UK asylum seekers expected to be flown to Rwanda

[E63eeeeee...]

272BHP said:

E63eeeeee... said:

Pretty sure they won't, since they've already said they'll process the claims. I wonder how many more times we'll see this lie over the next six weeks.

Isn't "processing all the claims" exactly the same thing but over several months?

Nope. An amnesty would be to allow everyone to stay regardless of the merit of their claim. Processing their claims is deciding whether they qualify or not, allowing the ones who do to stay, and returning the others.

[lornemalvo]

E63eeeeee... said:

272BHP said:

E63eeeeee... said:

Pretty sure they won't, since they've already said they'll process the claims. I wonder how many more times we'll see this lie over the next six weeks.

Isn't "processing all the claims" exactly the same thing but over several months?

Nope. An amnesty would be to allow everyone to stay regardless of the merit of their claim. Processing their claims is deciding whether they qualify or not, allowing the ones who do to stay, and returning the others.

And processing, depending on the instructions given on how thorough to be, may amount to the same thing as an amnesty. Speed and political expedience taking priority over protecting us from wrong uns, people who wish us harm, people who do not share the same values and also from excessive numbers

[E63eeeeee...]

lornemalvo said:

E63eeeeee... said:

272BHP said:

E63eeeeee... said:

Pretty sure they won't, since they've already said they'll process the claims. I wonder how many more times we'll see this lie over the next six weeks.

Isn't "processing all the claims" exactly the same thing but over several months?

Nope. An amnesty would be to allow everyone to stay regardless of the merit of their claim. Processing their claims is deciding whether they qualify or not, allowing the ones who do to stay, and returning the others.

And processing, depending on the instructions given on how thorough to be, may amount to the same thing as an amnesty. Speed and political expedience taking priority over protecting us from wrong uns, people who wish us harm, people who do not share the same values and also from excessive numbers

In theory, I suppose, but most of the checks for the things you're talking about would be done exactly the same even if it actually was an amnesty, there's no flexibility around thoroughness, they're either checked or not. Any stealth amnesty would be pretty easy to see in the published decision statistics too, so there's not much practical mileage and zero political benefit for Labour in what you're suggesting.

[p1stonhead]

Ouch!

Remember the uproar when he made this bet?

[Vanden Saab]

E63eeeeee... said:

272BHP said:

E63eeeeee... said:

Pretty sure they won't, since they've already said they'll process the claims. I wonder how many more times we'll see this lie over the next six weeks.

Isn't "processing all the claims" exactly the same thing but over several months?

Nope. An amnesty would be to allow everyone to stay regardless of the merit of their claim. Processing their claims is deciding whether they qualify or not, allowing the ones who do to stay, and returning the others.

Where are we going to return them to exactly?

[E63eeeeee...]

Vanden Saab said:

E63eeeeee... said:

272BHP said:

E63eeeeee... said:

Pretty sure they won't, since they've already said they'll process the claims. I wonder how many more times we'll see this lie over the next six weeks.

Isn't "processing all the claims" exactly the same thing but over several months?

Nope. An amnesty would be to allow everyone to stay regardless of the merit of their claim. Processing their claims is deciding whether they qualify or not, allowing the ones who do to stay, and returning the others.

Where are we going to return them to exactly?

Hmm, let me think. Oh yeah, their country of origin. That's why they're called "returns". That's how this generally works. And to forestall your next bunch of tedious questions, yes we can, it's less complicated than you think when you're a government, and we were removing 40k a year at the end of the noughties and even now we're removing thousands each year. This is not rocket science, it's tedious technocratic stuff that we know how to do, it just needs resourcing.

[Vanden Saab]

E63eeeeee... said:

Vanden Saab said:

E63eeeeee... said:

272BHP said:

E63eeeeee... said:

Pretty sure they won't, since they've already said they'll process the claims. I wonder how many more times we'll see this lie over the next six weeks.

Isn't "processing all the claims" exactly the same thing but over several months?

Nope. An amnesty would be to allow everyone to stay regardless of the merit of their claim. Processing their claims is deciding whether they qualify or not, allowing the ones who do to stay, and returning the others.

Where are we going to return them to exactly?

Hmm, let me think. Oh yeah, their country of origin. That's why they're called "returns". That's how this generally works. And to forestall your next bunch of tedious questions, yes we can, it's less complicated than you think when you're a government, and we were removing 40k a year at the end of the noughties and even now we're removing thousands each year. This is not rocket science, it's tedious technocratic stuff that we know how to do, it just needs resourcing.

