Forum Topic

One in one out

Or should we say 50000 in and zero out now that Labour and Starmer in particular have been hoisted by their own  human rights petard.Maybe Starmer should take a leaf out of his beloved Arsenals book and re visit Rwanda.

Andy Pike ● 5d34 Comments

Mr Ainsworth'Indeed. After all, we all know what happened to the Palestinian majority population in Palestine, ruled by the  British who did very little to protect it from an evergrowing illegal migrant flow from Europe. Indeed the British were more concerned to protect the illegals, and bloodily crushed the Palestinians.'More obfuscation and wiki-delving into the past."What about the invasion from them Normans I say".The issue is do the majority of people in this country want to control immigration into this country or to allow an open border policy to rule ?You we know favour the latter policy and consider no consequences of it when it comes to economic cost and social harmony.For example BBC News reports the conviction of 'Hadush Kebatu, found guilty earlier this month of five charges, including sexually assaulting a 14-year-old girl, is being sentenced. Kebatu, an asylum seeker from Ethiopia who was staying at the Bell Hotel in Epping, had pleaded not guilty to two counts of sexual assault, attempted sexual assault, inciting a child into sexual activity and harassment without violence'Most others do not and wonder why a powerful country, both diplomatically and militarily, cannot control its borders.One might imagine that Kremlin military planners are saying  we don't need massive military expenditure to invade the UK were we of a mind to.All we need to do is buy a few rubber dinghies from Amazon.

John Hawkes ●

"we need to recognise that there is a serious problem"Indeed. After all, we all know what happened to the Palestinian majority population in Palestine, ruled by the  British who did very little to protect it from an evergrowing illegal migrant flow from Europe. Indeed the British were more concerned to protect the illegals, and bloodily crushed the Palestinians.

David Ainsworth ● 10h

According to the House of Commons Library, Peter, the UK government’s position is that refugees should seek asylum in the first safe country they reach. This is not a ‘brave’ interpretation of my own of international law but the interpretation of British government lawyers. I suspect that the UK bases its position on Article 31 of the Geneva Convention which states that refugees should not be penalised if they are ‘coming directly from countries where life or freedom is threatened’. The key word here is ‘directly’. However I am not a lawyer and I am not competent to give an opinion on the law of asylum. What I would say is that in the final analysis the issue of asylum is not one of law but of politics. The UN Refugee  Council may claim that refugees are not obliged to claim asylum in the first safe country, but no British government is ever going to accept asylum applications from, say, hundreds of thousands of Rohingya who would prefer to live in Britain rather than in their refugee camps in Bangladesh.You can argue if you like that those who cross the Channel in small boats are not breaking the law. As far as I am concerned, they are paying money to criminals and making a mockery of Britain’s border controls, but I won’t argue the point. I think we can agree that what they are doing is extremely dangerous, putting their own lives and the lives of others at risk, as well as costing taxpayers billions.Concerning Rwanda, which I think should be revisited, I am not sure what number would need to be deported to Africa to deter illegal migration completely. But even a figure of 200 would deter some migrants from paying thousands of pounds to people smugglers. I think the idea was to expand the scheme if it proved successful and maybe negotiate similar arrangements with other countries.To sum up, we need to recognise that there is a serious problem and we need to seek practical solutions without indulging in virtue signalling.

Steven Rose ● 13h

Rather than criticising other people’s offered solutions as ‘stupid’, it would be more useful to suggest  your own solutions rather than expressing repeated regret about the Rwanda scheme.

Jane Carter ● 18h

I have never claimed that there is a simple solution to the problem of illegal migration. All I said about the Rwanda scheme is that it was not a bad idea and probably would have provided a more effective deterrent than the current one in, one out policy. Given that it had been paid for, I think the Rwanda scheme should at least have been allowed to go forward on a trial basis.The purpose of my post was to criticise those who refuse to take the problem of illegal migration seriously, preferring instead to condone the crossings by claiming that unauthorised entry to the UK is legal or arguing that the country needs immigrant labour, or to offer stupid solutions such as opening immigration offices abroad.

