Illegal Migration Bill — theoretical consequences?

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
E

ebikeerwidnes

Senior Member
I just love the name of the bill

it literally SAYS it is illegal in the name!!!!
 
Milzy

Milzy

Well-Known Member
albion said:
Bonjou. Have half a Billion.
Merci.

https://www.theguardian.com/politic...migration-detention-centre-france-rishi-sunak
Taking back control. Easy. Innit !
Click to expand...

35674711-2502-42B1-B803-43BB787AE58D.jpeg
 
newfhouse

newfhouse

pleb
https://www.refugeecouncil.org.uk/l...estitution-new-report-on-asylum-bill-reveals/

Based on the Home Office being able to remove 30,000 people to Rwanda, detaining people for an average of 28 days, and being able to accommodate those not detained in dispersal-style accommodation, the Refugee Council estimates that, if the bill becomes law:

  • In the first three years of the legislation coming into effect, between 225,347 and 257,101 people will have their asylum claims deemed inadmissible. This includes between 39,500 and 45,066 children.
  • At the end of the third year, between 161,147 and 192,670 people will have had their asylum claims deemed inadmissible but not have been removed. They will be unable to have their asylum claims processed, unable to work and will be reliant on Home Office support and accommodation indefinitely.
  • In total, between £8.7bn and £9.6bn will have been spent on detaining and accommodating people impacted by the bill in the first three years of its operation.
  • The bill will do nothing to expand safe routes available to people who are trying to reach the UK.
 
spen666

spen666

Well-Known Member
newfhouse said:
https://www.refugeecouncil.org.uk/l...estitution-new-report-on-asylum-bill-reveals/

Based on the Home Office being able to remove 30,000 people to Rwanda, detaining people for an average of 28 days, and being able to accommodate those not detained in dispersal-style accommodation, the Refugee Council estimates that, if the bill becomes law:

  • In the first three years of the legislation coming into effect, between 225,347 and 257,101 people will have their asylum claims deemed inadmissible. This includes between 39,500 and 45,066 children.
  • At the end of the third year, between 161,147 and 192,670 people will have had their asylum claims deemed inadmissible but not have been removed. They will be unable to have their asylum claims processed, unable to work and will be reliant on Home Office support and accommodation indefinitely.
  • In total, between £8.7bn and £9.6bn will have been spent on detaining and accommodating people impacted by the bill in the first three years of its operation.
  • The bill will do nothing to expand safe routes available to people who are trying to reach the UK.
Click to expand...

The bill is not about increasing safe routes, so its hardly a criticism of the bill that it doesn't do this, when it was never intended to do this.. Its as sensible a criticism of saying the bill fails to introduce a referendum on Scottish devolution

The bill does nothing to help Ukraine defend its self against Russian attack - is that a failing as well?
Criticise the bill by all means for what it is introducing but its hardly a criticism that it is not doing something it was not intended to do and never claimed to do
 
newfhouse

newfhouse

pleb
spen666 said:
The bill is not about increasing safe routes, so its hardly a criticism of the bill that it doesn't do this, when it was never intended to do this.. Its as sensible a criticism of saying the bill fails to introduce a referendum on Scottish devolution

The bill does nothing to help Ukraine defend its self against Russian attack - is that a failing as well?
Criticise the bill by all means for what it is introducing but its hardly a criticism that it is not doing something it was not intended to do and never claimed to do
Click to expand...

The criticism is that it does nothing to fix the problem, is a diversion to keep racists voting Tory, and will make miserable and desperate men, women, and children even more miserable and desperate. Never mind your nonsense examples, the bill fails to deal effectively and humanely with the subject matter of the title.
 
spen666

spen666

Well-Known Member
newfhouse said:
The criticism is that it does nothing to fix the problem, is a diversion to keep racists voting Tory, and will make miserable and desperate men, women, and children even more miserable and desperate. Never mind your nonsense examples, the bill fails to deal effectively and humanely with the subject matter of the title.
Click to expand...

The bill was not intended to provide a safe route. It is ridiculous to criticise something that is not intended to provide a safe route.

It was not intended to do anything about safe routes.

Today's hearing involving Boris does nothing to provide safe routes to immigrants, so no doubt that hearing should also be criticised for failing to do anything about safe routes.
 
A

albion

Guest
It is based on much the same as what Brexit was based upon.

It just happened that Brexit was as flawed as this
 
stowie

stowie

Active Member
spen666 said:
The bill was not intended to provide a safe route. It is ridiculous to criticise something that is not intended to provide a safe route.

It was not intended to do anything about safe routes.

Today's hearing involving Boris does nothing to provide safe routes to immigrants, so no doubt that hearing should also be criticised for failing to do anything about safe routes.
Click to expand...

The bill may not be intended to provide a safe route, but the bill is implicitly tied into that topic in a way it isn't tied into - to use your example - Partygate.

To consider the two issues (illegal migration bill, safe routes) together in the round is entirely sensible. The bill is creating an asylum claim catch-22 when safe, legal routes are not provided for those wishing to claim asylum.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom