really well. kids of immigrants have excellent outcomes in education and employment. For example out of the last 8 years there has only been 4 months where someone who isnt a child of a migrant held the top spot (6 out of 8) > Labour went for student visas immediately, Actually the tories did that first. The best part? now we have to pay more to bail out universities. > There is a long historical record here of this happening in other countries that people are determined to ignore. What record is that?

KaiserPro 5mo ago

> Basic error. In addition, the expectation was that it would be a deterrent because people are coming here primarily for economic reasons. You cannot get asylum on economic grounds. > Australia did this And it didn't work. They spent $12 billion(aussie dollars) on ~4000 people. which is a pointless waste of cash, even more so when they had to evacuate those granted asylum back to aus because they were so badly looked after. > We have to find temporary accommodation anyway. Rwanda changed absolutely nothing about that policy, Correct, but temporary accommodation is >>£ than normal accommodation. If you can't progress a claim because the destination is blocked, then you need more temporary accommodation. The crucial thing is, when your claim is processing, you can't work, which means we have to pay for everything. Once the claim is processed and they have asylum, they can work, which means we don't need to pay anywhere near as much to look after them. > But this act is used to detain some illegal migrants in prison in some cases. Usually this is terrorism-related but, I believe, this has also been used in the many cases of sexual assault. No this is just the law. anyone who commits those acts are meant to be in jail, because it's illegal. thats how the law works. > detain anyone who comes to the UK by irregular means. What the bill actually does is make it almost impossible to claim asylum in a catch 22 style. Basically if you come here any any means, with the intention of claiming asylum, it invalidates any visa you may have. This means your entry in the UK was illegal. So there are no legal routes to claim asylum out side of the two special schemes for ukrainains and Hong Kongers. the problem is, because they didn't do the ground work that would remove the contradicting laws. Which means its not really possible to defend it in court. > Rwanda changed absolutely nothing about that policy, I am not sure how anyone could think otherwise https://lordslibrary.parliament.uk/illegal-migration-dealing-with-inadmissible-asylum-applications/ https://lordslibrary.parliament.uk/illegal-migration-dealing... Basically because it was illegal to send people to anywhere other than rwanda, and rwanda was ready, and wasn't legal to send anyone to for processing, it meant that no-one could be processed. This was a known and telegraphed problem of the bill. This act: https://www.legal500.com/developments/thought-leadership/illegal-migration-act-2023-amendment-regulations/ https://www.legal500.com/developments/thought-leadership/ill... made it legal to process claims again. > the Tories put substantial resources into the Home Office Yes, and it was spent on accommodation and rwanda. > We are speeding down the path to balkanization, No, we really are not. Go to Rotterdam and look at how integration happens there (hint, it fucking doesnt) In Britain we do integration really well. kids of immigrants have excellent outcomes in education and employment. For example out of the last 8 years there has only been 4 months where someone who isnt a child of a migrant held the top spot (6 out of 8) > Labour went for student visas immediately, Actually the tories did that first. The best part? now we have to pay more to bail out universities. > There is a long historical record here of this happening in other countries that people are determined to ignore. What record is that?