.....doesn't look like there are many Families on that Boat
And?
Come off it. You know fine well the point Jez is making.
There are people on small boats desperately seeking persecution. And there are economic migrants just wanting to move here for financial reasons.
Most-not all-families coming here are doing so out of desperation. And some-not all-young men are coming here primarily for economic reasons.
This Government-primarily for political reasons-chooses not to differentiate between the 2. With its clumsy, one-dimensional, "illegal immigrants" stuff. Rather than treating individual cases on their individual merits.
Simply because someone fleeing likely death is a different priority to someone just fancying coming to the UK for money.
.....doesn't look like there are many Families on that Boat
And?
Come off it. You know fine well the point Jez is making.
There are people on small boats desperately seeking persecution. And there are economic migrants just wanting to move here for financial reasons.
Most-not all-families coming here are doing so out of desperation. And some-not all-young men are coming here primarily for economic reasons.
This Government-primarily for political reasons-chooses not to differentiate between the 2. With its clumsy, one-dimensional, "illegal immigrants" stuff. Rather than treating individual cases on their individual merits.
Simply because someone fleeing likely death is a different priority to someone just fancying coming to the UK for money.
Or, rather, it should be.
No I wasnt clear on the point he was making. Unless of course there are different rules for families. Or families are less likely to be coming here under false pretences. Or that single men are less likely to be genuine asylum seekers.
The problem with your argument is that the overwhelming majority of the applications are successful. A major source of economic migrants was ruled out, when they completed the returns agreement with Albania.
.....doesn't look like there are many Families on that Boat
And?
Come off it. You know fine well the point Jez is making.
There are people on small boats desperately seeking persecution. And there are economic migrants just wanting to move here for financial reasons.
Most-not all-families coming here are doing so out of desperation. And some-not all-young men are coming here primarily for economic reasons.
This Government-primarily for political reasons-chooses not to differentiate between the 2. With its clumsy, one-dimensional, "illegal immigrants" stuff. Rather than treating individual cases on their individual merits.
Simply because someone fleeing likely death is a different priority to someone just fancying coming to the UK for money.
Or, rather, it should be.
So 75% of the applications are successful.
Decisions and refusals Not all asylum applications are successful. In 2023, 33% were refused at initial decision (not counting withdrawals). The annual refusal rate was highest in 2004 (88%) and lowest in recent times in 2022 (24%). When an application is refused at initial decision, it may be appealed. Between 2004 to 2021, around three-quarters of applicants refused asylum at initial decision lodged an appeal and almost one third of those appeals were allowed.
.....doesn't look like there are many Families on that Boat
And?
Come off it. You know fine well the point Jez is making.
There are people on small boats desperately seeking persecution. And there are economic migrants just wanting to move here for financial reasons.
Most-not all-families coming here are doing so out of desperation. And some-not all-young men are coming here primarily for economic reasons.
This Government-primarily for political reasons-chooses not to differentiate between the 2. With its clumsy, one-dimensional, "illegal immigrants" stuff. Rather than treating individual cases on their individual merits.
Simply because someone fleeing likely death is a different priority to someone just fancying coming to the UK for money.
Or, rather, it should be.
So 75% of the applications are successful.
Decisions and refusals Not all asylum applications are successful. In 2023, 33% were refused at initial decision (not counting withdrawals). The annual refusal rate was highest in 2004 (88%) and lowest in recent times in 2022 (24%). When an application is refused at initial decision, it may be appealed. Between 2004 to 2021, around three-quarters of applicants refused asylum at initial decision lodged an appeal and almost one third of those appeals were allowed.
The trouble with statistics is that they show a snapshot of a set of people. And the Rules have changed since then.
In case you haven't noticed, it is now the case that anyone entering the country via small boats is to be automatically refused. They are no longer eligible to make an asylum application. Look at "when your claim might not be considered"
So-feel free to use your snapshot. But it is no longer relevant. That related to people who came here before the rules changed. And, without wishing to sound obvious, if you are not allowed to make an application, you don't appear in the percentages of those that can.