Oh dear, you have mixed up asylum seeker returns with total returns and made 5. We do not even have figures for asylum seeker returns before 2020 but as the high point of asylum seekers was 17,000 odd in 2010 you might want to look at your 40,000 figure of returns again.

[BoRED S2upid]

E63eeeeee... said:

Vanden Saab said:

E63eeeeee... said:

272BHP said:

E63eeeeee... said:

Pretty sure they won't, since they've already said they'll process the claims. I wonder how many more times we'll see this lie over the next six weeks.

Isn't "processing all the claims" exactly the same thing but over several months?

Nope. An amnesty would be to allow everyone to stay regardless of the merit of their claim. Processing their claims is deciding whether they qualify or not, allowing the ones who do to stay, and returning the others.

Where are we going to return them to exactly?

Hmm, let me think. Oh yeah, their country of origin. That's why they're called "returns". That's how this generally works. And to forestall your next bunch of tedious questions, yes we can, it's less complicated than you think when you're a government, and we were removing 40k a year at the end of the noughties and even now we're removing thousands each year. This is not rocket science, it's tedious technocratic stuff that we know how to do, it just needs resourcing.

Oh dear. You really think it is that easy? We wouldn’t be spending billions a year if we could just pop them on an easyJet back home for them to try again next year.

[E63eeeeee...]

Vanden Saab said:

E63eeeeee... said:

Vanden Saab said:

E63eeeeee... said:

272BHP said:

E63eeeeee... said:

Pretty sure they won't, since they've already said they'll process the claims. I wonder how many more times we'll see this lie over the next six weeks.

Isn't "processing all the claims" exactly the same thing but over several months?

Nope. An amnesty would be to allow everyone to stay regardless of the merit of their claim. Processing their claims is deciding whether they qualify or not, allowing the ones who do to stay, and returning the others.

Where are we going to return them to exactly?

Hmm, let me think. Oh yeah, their country of origin. That's why they're called "returns". That's how this generally works. And to forestall your next bunch of tedious questions, yes we can, it's less complicated than you think when you're a government, and we were removing 40k a year at the end of the noughties and even now we're removing thousands each year. This is not rocket science, it's tedious technocratic stuff that we know how to do, it just needs resourcing.

Oh dear, you have mixed up asylum seeker returns with total returns and made 5. We do not even have figures for asylum seeker returns before 2020 but as the high point of asylum seekers was 17,000 odd in 2010 you might want to look at your 40,000 figure of returns again.

This is big talk from someone who didn't even know where failed asylum seekers were returned to. Also your numbers make no sense, not that it really matters.

What do you think is the difference between failed asylum seeker returns and other returns?

[E63eeeeee...]

BoRED S2upid said:

E63eeeeee... said:

Vanden Saab said:

E63eeeeee... said:

272BHP said:

E63eeeeee... said:

Pretty sure they won't, since they've already said they'll process the claims. I wonder how many more times we'll see this lie over the next six weeks.

Isn't "processing all the claims" exactly the same thing but over several months?

Nope. An amnesty would be to allow everyone to stay regardless of the merit of their claim. Processing their claims is deciding whether they qualify or not, allowing the ones who do to stay, and returning the others.

Where are we going to return them to exactly?

Hmm, let me think. Oh yeah, their country of origin. That's why they're called "returns". That's how this generally works. And to forestall your next bunch of tedious questions, yes we can, it's less complicated than you think when you're a government, and we were removing 40k a year at the end of the noughties and even now we're removing thousands each year. This is not rocket science, it's tedious technocratic stuff that we know how to do, it just needs resourcing.

Oh dear. You really think it is that easy? We wouldn’t be spending billions a year if we could just pop them on an easyJet back home for them to try again next year.

You have to process them first, the recent collapse of asylum processing and the various stupid distractions are why we have a massive backlog and are spending a fortune on hotels. Processing isn't hard, like I said, it just needs resourcing.

[PRTVR]

E63eeeeee... said:

BoRED S2upid said:

E63eeeeee... said:

Vanden Saab said:

E63eeeeee... said:

272BHP said:

E63eeeeee... said:

Pretty sure they won't, since they've already said they'll process the claims. I wonder how many more times we'll see this lie over the next six weeks.

Isn't "processing all the claims" exactly the same thing but over several months?

Nope. An amnesty would be to allow everyone to stay regardless of the merit of their claim. Processing their claims is deciding whether they qualify or not, allowing the ones who do to stay, and returning the others.

Where are we going to return them to exactly?