Steven Rose ● 19h

“the UK's interpretation is that that asylum must be claimed in the first safe country.”No it is not. UK law accepts the principle of the 1951 UN Refugee Convention that recognises the right of an asylum seeker to pass through a safe country before claiming asylum.While it is very brave of you to offer your own interpretations of international law it might be perhaps best for you to pay heed to what people who have expertise in international law think. I don’t offer you my own interpretations but those of people who are qualified to make them.I will not view people ‘entering the country without authorisation’  as law breakers because at the point of entry they have not broken any law. If they had they would be arrested. Obviously, the people who facilitate these crossings are criminals and are part of international crime groups that need to be pursued and prosecuted with alacrity.You are probably right that we will always have conflict and therefore will always have asylum seekers. You are also right that it is too early to judge the ‘one in one out’ system but I continue to be astonished that people look with regret on the Rwanda scheme. I’ve gone into more detail in the post titled ‘Sunk Cost Fallacy’ about the pretty fundamental flaws in Rwanda – it would never have worked as to get the deportations up to the required number to be a deterrent would have been prohibitively expensive. ‘One in one out’ may be scalable enough to offer some deterrent and should save the taxpayer money and has the additional advantage of being legal. I’m perplexed why anyone might think Rwanda the better option.You may be sceptical about the scale of illegal working in the UK, but estimates are that London has about 300,000-400,000 employed with no right to work. Employment patterns won’t map exactly with pre-Brexit norms and obviously there will be relatively few in social care, health care or child care where more rigorous identity checks are made but the rise in illegal workers soared after Brexit. You may quibble that there are other factors contributing to this but Brexit seems overwhelmingly likely to be the main one.

Peter Higgins ● 19h

Ed, you have provided a very good example of the sunk cost fallacy. The set up of the Rwanda scheme was very expensive as the Rwandan government insistent on significant upfront payments and still is asking for more money which we may be obliged to pay. The bill up to this point was close to £400 million. However, the expense would not have ended there and the cost of accomodation per asylum seeker was going to be £150,000 (assuming they remained in Rwanda).The previous government recognised the legal holes in its arguments about Rwanda being a safe country. Although the Kigale regime is a massive economic success, it remains oppressive and this is a country which has not long emerged from an exceptionally bloody civil war. Boris Johnson, who appears to have cooked up this scheme during a boozy lunch, thought that by 'featherbedding' those sent to Africa with nice accomodation he could get around legal concerns over human rights but even his cabinet colleagues recognised this was nonsense. This made the scheme very expensive and impossible to implement at any scale. If the plans of the last government were followed through with and, in the unlikely event the scheme got around legal objections, a couple of hundred people would have been deported at a cost of £780 million.As I and others have pointed out, we are talking about a group of people who are willing to risk death to cross the channel. The Rwanda scheme as proposed would have meant a chance of being deported of around half a percent even assuming all the deportation took place in a single year. This would not have been a deterrent.The scale of deportations need to be a true deterrent would have required a four figure number which would have cost us billions.I don't understand what you mean by 'one out and thousands in' but you are wrong about the ease of deportation to India. That country does not automatically accept its own nationals which is why the new Home Secretary is making noises about visa approvals. Indians are claiming asylum and because of the bottlenecks in processing remain in the country for an extended period at some cost to the taxpayer.Dublin III regulation may be being phased out but new arrangements are being put in place. You are probably right to suggest that, were we still in the EU, the emphasis on burden sharing might have meant that we would have been asked to take more asylum seekers as, on a per capita basis we accept a much lower number than most European countries. That doesn't change the fact that walking away from returns agreements when we left the EU was a major driver of the small boats crisis.  What ever ongoing attempts are being made overseas to tweak the rules on safe third country rules, the guiding principle in the UK remains the  1951 UN Refugee Convention which states there is no obligation for refugees to seek asylum in the first safe country they reach. This has been confirmed by subsequent domestic law and court rulings.

Peter Higgins ● 20h

Oh God! here we go again.It would be great to reduce immigration down to a simple problem with a straightforward solution, unfortunately, it cannot be done.  It is a global problem, caused by a multitude of issues. Anyone who says there is a simple answer is a snake oil salesman.I think these points that you rubbish and dismiss for all sorts of ludicrous reasons, show how little you really are engaged with what is a highly complex problem that will require a multitude of actions to try and generate an appropriate response that reflects more closely the public opinion.I suppose, ultimately, you think Rwanda is THE answer, it is not, Stephen. It was never the answer, it a one-line slogan aimed at voters who don't want to be bothered with the complexities of the real world.