.....doesn't look like there are many Families on that Boat
And?
Come off it. You know fine well the point Jez is making.
There are people on small boats desperately seeking persecution. And there are economic migrants just wanting to move here for financial reasons.
Most-not all-families coming here are doing so out of desperation. And some-not all-young men are coming here primarily for economic reasons.
This Government-primarily for political reasons-chooses not to differentiate between the 2. With its clumsy, one-dimensional, "illegal immigrants" stuff. Rather than treating individual cases on their individual merits.
Simply because someone fleeing likely death is a different priority to someone just fancying coming to the UK for money.
Or, rather, it should be.
So 75% of the applications are successful.
Decisions and refusals Not all asylum applications are successful. In 2023, 33% were refused at initial decision (not counting withdrawals). The annual refusal rate was highest in 2004 (88%) and lowest in recent times in 2022 (24%). When an application is refused at initial decision, it may be appealed. Between 2004 to 2021, around three-quarters of applicants refused asylum at initial decision lodged an appeal and almost one third of those appeals were allowed.
The trouble with statistics is that they show a snapshot of a set of people. And the Rules have changed since then.
In case you haven't noticed, it is now the case that anyone entering the country via small boats is to be automatically refused. They are no longer eligible to make an asylum application. Look at "when your claim might not be considered"
So-feel free to use your snapshot. But it is no longer relevant. That related to people who came here before the rules changed. And, without wishing to sound obvious, if you are not allowed to make an application, you don't appear in the percentages of those that can.
I have never before heard of stats covering 17 or 18 years described as a snapshot. We take years to process applications. We still arent deporting anyone.
The point I was making is purely that the acceptance rate of asylum applications does not point to the majority of arrivals being economic migrants.
I am still not clear on what the Jez point was. Or what you think the message I should have drawn from his post was. Unless it was that only families can be genuine asylum seekers. Which is of course not true.
.....doesn't look like there are many Families on that Boat
And?
Come off it. You know fine well the point Jez is making.
There are people on small boats desperately seeking persecution. And there are economic migrants just wanting to move here for financial reasons.
Most-not all-families coming here are doing so out of desperation. And some-not all-young men are coming here primarily for economic reasons.
This Government-primarily for political reasons-chooses not to differentiate between the 2. With its clumsy, one-dimensional, "illegal immigrants" stuff. Rather than treating individual cases on their individual merits.
Simply because someone fleeing likely death is a different priority to someone just fancying coming to the UK for money.
Or, rather, it should be.
So 75% of the applications are successful.
Decisions and refusals Not all asylum applications are successful. In 2023, 33% were refused at initial decision (not counting withdrawals). The annual refusal rate was highest in 2004 (88%) and lowest in recent times in 2022 (24%). When an application is refused at initial decision, it may be appealed. Between 2004 to 2021, around three-quarters of applicants refused asylum at initial decision lodged an appeal and almost one third of those appeals were allowed.
The trouble with statistics is that they show a snapshot of a set of people. And the Rules have changed since then.
In case you haven't noticed, it is now the case that anyone entering the country via small boats is to be automatically refused. They are no longer eligible to make an asylum application. Look at "when your claim might not be considered"
So-feel free to use your snapshot. But it is no longer relevant. That related to people who came here before the rules changed. And, without wishing to sound obvious, if you are not allowed to make an application, you don't appear in the percentages of those that can.
I understood that they only planned to send single males to Rwanda, and that their asylum applications would be processed from there. This would of course save money on hotel bills. Except that we are giving Rwanda £171,000 per head.
According to the asylum/eligibility, we will be able to disqualify every single claim, on the basis that they have travelled through a safe third country.
So do we plan on disqualifying every asylum application. Or would this just apply to single males? Or will their applications be processed from Rwanda? Will the women and children be processed as normal? Or will we continue to accept 75% of applications, some from UK hotels, and others from Rwanda. And will they continue to take years to process them?
I understood that they only planned to send single males to Rwanda, and that their asylum applications would be processed from there.