Hmm, let me think. Oh yeah, their country of origin. That's why they're called "returns". That's how this generally works. And to forestall your next bunch of tedious questions, yes we can, it's less complicated than you think when you're a government, and we were removing 40k a year at the end of the noughties and even now we're removing thousands each year. This is not rocket science, it's tedious technocratic stuff that we know how to do, it just needs resourcing.

Oh dear. You really think it is that easy? We wouldn’t be spending billions a year if we could just pop them on an easyJet back home for them to try again next year.

You have to process them first, the recent collapse of asylum processing and the various stupid distractions are why we have a massive backlog and are spending a fortune on hotels. Processing isn't hard, like I said, it just needs resourcing.

If it was "not hard" do you not think it would be done now ? We have a very efficient legal system that works to keep them here, repeated appeals make the process go on for years, then a lot of countries are refusing to take them back, Pakistan is the latest, so what then ?

[blueg33]

PRTVR said:

If it was "not hard" do you not think it would be done now ? We have a very efficient legal system that works to keep them here, repeated appeals make the process go on for years, then a lot of countries are refusing to take them back, Pakistan is the latest, so what then ?

You say it’s hard. But we are materially worse at processing than we were 16 or so years ago

[JagLover]

s1962a said:

I do find this puzzling. The current government have created an absolute stshow with this Rwanda policy, and spunked our hard earned tax money in the process. Rather than debate the merits of what they are doing and what they should do better, the response is that the other lot would be worse?? How bad do things have to get for you to admit how ill conceived and a waste of money this idea actually is?

Whether you agree with illegal migration or not it is clear now that Rwanda was always intended by the Tories as a gesture to placate their voters rather than as a policy intended to be implemented to deter migrants from crossing the channel.

Labour will soon have to confront the same issue but perhaps with more honesty. I expect that numbers will grow with Labour's approach but that will be for another day.

[PRTVR]

blueg33 said:

PRTVR said:

If it was "not hard" do you not think it would be done now ? We have a very efficient legal system that works to keep them here, repeated appeals make the process go on for years, then a lot of countries are refusing to take them back, Pakistan is the latest, so what then ?

You say it’s hard. But we are materially worse at processing than we were 16 or so years ago

As I explained you can only go as fast as the legal system allows, each appeal has to be considered, all this takes time, the immigration lawyers have improved their game and everything takes a lot longer.

[Unreal]

The idea that processing will be speeded up and tens of thousands returned to their country of origin is risible. It didn't happen under a supposed right of centre government with a thumping majority. It isn't going to happen under a left of centre one.

What people have to understand is that the key power brokers in the Labour Party have no issue with immigration. They see controls as regressive and racist. As a result, there's not a hope in hell of them clearing the backlog by speeding up processing and removing people. The answer is to clear the backlog at a stroke with an amnesty and to make it easier for new arrivals to obtain asylum. That will just make crossing the channel crossing even more attractive.

I'm sure it will work out just fine.

[Mrr T]

PRTVR said:

E63eeeeee... said:

You have to process them first, the recent collapse of asylum processing and the various stupid distractions are why we have a massive backlog and are spending a fortune on hotels. Processing isn't hard, like I said, it just needs resourcing.

If it was "not hard" do you not think it would be done now ? We have a very efficient legal system that works to keep them here, repeated appeals make the process go on for years, then a lot of countries are refusing to take them back, Pakistan is the latest, so what then ?

It's not actually that hard. I think its presentation of reason for claim plus any supporting evidence, then 2 initial interviews, and a major interview before decision.

The head of the unit at the HO appeared before the HC committee a few no the ago, cannot find the link now, the issue is lack of staff, high turnovers of staff, and lack of systems. The latter means it very hard to keep track of addresses and phone numbers. So making appointments was a nightmare.

Iirc the government reduced the waiting list by removing those they could no longer contact.

As for your comments about legal system you seem to be basing your research on the Daily Mail. Better sources are advised.

While lawyers will advise clients on how to present their case it's highly unlikely anything will go to appeal until decision. Since about 65% are successful no appeal is required. Of the 35% who are rejected about 30% appeal and of those about half succeed.

You cannot appeal for no reason. You need to prove material evidence was missed or has now come to light or the decision did not apply the law correctly. You would normally only get one appeal. To get an appeal to a higher court you would need to convince the appeal court there was an error in law. Such cases are rare and normally only happen when the law is unclear.

[PRTVR]

Mrr T said:

PRTVR said:

E63eeeeee... said:

You have to process them first, the recent collapse of asylum processing and the various stupid distractions are why we have a massive backlog and are spending a fortune on hotels. Processing isn't hard, like I said, it just needs resourcing.