Gerry Boyce ● 20h

The bottom line is that the UK cannot offer asylum to everyone in the world with a genuine fear of persecution, let alone to economic migrants. Even the 50 000 asylum seekers who are now  crossing the Channel each year represent an intolerable burden.Unfortunately people on the political left, for whom anti-racism has largely replaced socialism as a core belief,  have difficulty in facing up to the economic and social problems which unauthorised migration creates. Consequently they employ various strategies (some of which can be seen on this thread) to avoid dealing with uncomfortable facts while at the same time advertising their own virtue viz:1) pretending that concern about the level of unauthorised migration is 'hysteria'(This tactic has the added benefit of making oneself appear calm and reflective as opposed to all the supposedly irrational xenophobes who are worried about the issue).2) criticising the previous government's Rwanda scheme(This of course absolves one of the need to suggest a practical alternative).3) blaming Brexit(Of course Remainer regret always goes down well).4) arguing that crossing the Channel in small boats is 'not illegal'(This is highly dubious. If helping migrants to cross the Channel is universally regarded as a criminal activity, it is hard to see how the migrants themselves are innocent of any wrongdoing. But whether legal or not, the crossings are placing an intolerable burden on the British people and have to be stopped).5) blaming the gig employers(A bit of anti-capitalist rhetoric never goes amiss. It is already illegal to employ individuals who have no right to reside or work in the country).6) arguing that the country needs immigrant labour(At present there are literally millions of economically inactive working age people who could in many cases do the jobs currently performed by immigrants. Of course the country requires immigrants who have skills which at present cannot be filled by British people. But these skilled immigrants should not be put in the same category as illegal migrants. Not all asylum seekers have the capacity to make a useful contribution to the economy and not all necessarily share the cultural values of this country). 7) blaming illegal migration on the lack of legal routes.(This argument, which has been made by at least one government minister, Stephen Kinnock, is really stupid. It is obvious that opening immigration offices in France or Africa or Asia would constitute an enormous pull factor encouraging thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands, round the world to claim asylum in Britain). 

Steven Rose ● 21h

It is  absurdly unfair to judge the Rwanda scheme a failure when it was never allowed to get off the ground.

Steven Rose ● 1d

…and how much did it cost us ‘hard working tax payers’ Steven? Huh?

Gerry Boyce ● 1d

‘ The Rwanda scheme was not a bad idea. I am not sure sure that one in, one out, which has so far removed three individuals, will have any effect’ Well, it is three more than the ridiculous Rwanda scheme managed, for a start! 🤣

Gerry Boyce ● 1d

The law on asylum, Peter, is anything but 'clear'. While the Geneva Convention contains no explicit obligation on where refugees must claim asylum, the UK's interpretation is that that asylum must be claimed in the first safe country. Yoa argue that a country adjoining a place of persecution might be overwhelmed with applicants. Yes, but asylum seekers who are safe from persecution cannot just be allowed to choose where the want to live regardless of the host country's capacity to receive them or the wishes of the indigenous population.You seem reluctant to view those entering the country without authorisation as law breakers. Article 31 of the Convention states that refugees cannot be penalised if they are 'coming directly from a country where their life or freedom was threatened'. I think it is obvious that people coming from France are not fleeing directly from a country where they face persecution. So yes, they are breaking UK law. This clearly true of people who hide in lorries, But it is also true of people who deliberately shipwreck themselves in British territorial waters by crossing the Channel in unsafe dinghies. The smugglers who facilitate these crossings are not viewed as heroes rescuing refugees but as criminals. How can the individuals crossing the Channel be innocent of any wrongdoing while the smugglers helping them are universally regarded as criminals?With regard to your view that the only effective deterrent to mass migration is to stop global conflict, I can only repeat your words, 'good luck with that'. There has never been a period in recorded human history without conflict somewhere on the planet. While waiting for peace on earth, what we need is a practical deterrent. The Rwanda scheme was not a bad idea. I am not sure sure that one in, one out, which has so far removed three individuals, will have any effect.As to the reasons behind the enormous increase in illegal migration to Britain, I am afraid I don't have a definitive answer. But I am not convinced that the thousands of Afghanis, Iraqis, Syrians and Eritreans are employed to replace the Italian baristas, Polish plumbers or Slovak nannies who went home after Brexit.

