Comments by "TJ Marx" (@tjmarx) on "UK Immigration minister Robert Jenrick resigns over Rwanda migrant bill - reports" video.

Funny you should mention Australia. 3rd country processing is often referred to as the Australian model. Not because of the convicts nonsense you're bringing up, but because Australia are the ones who designed this model. A model that is effective absolutely everywhere its deployed. It's been more than 10 years since Australia has had any real people smuggling by boat because of third country processing. In fact the advisors on the rwanda policy behind the scenes are all Australian ex-politicians who deployed the policy in Australia at the end of the 90s. None of the people being processed are convicts. Also worth noting that the UK dumped twice as many convicts in yankville as it did in Australia back in the day. Isn't it interesting that you never hear about that despite the same policies surrounding free immigration for non-convicts.
2
@simonwood1402 Neither of your statements are true. Not even close, try reading the actual memorandum instead of getting your information from tabloid rags. It is NOT a reciprocal exchange deal. It is a one way deal in return for economic aid, trade deals and political assistance in admittance to organisations of economic benefit. The ONLY section in the entire thing that at any point talks about asylum seeks going from Rwanda to the UK is subsection 11.1 of the memorandum which states 11.1 Following a request made by the United Kingdom, Rwanda will take all reasonable steps in accordance with international human rights standards to make a Relocated Individual available for return to the United Kingdom should the United Kingdom be legally obliged to facilitate that person’s return. That is, only people the UK invites will return. Rwanda has no other right to send people to the UK under the deal. There is absolutely NO upper limit to the number of claimants the UK can send to Rwanda. In fact the home office have 24,000 earmarked to be sent in the first wave in addition to anyone who turns up by boat from a country unlikely to meet asylum criteria in that period.
1
OP your number is false, and I suspect you are getting some reports confused. I think you are actually referencing net migration for 2022 which was recently adjusted by ONS to 745K and INCLUDES irregular border crossings. Given the large intake of refugees from Ukraine and Afghanistan in 2022 it isn't surprising it is higher. The figure for 2023 is 679K and also includes irregular border crossings. That's a preliminary figure and won't be confirmed until sometime around Aug/Sept 2024.
1
@titteryenot4524 I'm not "quibbling" about anything. The content and spirit of your OP are materially false, and there was need to correct the record. Your 70K figure is also false because you claim 750K (which hasn't been a net migration figure at any time in the last decade) PLUS you say, "tens of thousands" of irregular border crossings. You are wrong both on the idea that net migration figures are that high AND importantly that irregular border crossings are not included in net migration figures. That's in essence the entirety of your claims. Edit: A net migration figure of 679K is in line with previous years over the last 15. Please note that includes both student visas (which take up the lions share) and skilled work immigration necessary to fill gaps in skilled workforce shortages. As the final boomers retire those numbers will need to increase to offset.
1
@tonybennett4159 The point of the Rwanda policy is to deter economic migrants and destroy the business model for people smugglers by deporting such people to economic conditions as bad (or ideally worse than) where they came from.
1
@titteryenot4524 No, you weren't. Not even close. Listen mate, you can continue with desperation to try minimising my comments all you like, however it won't change the fact you have been materially wrong at every stage. You in fact do not understand what you are talking about, and perhaps even more insidious despite being online right now you have failed to fact check your words prior to stating them. It's a little hard to take your last comment seriously when in fact it is me who first discussed your confusion with 2022. Even so, again, in your OP you talk about irregular border crossings as "tens of thousands" separate to net migration. Indeed I'm not convinced you even understand what net migration means. Here's a hint, it ISN'T the raw number of arrivals (gross migration). At every stage your comments have been significantly and materially false on multiple levels. You talk about 70K migrants as if they're nothing, but that 70K is the whole difference between normal levels of net migration and there being anything for you to even remotely complain about. And of that 70K as previously stated they are made up of invited Ukrainian and Afghan refugees.
1
@tonybennett4159 Come on, your questions are both self evident and already answered. Because the nature of third country processing is in fact processing in another country. As previously stated Rwanda have agreed to it in return for economic aid, trade, assistance in gaining admission to economically beneficial organisations, etc. This is a consensual deal between two countries. No one, not a single person, is trying to suggest Rwanda is a PLEASANT place. Safe is not the same as pleasant.
1
@Lando-kx6so It's important to note that in fact skilled migration only accounts for 34% of gross migration. The vast majority (57%) are actually entering on student visas without desired skills. It's the continued exploitation of the economy by universities making billions off it that no one seems to want to talk about. Please note that the 500K-700K international students who enter the UK annuallu all need 1. A place to stay 2. Food 3. Consumer goods 4. One of the limited seats in the course 5. Electricity and gas 6. Access to transport 7. Healthcare 8. Access to government services Their presence directly contributes to high inflation, housing shortages, limited access to uni placements and raising uni fees. Until a couple of week ago, their student visa was also a gateway to permanent residency/citizenship which is why they are predominantly made up of students from developing countries (mostly from south east asia) looking for a back-door to economic migration. But no one really wants to talk about that.
1
@tonybennett4159 Please don't treat me as a fool, I an intimately acquainted with asylum law. Transit countries have nothing to do with this. The problem is not transit countries, the problem is the overwhelming majority of claimants are economic migrants exploiting the system. And the problem is the ECHR gives them an additional loophole to be granted leave to stay after their application for asylum has been denied. As previously discussed, subsection 11.1 of the memorandum of understanding allows for the UK to bring successful asylum applicants back to the UK from Rwanda. Your personal interpretation of a speech, not any of the actual documents themselves, given by someone who isn't even on the front bench anymore, let alone the home secretary is entirely irrelevant to the matter. Read the full memorandum of understanding, it is widely available online. What politicians say in speeches doesn't matter, what matters are the words in the legal documents and contracts those speeches are about. Quite often the speeches bare little resemblance to the actual documents. The home office estimates less than 1% of applicants sent to Rwanda will be successful based on existing data and deportation plans. It's between 300-1000 people a year. 11.1 is a prevision for those people. If you're an economic migrant however, you're unlikely to keep trying to come if you'll just end up in a worse situation in Rwanda. Particularly when the EU is unlikely to get its act together on immigration before the end of the decade, so you could just exploit the EU instead.
1
Arrested? 😂 Way to show ones ignorance to how these kinds of judgements work. They aren't criminal offences, only governments can decide criminal offences and what penalties might apply. The judiciary can only make interpretations and judgements based on existing legal frameworks.
1
Please share the information and evidence that it will not work. All current international evidence says it will work, as does common sense. I'm not interested in your random opinion, share evidence it won't work or withdraw that comment.
1
It's because of people like you throwing words you don't understand around in such hyperbole, that when we need to actually use words like this to describe the real conditions in Gaza, they aren't taken seriously. Stop being such a ridiculous hack.
1