Keir Starmer Opens Door To Processing Asylum Claims Outside Uk

[naomi24]

https://www.ft.com/content/4566173e-e99d-4a3e-8394-163d796b262e

 

Isn't that exactly what the Conservatives had in mind - the plan that Starmer ditched immediately he took office?  Having raised continual objections to that scheme and now thrown away the money the previous government spent on it, I wonder how much he intends to pay for the service - and to whom?

[youngmafbog]

Well yes, but dont they claim it was just Rhwanda they objected to?

Bet SKS's mates in the 'ooman rights dont kick off when he does something.  Same for his cronies in the HoL and the (un)Civil service.

[THECORBYLOON]

Last December, Labour was looking at processing claims abroad.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/dec/26/labour-warned-against-dancing-to-tory-tune-by-offshoring-asylum-claims

[naomi24]

^//Labour warned against ‘dancing to Tory tune’ by offshoring asylum claims//

 

And yet ....

[THECORBYLOON]

If he believes it to be a good idea, why should he dismiss it because the Tories thought the same?

 

[youngmafbog]

He shouldnt but it is hypocritical nonetheless.

[naomi24]

He did dismiss it.  That's why we've lost the money we gave to Rwanda.

[THECORBYLOON]

"

Keir Starmer said this month that he would look at offshore schemes where migrants are processed in a third country “usually en route to their country of destination”, saying that other European countries are also considering this.

The Times reported on Monday that Labour was also looking at all options for offshore processing of asylum claims as long as British officials did the assessment and migrants were not barred from claiming asylum if they had arrived by illegal means – unlike the government’s Rwanda scheme."

Can't see anything there suggesting he dismissed the idea.

[youngmafbog]

He cancelled the Rwanda scheme = he dismissed it.

How difficult is that to understand?

 

[naomi24]

//Sir Keir Starmer has confirmed the Rwanda deportation scheme is "dead and buried", on his first full day as prime minister.

The Labour leader said he would end the "gimmick" of deporting migrants arriving in the UK illegally to Rwanda, which was established by the previous Conservative government.

Labour campaigned on a manifesto pledge to scrap the scheme, which has already cost around £310m, promising a more effective approach to tackling illegal immigration to replace it.//

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cz9dn8erg3zo

 

And there he was just a couple of weeks ago scrapping a 'gimmick' and promising a 'more effective approach'.   What a hypocrite! 

[Old_Geezer]

saying that other European countries are also considering this

 

So; he's a follower not a leader ? Someone who needs someone else to say they think it may be ok first ?

 

Money to Rwanda was lost because parliament failed to send anyone there, then government called the deal off. Then, laughably thought they might get a refund. Rwanda ain't M&S ! (Bet they didn't even keep the receipt.)

[Ken4155]

From your link, Naomi; "The deal is different to the Rwanda scheme proposed by former UK Prime Minister Richi Sunak - scrapped by Starmer on his first day in power - where undocumented migrants arriving in the UK would be sent to the East African country but would never be allowed to return to Britain."

[jno]

perhaps he'll choose a country that's not famous for genocide, which was the problem with Rwanda.

[naomi24]

So what is he going to do with undocumented migrants?

[Old_Geezer]

Soylent green ?

[Untitled]

the rwanda scheme was effectively to pay rwanda to accept migrants for us... people sent there would stay there in theory. it was a policy that was designed deliberately to fall foul of the ECHR so that the conservatives could campaign for leaving it and recreate their brexit coalition. happily it did not work. 

the proposal that kier starmer is considering is allow people to to apply for asylum in the uk from outside its borders (presumably in calais) effectively creating a safe way to enter this country as an asylum seeker and rendering illegal boat crossings for such people unnecessary. 
 

a much more sensible policy in my opinion and one that will actually do something to address the problem. there is at present no safe and legal way to enter the uk if you wish to claim asylum here... and there should be. 

[youngmafbog]

Citizen Smith is up

[ToraToraTora]

12:37 yes a more sensible policy to let them apply from Calais etc. The problem is that those refused will still try and get here as they do now. They'll not have any ID so we'll be back to square one. The only way is to stop them physically or send them straight back.

[Untitled]

sorry youngmafbog do you wish to engage with me or not? you told me at some point you did not wish to "engage with me on any subject" which is fair enough and i try to respect that... and yet you always seem to pop up with something to say to me personally. how am i to react exactly? do you wish to interact with me or do you not? i am uncertain what it is that you want. 

[naomi24]

//12:37 yes a more sensible policy to let them apply from Calais etc. The problem is that those refused will still try and get here as they do now.//

 

Firstly is he talking about Calais - and secondly as TTT quite rightly says that won't stop the boats.

 

[Gromit]

In the first half of this year 14,000 illegal immigrants have come here. Labour are trying a different approach, I have no idea if the new schemes will work or not.  
If by 31st December another 14,000 or more have arrived, then they will have failed. If the figure is reduced in the second half of the year, then that will be a step in the right direction.   
Labour have done more in two weeks that the previous lot managed in the last 2 years.