Steven Rose ● 1d

And what on earth would stop these migrants?:-"The death toll for those attempting to reach the Canary Islands is a highly contested figure, but an NGO called Caminando Fronteras reported that at least 10,457 migrants died or disappeared on the deadly Atlantic route in 2024.[IN ONE YEAR]. This represents a significant increase from previous years and highlights the extreme danger of the journey from West Africa, with the route becoming the "deadliest in the world". Key Statistics for the Atlantic Route (2024)10,457: deaths or disappearances recorded by Caminando Fronteras. 9,757: of these deaths occurred specifically on the Atlantic route to the Canary Islands. 6,829: deaths were recorded on the increasingly dangerous route from Mauritania. The route is considered one of the world's most dangerous, with journeys often covering over 1,000 miles."If a high chance of death doesn't stop people, what would stop them (apart from certain death, I suppose)?

David Ainsworth ● 1d

"The advocates of the Rwanda scheme are willing to ignore both the eye-watering expense."It was already paid for when Labour came to office. If they cancelled it and got the money back you would have a good point Peter, but it was cancelled without anything in its place and the "eye-watering expense' written off!"In the context of tens of thousands of boat crossings taking place, your odds of avoiding going to Rwanda are pretty good.."Crossings were down and immediately surged once the scheme was cancelled so no matter what the odds it was acting as a deterrent."The one in one out scheme on the other hand"The problem is that it has just been one out and thousands in.The so-called one out was "an Indian national" that the UK could have deported to India itself. So in  reality it is zero out so far."..we stepped away from existing arrangements on returns when we left the EU"It would be nice to blame everything on Brexit, time does not stand still, the EU's so-called Dublin agreement has broken down. The EU are trying to get much stricter processes up and running which will probably shock some Brexiteers.Please see: https://home-affairs.ec.europa.eu/policies/migration-and-asylum/pact-migration-and-asylum_en"Preventing secondary movements: Asylum seekers must apply for international protection in the EU country of first entry and remain there until the country responsible for their application is determined."https://www.europarl.europa.eu/thinktank/en/document/EPRS_BRI(2024)767148"Safe third country concept in the EU pact on migration and asylumThe safe third country (STC) concept is well established in international asylum policies. According to the concept, certain migrants should not be granted protection in the country where they have applied for it. Instead, they may be returned, or transferred, to a country where they could have found, or can find, international protection. Amid ongoing EU-level discussions on safe third country rules, in 2018 the United Nations Refugee Agency developed legal considerations on safe third countries.

Ed Robinson ● 1d

“ Are those crossing the Channel in small boats or hidden in lorries breaking the law?”No. It is perfectly legal to arrive by irregular means to seek asylum. If you don’t believe me, try to find which law is being broken.“But those crossing the Channel are not fleeing persecution. They have already by definition reached France, a safe country”The international law on asylum doesn’t work like this for very good reasons. If you had to claim asylum in the first safe country you reached then that country would be overwhelmed by applicants. The law is clear. You can choose the country in which you seek asylum.“ And some are people who have not experienced persecution at all but simply wish to live in a more prosperous country. Britain has no obligation to open its borders to everyone who wants to live here.”That’s why we have an asylum system. Obviously there are significant numbers applying who are not genuine but the vast majority have a valid claim and we do have an obligation to accept these applications under international laws which we developed.“The argument that Britain needs migrant labour omits the important fact that millions of British people are economically inactive. It would be far more sensible to get those who are fit to work into a job than employ migrants with all the attendant costs of extra housing, extra schools and extra hospitals.”Good luck with that!“The fact that one event precedes another does not necessarily imply that the first is the cause of the second. There is no reason to suppose that migrants are encouraged to come to this country because Britain has left the EU. .”You are right that the just because two things happen at the same time doesn’t mean they are related. However, I did give you two reasons why we might have expected small boat crossings to soar after Brexit – the departure of European labour and the end of the Dublin Agreement. I invited you to give other reasons why there has been such a big increase and you have not been forthcoming other than to repeat your belief that it isn’t Brexit. It is Brexit.“ The only effective deterrent to mass migration is that migrants need to believe that they will be deported.”No. The only effective deterrent to end mass migration is to put a stop to conflict across the globe. Until we do that the best we can do is close the door on people not entitled to work in this country getting jobs.  We could fill vacancies by coming to a reciprocal arrangement with neighbouring countries that our citizens could easily move across borders to gain employment.

Peter Higgins ● 1d

"The only effective deterrent to mass migration is that migrants need to believe that they will be deported."But how?

