Labour's new policies for asylum seekers

Reform are a new party and learning. Labour don't have that excuse.

We need an alternative to the two main parties as they have both failed. So hopefully Reform will have learned from Kent by 2029. They have time.

Having 9 of your councillors forced out for bad conduct in 6 months is rather shocking.

If you want to excuse Reform for being new in Kent, following a Tory council there, then the same applies to Labour. I am not Starmer’s biggest fan but you cannot clean up 14 years of Tory greed etc in 16 months.

Maybe OP could let a few stay with her?

Reform have only just been running Kent for 6 months. If Labour can use the excuse of Tory mismanagement in actual government surely Reform can in local government.

Or are we being a bit 2 Tier again..

The Albanian pipeline quite rightly dried up.
We were able to send the Albanians back

Reform in Kent have already lost 9 of their councillors elected in May, from 57. They are about to break their promise of no council tax rises and request the maximum increase of 5%. The list of their incompetencies, conflicts of interest and attempts to stymie the press is long and searchable.

Local government counts.

I agree with @InTheMoodToHuff that they don’t really want to govern. That’s too boring and grown up. Much more fun just to stir things up

War torn Albania. 😂

Councils are subject to national policy unfortunately. So no. Reform aren't the government.

I don't think reform actually WANT to govern, when they can disrupt and force change from the sidelines just as easily. If they get in, whatever your personal politics, we are truly fucked.

Reform are in charge of Kent council (amongst others) where they have cocked up remarkably in just 6 months. The list of problems there since the local elections is very long and readily searchable.

Kent is the second largest council by population so yes, this counts as governing

Tbf Reform arent the Government. So we dont know if they can't govern. Labour on the other hand are in government. So we do know they definitely can't govern.

Most of these MEN are not fleeing persecution, if that was the case they would bring their families and seek asylum in the first safe country.
They are economic migrants who want an easy life courtesy of the mugs of this country

He is running scared of Reform, very cowardly.

I wish someone would hold him to account but I suppose they may also be afraid of Reform, also. I think that’s also stupid because Reform can’t govern anything and that will become clear before the election.

If I was genuinely fleeing persecution I'd use all of my jewellery, phone and money to save my life and that of my kids. How would that be racist? People come up with everything being racist.

You’d think he’d know better given his old career. Someone should ask directly why he uses that line. The Guardian could do that.

Got it.

Starmer’s statement about turning back those who enter illegally violates the 1951 UN Convention on Human Rights, which the UK signed. Manner of entry should be irrelevant to an asylum claim as stated there. I think that’s terrible and in the long run bad for national security as it promotes anti-Western radicalisation. But the UK isn’t the first country taking this stance and it won’t be the last.

I can’t get past the impracticality of ‘one in, one out’. Just so stupid.

I was just looking at the language, from what you know of the one in one out agreement is Starmer correct to use illegally in that line or not

Well, what exactly does the phrase ‘if you come here illegally’ mean?

The two ways to claim asylum in the UK are to come on a visa either under false pretences or to overstay that visa, and to claim on UK soil.

I suppose people could be required to claim at recognised frontiers. If the system were scaled up to cope with the numbers - and that is quite a caveat - then sending others back to the extent practicable once the word got out wouldn’t bother me. It isn’t perfect but it would have the advantage of reducing trafficking.

I don’t think we have a particularly sound legal basis for sending them back to France, however. We rely on the French. I continue to think we would be better off participating in the DA.

Another option would be to allow people to apply for asylum from outside the country. But this relies on both technical expertise and timely processing; incompetence risks lives. I don’t know that this is viable.

That’s not what I’m referring to, I mean the language. Do you agree with the term illegal migrant in Starmer’s comms? In the 7.17 post

But no Brexit isn’t much of a factor, if you look at Germany and ROI. Similar issues including high profile crimes.

I cannot find this statistic. Where is it from?

At minimum the arrangement with France isn’t looking very practical or implementable, is it?

Brexit seems to me an own goal simply in terms of having some control over immigration. Farage pulled a blinder

I think most people know that mass immigration has been a disaster for the country. Most are not net contributers - Only 1 in 20.

AI will decimate white collar jobs. There will be plenty of young workers for more.menial jobs. But unfortunately we have stuffed them full of immigrants. Immigrants who won't be leaving.So its life on the dole for our own youth. Or they get out. Which is what is happening.

@poetryandwine - what jobs exactly are you expecting immigrants to do? There are increasingly fewer unskilled “man jobs” available.

“The NHSSSS” you might cry. Well, having seen a lot of care workers/homes in the last few years, I have seen lots of sub-Saharan men working there. But I have never encountered a (middle-eastern extraction) Muslim man. Nor a Muslim woman. Nor a Muslim daughter. They make huge use of the NHS though. I suggest you might visit for example Dewsbury hospital.

We can’t import endless men to be taxi drivers or barbers - and then innumerable women who will never consider working.

@poetryandwinedid you have a view in the accuracy of the language 7.17 post below, in answer to what did Starmer say