If it was "not hard" do you not think it would be done now ? We have a very efficient legal system that works to keep them here, repeated appeals make the process go on for years, then a lot of countries are refusing to take them back, Pakistan is the latest, so what then ?

It's not actually that hard. I think its presentation of reason for claim plus any supporting evidence, then 2 initial interviews, and a major interview before decision.

The head of the unit at the HO appeared before the HC committee a few no the ago, cannot find the link now, the issue is lack of staff, high turnovers of staff, and lack of systems. The latter means it very hard to keep track of addresses and phone numbers. So making appointments was a nightmare.

Iirc the government reduced the waiting list by removing those they could no longer contact.

As for your comments about legal system you seem to be basing your research on the Daily Mail. Better sources are advised.

While lawyers will advise clients on how to present their case it's highly unlikely anything will go to appeal until decision. Since about 65% are successful no appeal is required. Of the 35% who are rejected about 30% appeal and of those about half succeed.

You cannot appeal for no reason. You need to prove material evidence was missed or has now come to light or the decision did not apply the law correctly. You would normally only get one appeal. To get an appeal to a higher court you would need to convince the appeal court there was an error in law. Such cases are rare and normally only happen when the law is unclear.

How about the BBC ? Too right wing for you

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68167793

My point is the lawyers know the system and what is required.

[E63eeeeee...]

PRTVR said:

blueg33 said:

PRTVR said:

If it was "not hard" do you not think it would be done now ? We have a very efficient legal system that works to keep them here, repeated appeals make the process go on for years, then a lot of countries are refusing to take them back, Pakistan is the latest, so what then ?

You say it’s hard. But we are materially worse at processing than we were 16 or so years ago

As I explained you can only go as fast as the legal system allows, each appeal has to be considered, all this takes time, the immigration lawyers have improved their game and everything takes a lot longer.

And why do you think the legal system is so slow? Is it because it's starved of resources? I bet it's that.

[E63eeeeee...]

PRTVR said:

Mrr T said:

PRTVR said:

E63eeeeee... said:

You have to process them first, the recent collapse of asylum processing and the various stupid distractions are why we have a massive backlog and are spending a fortune on hotels. Processing isn't hard, like I said, it just needs resourcing.

If it was "not hard" do you not think it would be done now ? We have a very efficient legal system that works to keep them here, repeated appeals make the process go on for years, then a lot of countries are refusing to take them back, Pakistan is the latest, so what then ?

It's not actually that hard. I think its presentation of reason for claim plus any supporting evidence, then 2 initial interviews, and a major interview before decision.

The head of the unit at the HO appeared before the HC committee a few no the ago, cannot find the link now, the issue is lack of staff, high turnovers of staff, and lack of systems. The latter means it very hard to keep track of addresses and phone numbers. So making appointments was a nightmare.

Iirc the government reduced the waiting list by removing those they could no longer contact.

As for your comments about legal system you seem to be basing your research on the Daily Mail. Better sources are advised.

While lawyers will advise clients on how to present their case it's highly unlikely anything will go to appeal until decision. Since about 65% are successful no appeal is required. Of the 35% who are rejected about 30% appeal and of those about half succeed.

You cannot appeal for no reason. You need to prove material evidence was missed or has now come to light or the decision did not apply the law correctly. You would normally only get one appeal. To get an appeal to a higher court you would need to convince the appeal court there was an error in law. Such cases are rare and normally only happen when the law is unclear.

How about the BBC ? Too right wing for you

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68167793

My point is the lawyers know the system and what is required.

Er, the guy had been attending the church for years, and working for them and had convinced the vicar he was genuine. Nothing to do with lawyers. On the other hand, if it hadn't been for all the delays processing his case and his appeals he'd have been removed to Afghanistan when it was still safe. Really not a good example of what you're claiming at all.

[E63eeeeee...]

Unreal said:

The idea that processing will be speeded up and tens of thousands returned to their country of origin is risible. It didn't happen under a supposed right of centre government with a thumping majority. It isn't going to happen under a left of centre one.

What people have to understand is that the key power brokers in the Labour Party have no issue with immigration. They see controls as regressive and racist. As a result, there's not a hope in hell of them clearing the backlog by speeding up processing and removing people. The answer is to clear the backlog at a stroke with an amnesty and to make it easier for new arrivals to obtain asylum. That will just make crossing the channel crossing even more attractive.

I'm sure it will work out just fine.

Processing being speeded up and tens of thousands being returned a year is exactly what happened under the last Labour government. Including clearing the backlogs left by the preceding Tory government. No reason at all it can't happen again. It's not like the Home Office has forgotten how to do this.