David Ainsworth ● 1d

Your arguments are detailed, Peter, but I am not persuaded. Let me take them in reverse order.1) Are those crossing the Channel in small boats or hidden in lorries breaking the law?  I would say that their entry is just as unlawful as someone who gets off a plane at Heathrow and tries to climb over the airport fence rather than passing through immigration. It is true that under international law people fleeing persecution are allowed to cross to a safe country and seek asylum. But those crossing the Channel are not fleeing persecution. They have already by definition reached France, a safe country. They are simply people who may have experienced persecution or war in the past but prefer for whatever reason to come to Britain. And some are people who have not experienced persecution at all but simply wish to live in a more prosperous country. Britain has no obligation to open its borders to everyone who wants to live here. That would not be fair to 5he indigenous population nor even to the recently accepted immigrants.2. The argument that Britain needs migrant labour omits the important fact that millions of British people are economically inactive. It would be far more sensible to get those who are fit to work into a job than employ migrants with all the attendant costs of extra housing, extra schools and extra hospitals.3. The figures on immigration since Brexit mask a logical fallacy, known as ‘post hoc, propter  hoc’. The fact that one event precedes another does not necessarily imply that the first is the cause of the second. There is no reason to suppose that migrants are encouraged to come to this country because Britain has left the EU. EU countries are refusing in any case to take back migrants from one another.4. The only effective deterrent to mass migration is that migrants need to believe that they will be deported.

Steven Rose ● 1d

"It is basic economics. Given a constant demand for labour in the UK, reducing legal immigration will inevitably attract more people arriving irregularly to work in the black economy. Nobody is saying the government shouldn’t be trying to reduce this but it does provide an explanation for the recent increase."Rather like the drug smuggling "trade". This is largely a demand led problem (i.e. people are smuggling because they know they can sell the drugs profitably, because people in the UK want them).

David Ainsworth ● 1d

“Your criticism that the Rwanda scheme would only have asylum to 200 migrants omits to mention that its purpose was to serve as a deterrent”I took it as implied. My point was that in the context of tens of thousands of migrants coming over on small boats, a maximum of 200 over a four year period through the Rwanda scheme was never going to provide a sufficient deterrent. The plan would never have delivered ‘a good chance of being deported’.It remains to be seen if the ‘one in, one out’ scheme can be more effective. To do so it would have to deport considerably more than 200 and in shorter order. Having passed the initial legal hurdles, there is one less barrier to its expansion. It can significantly expanded beyond what Rwanda could ever have achieved because unlike the previous proposal, it will actually reduce cost to the Treasury because the ‘one in’ will have pre-approved asylum status and will not automatically need to be supported by the tax payer.The assumption that being deported to Rwanda would be a greater deterrent that being deported to France is based on the false premise that the asylum seeker would have stayed in Africa. They almost certainly wouldn’t  “The argument that the problem has been exacerbated by Brexit is fanciful, not to say disingenuous, France refused to take back illegal migrants even when Britain was part of the EU.”The argument that the problem has been exacerbated by Brexit is based on the explosion of small boat crossings after we formally left the EU and the Dublin agreement.• 2018: 299 people• 2019: 1,843 people• 2020: 8,466 people• 2021: 28,526 people• 2022: 45,774 people• 2023: 29,437 people• 2024: 36,816 peoplePrior to 2020, the French did not take back all small boat arrivals but they did accept much higher proportion under the Dublin agreement. This appears to have been sufficient to reduce the number of attempted crossings and these deportations exceeded the maximum that Rwanda was ever going to achieve. At the same time the ending of Freedom of Movement created significant labour shortages in sectors such as hospitality, construction, delivery, health care and agriculture as many of these jobs were filled by young Europeans from countries where unemployment was high. A proportion of these vacancies are now being filled by irregular arrivals. The evidence that Brexit is the most significant factor in the explosion of small boat arrivals appears to be overwhelming but, if you can provide alternative reasons, it would be interesting to hear them.“The argument that the government has caused illegal migration by reducing legal immigration is somewhat perverse.”No it isn’t. It is basic economics. Given a constant demand for labour in the UK, reducing legal immigration will inevitably attract more people arriving irregularly to work in the black economy. Nobody is saying the government shouldn’t be trying to reduce this but it does provide an explanation for the recent increase. A recognition that this is largely a demand led problem (i.e. people are crossing because they know they can get work) has been made with the acceptance that digital IDs need to be implemented.“Those who cross the Channel from a safe country like France are simply breaking the law”They are not. It is perfectly legal under international treaties to which we have been signatories for over a century to enter a country by any means if you are seeking asylum even if you depart from a safe country.

