The Starmer Years - Can The New Broom Sweep Clean?

[pingpong]

How are you defining "illegal" asylum seekers though?

One thing that seems clear is that the government has changed strategy very quickly since coming in. The Tories focus was on finding accomodation to manage the numbers (hotels, offshore boats etc), and the bizarre non deterrent of Rwanda, whereas labour have come in and are trying to speed up processing and deportation rates, with some success so far, although all they are dealing with so far is the easy fixes, it will get more challenging once those are out of the way. I guess that's reflected in the number of hotels being used decreasing by 200 or so since labour came in.  

But it's not an easy challenge, for whoever is in power, I don't quite get why it is becoming such a hot topic just as we finally start to tackle it after 14yrs of failing to do so.

[Sir Ralph]

1 hour ago, pingpong said:

How are you defining "illegal" asylum seekers though?

One thing that seems clear is that the government has changed strategy very quickly since coming in. The Tories focus was on finding accomodation to manage the numbers (hotels, offshore boats etc), and the bizarre non deterrent of Rwanda, whereas labour have come in and are trying to speed up processing and deportation rates, with some success so far, although all they are dealing with so far is the easy fixes, it will get more challenging once those are out of the way. I guess that's reflected in the number of hotels being used decreasing by 200 or so since labour came in.  

But it's not an easy challenge, for whoever is in power, I don't quite get why it is becoming such a hot topic just as we finally start to tackle it after 14yrs of failing to do so.

The 50k illegal asylum seekers are those arriving on small boats. There isn’t dispute about those figures.
 

The Tories mismanaged and many issues emanate from them but politically Labour will need to do something radical otherwise they will be tarred with the same brush. You can’t judge the current government on its performance for a couple of years. It’s one thing politicians saying they will deal with it but statistics have contradicted this and many people (for good reason) don’t trust politicians generally. The Conservatives now attacking the current government is hypocritical and I believe most rationale people can see that. This is a complex issue and I hope the current government to improve the system but the legal framework makes it difficult. Without more radical change it will continue to be a political issue which is why Reform has a lot of traction with the electorate.

My opinion of the reasons it’s become more prominent is the ongoing cumulative impact over the years, people getting annoyed about the ongoing expenditure in a climate where we are asking people to be taxed more (but government spending is being exhausted elsewhere), and the re-election of Trump. The latter has meant that the dialogue around these matters is no longer seen as taboo and people feel more freely to voice their views.

Edited 7 hours ago by Sir Ralph

[Farmer Saint]

2 hours ago, pingpong said:

How are you defining "illegal" asylum seekers though?

One thing that seems clear is that the government has changed strategy very quickly since coming in. The Tories focus was on finding accomodation to manage the numbers (hotels, offshore boats etc), and the bizarre non deterrent of Rwanda, whereas labour have come in and are trying to speed up processing and deportation rates, with some success so far, although all they are dealing with so far is the easy fixes, it will get more challenging once those are out of the way. I guess that's reflected in the number of hotels being used decreasing by 200 or so since labour came in.  

But it's not an easy challenge, for whoever is in power, I don't quite get why it is becoming such a hot topic just as we finally start to tackle it after 14yrs of failing to do so.

They aren't illegal until they have been denied asylum I believe. Until then they are asylum seekers, irrespective of how they arrived:

"There is no such thing as an "illegal" or "bogus" person seeking asylum. Under international law, anyone has the right to apply for asylum in any country that has signed the 1951 Convention and to remain there until the authorities have assessed their claim."

[Weston Super Saint]

25 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

They aren't illegal until they have been denied asylum I believe. Until then they are asylum seekers, irrespective of how they arrived:

"There is no such thing as an "illegal" or "bogus" person seeking asylum. Under international law, anyone has the right to apply for asylum in any country that has signed the 1951 Convention and to remain there until the authorities have assessed their claim."

The only question that remains is are they asylum seekers from the off or are they asylum seekers once they've been caught entering the country illegally?

[Sir Ralph]

1 hour ago, Weston Super Saint said:

The only question that remains is are they asylum seekers from the off or are they asylum seekers once they've been caught entering the country illegally?

I was referring to people coming from small boats (which is the issue being discussed) of which there are 50k rather than getting hung up on the definition within any legal technicality. Most people refer to people on small boats as illegal. 

Edited 4 hours ago by Sir Ralph

[Weston Super Saint]

1 hour ago, Sir Ralph said:

I was referring to people coming from small boats (which is the issue being discussed) of which there are 50k rather than getting hung up on the definition within any legal technicality. Most people refer to people on small boats as illegal. 

I think you've misunderstood my point.

I accept that those crossing the channel on small boats are illegal given that they are travelling without the correct documents / permission to do so.

The question I raise is whether they were 'asylum seekers' when they originally left their country of origin or whether they were illegal economic migrants who only became 'asylum seekers' when caught on arrival in the UK?  I suspect for the vast majority of those crossing the channel they are the latter who have been coached in what to say and to whom if / when they are caught.

Do we know how accurate the 50k figure is?  Presumably that is the number that have been 'caught' making the crossing / on arrival in the UK, but how many are succesful in their attempts to cross and are therefore not counted?

[Lord Duckhunter]

1 hour ago, Weston Super Saint said:

Do we know how accurate the 50k figure is?  Presumably that is the number that have been 'caught' making the crossing / on arrival in the UK, but how many are succesful in their attempts to cross and are therefore not counted?

I don’t actually think they’re trying to dodge the authorities & any are sneaking into the country secretly. They get waved off by the French and picked up by us mugs. There’s no need to sneak in. 

[egg]

9 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

I don’t actually think they’re trying to dodge the authorities & any are sneaking into the country secretly. They get waved off by the French and picked up by us mugs. There’s no need to sneak in. 

Yep. Leave France, bob about a bit, let off a flare, get picked up by a British sea ferry. 

[Farmer Saint]

God Brexit fucked us in the ass with this shit. And it's just hilarious that it was those who voted Brexit have the biggest problem with it.