No. They are starting with single males. Firstly because they will be easier, secondly because it will get less bad media coverage, thirdly because it will be less easy to challenge, and fourthly safe in the knowledge that this whole nonsense ends after the General Election.
It is also important to understand that this is not Rwanda processing applications to live in the UK. It is purely processing a (never made) application to settle in Rwanda. We are transporting people to Africa against their will.
This would of course save money on hotel bills. Except that we are giving Rwanda £171,000 per head.
Agreed.
According to the asylum/eligibility, we will be able to disqualify every single claim, on the basis that they have travelled through a safe third country.
So do we plan on disqualifying every asylum application.
Every one except where we decide not to, or where people have come from certain countries. While allowing a flood of legal migration.
Or would this just apply to single males?
No. Just starting there.
Or will their applications be processed from Rwanda?
No. See above. I can see various merits in offshoring UK applications-but that is not part of the current plan
Will the women and children be processed as normal?
Or will we continue to accept 75% of applications, some from UK hotels, and others from Rwanda.
The Govt has redefined what can be an application
And will they continue to take years to process them?
Existing ones-yes. Since the Act passed? Numbers will officially drop because tens of thousands of claims are not allowed. Political capital to be made when Labour reverses this, with claims Labour are the cause of the problem
I understood that they only planned to send single males to Rwanda, and that their asylum applications would be processed from there.
No. They are starting with single males. Firstly because they will be easier, secondly because it will get less bad media coverage, thirdly because it will be less easy to challenge, and fourthly safe in the knowledge that this whole nonsense ends after the General Election.
It is also important to understand that this is not Rwanda processing applications to live in the UK. It is purely processing a (never made) application to settle in Rwanda. We are transporting people to Africa against their will.
This would of course save money on hotel bills. Except that we are giving Rwanda £171,000 per head.
Agreed.
According to the asylum/eligibility, we will be able to disqualify every single claim, on the basis that they have travelled through a safe third country.
So do we plan on disqualifying every asylum application.
Every one except where we decide not to, or where people have come from certain countries. While allowing a flood of legal migration.
Or would this just apply to single males?
No. Just starting there.
Or will their applications be processed from Rwanda?
No. See above. I can see various merits in offshoring UK applications-but that is not part of the current plan
Will the women and children be processed as normal?
Or will we continue to accept 75% of applications, some from UK hotels, and others from Rwanda.
The Govt has redefined what can be an application
And will they continue to take years to process them?
Existing ones-yes. Since the Act passed? Numbers will officially drop because tens of thousands of claims are not allowed. Political capital to be made when Labour reverses this, with claims Labour are the cause of the problem
75% of them come from Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Eritrea, and Syria. So do you think we will be back to square one when Labour get in?
Comments
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/publication-of-number-of-migrants-stopped-from-crossing-channel-axed/ar-BB1m7L5z?ocid=msedgntp&pc=NMTS&cvid=9eb56d186f4d4a809ec53bdeb9fd60e7&ei=18
.....doesn't look like there are many Families on that Boat
There are people on small boats desperately seeking persecution. And there are economic migrants just wanting to move here for financial reasons.
Most-not all-families coming here are doing so out of desperation.
And some-not all-young men are coming here primarily for economic reasons.
This Government-primarily for political reasons-chooses not to differentiate between the 2. With its clumsy, one-dimensional, "illegal immigrants" stuff. Rather than treating individual cases on their individual merits.
Simply because someone fleeing likely death is a different priority to someone just fancying coming to the UK for money.
Or, rather, it should be.
Unless of course there are different rules for families.
Or families are less likely to be coming here under false pretences.
Or that single men are less likely to be genuine asylum seekers.
The problem with your argument is that the overwhelming majority of the applications are successful.
A major source of economic migrants was ruled out, when they completed the returns agreement with Albania.
https://fullfact.org/immigration/asylum-seekers-uk-and-europe/
Decisions and refusals
Not all asylum applications are successful. In 2023, 33% were refused at initial decision (not counting withdrawals). The annual refusal rate was highest in 2004 (88%) and lowest in recent times in 2022 (24%).