Peter Higgins ● 1d

Your analysis, Peter, of the problem of illegal migration is not altogether objective in my opinion:1) Your criticism that the Rwanda scheme would only have asylum to 200 migrants omits to mention that its purpose was to serve as a deterrent, just as the present one in, one out policy is intended to deter illegal migrants. The idea in both cases is to destroy the business model of the people smugglers in that migrants are unlikely to part with thousands of pounds to to get to Britain if they know there is a good chance of being deported as soon as they arrive. I would suggest that being sent to Rwanda represents a greater deterrent than being sent back to France, from where another attempt to cross the Channel can be made. 2) The argument that the problem has been exacerbated by Brexit is fanciful, not to say disingenuous, France refused to take back illegal migrants even when Britain was part of the EU.3) The argument that the government has caused illegal migration by reducing legal immigration is somewhat perverse. If trespassers climb a fence to gain access to private land, is the landowner to be blamed for putting up the fence? The government has a perfect right and indeed a duty to limit the numbers of people coming into the country given the pressures on housing, schools and hospitals. Those who cross the Channel from a safe country like France are simply breaking the law.

Steven Rose ● 3d

I'm not aware that I said anything in favour of migrants drowning? I merely pointed out the ending the Rwanda scheme was a manifesto pledge.

Michael Brigo ● 3d

Mr Robinson'Personally I do not understand how people drowning, who ever they are, is not a concern to most people.'I am sure that most people find this saddening and regrettable.But these people have made a choice to cross the channel by inflatables.No one forced them to do it and they are leaving France, a country very similar to the UK, to come here rather than some war torn failed state.

John Hawkes ● 3d

The advocates of the Rwanda scheme are willing to ignore both the eye-watering expense it entailed but also limited capacity it offered. Even if it had been fully implemented, the total number of asylum seekers who would have been flown off to Africa would have only been around 200 and it would have taken several years to get to that number. In the context of tens of thousands of boat crossings taking place, your odds of avoiding going to Rwanda are pretty good . It would be interesting to hear how those who believe the scheme was such a wonderful idea will explain how this was going to be a greater deterrent than the risk of death by crossing the channel in a dinghy.The one in one out scheme on the other hand, having now been given clearance by the court, does offer the potential to return far more people entering by irregular means. This in turn makes spending a large amount of money with people smuggling gangs a much greater risk. It would be fanciful to say that this will end crossings altogether but if the scheme can get critical mass, it will reduce them and, at the same time, the 'one in' aspect of it means that arrivals are pre-screened genuine asylum seekers who won't be stuck in admin limbo for years.The cold hard fact here is that there isn't a simple and effective policy that is available to the government of any hue that would immediately end small boat crossings. The problem exploded in the first place because we stepped away from existing arrangements on returns when we left the EU and fanciful notions about withdrawing from international treaties would similarly only make the problem worse. The rise in small boat crossings this year is partly driven by the crackdown on legal immigration which has meant that job opportunities have increased for anyone who can get into the country. The government's policy of a range of initiatives which chip away at the problem isn't going to be truly effective until it comes down hard on the root causes of demand in the labour market such as gig economy working for delivery companies.

Peter Higgins ● 3d

https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/australias-brutal-refugee-policy-inspiring-far-right-eu-beyondThe reports  of the dreadful treatment and conditions refugees were detained in Manus in hugely overcrowded WW2 tin huts are absolutely horrendous.  This has also caused huge political problems in Australia.

Philippa Bond ● 4d

"Exactly!    Because it was performative crap from a clapped out Tory party devoid of any sense or reason."If people including children had not drowned then you may have a point.The number of deaths has gone up.Personally I do not understand how people drowning, who ever they are, is not a concern to most people.Perhaps all pretences of being a Christian Nation has ceased?

Ed Robinson ● 4d

Michael B,Just checked the manifesto and it does mention the stopping the Rwandan deal in context of stopping the chaos.So I would suggest as I stated that the Rwandan deal was stopped politically before anything else was in place.Even today nothing substantial is in place chaos is still the current situation.I guess the poor souls that have drowned do not have any bearing on your views?"Labour will stop the chaos and go after the criminal gangs who trade in driving this crisis. We will create a new Border Security Command, with hundreds of new investigators, intelligence officers, and cross-border police officers. This will be funded by ending the wasteful Migration and Economic Development partnership with Rwanda. This new Command will work internationally and be supported by new counter-terrorism style powers, to pursue, disrupt, and arrest those responsible for the vile trade. We will seek a new security agreement with the EU to ensure access to real-time intelligence and enable our policing teams to,,"

Ed Robinson ● 4d

Thanks for the link Philippa. It is interesting stuff. It is almost impossible to have a sensible, nuanced discussion about immigration here given that it has become a matter of national hysteria. Hopefully, at some stage, we will all calm down a bit and have a sensible discussion about how to manage this issue.In the meantime, enjoy your bunfight guys.

Gerry Boyce ● 4d

https://theconversation.com/politicians-have-scapegoated-immigration-for-decades-its-time-to-flip-the-script-264266

Philippa Bond ● 4d

Australia used Manus in PNG and Nauru for offshore processing some years ago.  This was not just very unpopular and caused a lot of political problems in Australia but staff had to be brought in to manage the contracts and the money it cost was tremendous with a lot of questions over how the money was spent.  So many problems that PNG asked them to close the one at Manus.  They went on paying for the Nauru camp for a long while after everyone had been moved out.Nauru is a very isolated and small volcanic island in the Pacific which once upon a time was very rich in phosphates.  However now that these have been mined the island looks like some sort of rocky lunar landscape.  There was a period when there was a lot of new building but with the phosphates now  gone, the soil is poor and the country is also now considered poor. Other money making schemes tried seem to have been unsuccessful.  It now also has to contend with the increased heat and drought and greater storms as a result of climate change.

Philippa Bond ● 4d

Exactly! Because it was performative crap from a clapped out Tory party devoid of any sense or reason.

Gerry Boyce ● 4d

"It was a purely political decision to scrap the Rawada scheme immediately with nothing in its place"It was a manifesto pledge.

Michael Brigo ● 4d

"Rwanda didn't seem to work for UK" Well crossings and deaths were down so I would differ on that. It was expensive but a lot cheaper than other deterrents that we pay for. It was a purely political decision to scrap the Rawada scheme immediately with nothing in its place. It was already paid for too! It got some headlines but now the political capital has been spent We are now in multiple conflicts abroad as usual yet we have no borders never mind a shelter!

Ed Robinson ● 4d

Maybe Starmer will visit Australia rather than Rwanda."Australia experiences significantly fewer dangerous migrant boat crossings than in the past, largely due to the "Operation Sovereign Borders" policy introduced in 2013, which includes turning back boats and offshore processing, even though the legality of some methods is contested. Since 2013, the number of people arriving by boat has fallen from tens of thousands to near zero, with no deaths recorded between 2015 and 2021, though 2,031 deaths were recorded before this policy took effect. How Australia Reduced Boat CrossingsTurnbacks: Vessels are intercepted at sea and returned to the country they departed from. Takebacks: People on intercepted boats are returned to their country of origin via air or sea transfers. Offshore Processing: Asylum seekers arriving by boat are sent to offshore processing centers, such as those on Nauru and in Papua New Guinea, rather than being processed in Australia. Targeting Smuggling Operations: The policies aim to disrupt the business model of people smugglers by making the route to Australia unattractive and dangerous. Evidence of SuccessDramatically Fewer Arrivals: After the policy's implementation in 2013, the number of boat arrivals dropped from over 20,000 in 2013 to under 500 in the following year and has remained very low. Reduced Deaths at Sea: No deaths were recorded between January 2015 and August 2021. Before this, 2,031 people had died attempting to reach Australia by boat, and over 1,200 people drowned between 2008 and 2013. Controversies and ConcernsInternational Law: Australia's "push back" and "turn back" policies have been criticized as being potentially illegal under international law and for potentially putting lives at risk. Humanitarian Concerns: The policy of mandatory offshore processing for all boat arrivals is unique and has been met with significant human rights and humanitarian concerns." (AI)As Rwanda didn't seem to work for UK, and One in - One Out has not started well, (and I cannot see how it can make any significant difference), maybe the Australian scheme will be considered in the future. Farage seems to be interested.It is likely to really peeve Macron.

David Ainsworth ● 4d