When an application is refused at initial decision, it may be appealed. Between 2004 to 2021, around three-quarters of applicants refused asylum at initial decision lodged an appeal and almost one third of those appeals were allowed.
https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn01403/
In case you haven't noticed, it is now the case that anyone entering the country via small boats is to be automatically refused. They are no longer eligible to make an asylum application. Look at "when your claim might not be considered"
https://www.gov.uk/claim-asylum/eligibility
So-feel free to use your snapshot. But it is no longer relevant. That related to people who came here before the rules changed. And, without wishing to sound obvious, if you are not allowed to make an application, you don't appear in the percentages of those that can.
Here is what the UNHCR say about this:-
https://www.unhcr.org/uk/what-we-do/uk-asylum-and-policy-and-illegal-migration-act/uk-asylum-and-policy-and-illegal
We take years to process applications.
We still arent deporting anyone.
The point I was making is purely that the acceptance rate of asylum applications does not point to the majority of arrivals being economic migrants.
I am still not clear on what the Jez point was.
Or what you think the message I should have drawn from his post was.
Unless it was that only families can be genuine asylum seekers.
Which is of course not true.
This would of course save money on hotel bills.
Except that we are giving Rwanda £171,000 per head.
According to the asylum/eligibility, we will be able to disqualify every single claim, on the basis that they have travelled through a safe third country.
So do we plan on disqualifying every asylum application.
Or would this just apply to single males?
Or will their applications be processed from Rwanda?
Will the women and children be processed as normal?
Or will we continue to accept 75% of applications, some from UK hotels, and others from Rwanda.
And will they continue to take years to process them?
I understood that they only planned to send single males to Rwanda, and that their asylum applications would be processed from there.
No. They are starting with single males. Firstly because they will be easier, secondly because it will get less bad media coverage, thirdly because it will be less easy to challenge, and fourthly safe in the knowledge that this whole nonsense ends after the General Election.
It is also important to understand that this is not Rwanda processing applications to live in the UK. It is purely processing a (never made) application to settle in Rwanda. We are transporting people to Africa against their will.
This would of course save money on hotel bills.
Except that we are giving Rwanda £171,000 per head.
Agreed.
According to the asylum/eligibility, we will be able to disqualify every single claim, on the basis that they have travelled through a safe third country.
So do we plan on disqualifying every asylum application.
Every one except where we decide not to, or where people have come from certain countries. While allowing a flood of legal migration.
Or would this just apply to single males?
No. Just starting there.
Or will their applications be processed from Rwanda?
No. See above. I can see various merits in offshoring UK applications-but that is not part of the current plan
Will the women and children be processed as normal?
Or will we continue to accept 75% of applications, some from UK hotels, and others from Rwanda.
The Govt has redefined what can be an application
And will they continue to take years to process them?
Existing ones-yes. Since the Act passed? Numbers will officially drop because tens of thousands of claims are not allowed. Political capital to be made when Labour reverses this, with claims Labour are the cause of the problem
So do you think we will be back to square one when Labour get in?
The current Govt will claim that.
Whereas others will say we have just stopped driving up a very long, and very expensive, cul-de-sac
https://uk.yahoo.com/news/rwanda-voluntary-removal-scheme-payment-uk-145227209.html
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/unknown-whether-thousands-of-missing-migrants-could-pose-threat-cleverly/ar-BB1mbe6j?ocid=msedgntp&pc=NMTS&cvid=a303c3ef441a45b7bde862cdb77c5c30&ei=59
https://uk.yahoo.com/news/starmer-halt-rwanda-flights-immediately-145500643.html
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/a-setback-for-pm-s-rwanda-plan-and-he-can-t-blame-leftie-lawyers/ar-BB1mjDL0?ocid=msedgntp&pc=NMTS&cvid=74639ea781164ddabd16dfe5256c614a&ei=10
Once again a banner headline without substance.
It's like claiming that it's safer to drink drive as 80% of all accidents involve drivers who haven't been drinking.