That Starmer fella...

And the flipside of that is those that do have the right to stay here will also be processed quicker (as was also mentioned in the interview).

She was saying the Tories weren't competent on immigration, nothing about softness.

Yep. That was my take.

She said she wanted to deport more people - I’m not sure how well everyone understands our current asylum system but saying that more people should be deported because the Home Office deemed their claim to have failed is pretty low from a Labour politician.

I’m sure we’ve all seen the news today about the opinions of some home office officials / former cops.

If you’re 30 points ahead maybe you don’t need to keep punching down.

saying that more people should be deported because the Home Office deemed their claim to have failed is pretty low from a Labour politician

In your view, what SHOULD happen to unsuccessful asylum claimants if not deportation?

She said she wanted to deport more people

Are you really sure about that?

Just rewatched the clip and pretty sure she said "(the tories must) get people out of the country if they have no legal right to be here".

She also goes on to say that the current system is letting asylum seekers down.

I think the vast majority of cases their claim shouldn’t have failed. Which is the general view of the majority of migrant right NGOs and legal firms.

Can you link to something about that? I wasnt aware. I just know the headline numbers...that 75%ish of asylum claims are approved and of the remainder about 50% of rejected applications are allowed on appeal.

I think this needs a source.

A lot of the applications for asylum do succeed (something like or above 2/3 i think from memory), but is this talking only about failed asylum claims, or all immigration claims altogether? Maybe your point is that there should be no limits on immigration - that is a reasonable position but it isn’t the law, and while it isn’t, is it ridiculous to think that those who don’t succeed under the system we have should be required to leave?

I'm a sound engineer for a living and got asked in a WhatsApp group the other day by a very prominent and well connected audio/comms tech.

"Anyone free for a one mic corporate job from Oct 10-26, message for more info"

My immediate thought was - sounds like an election campaign.

I thought her statement was very much on the process shambles/efficiency.

Moreover on the general point,

Do that before introducing new legislation.

... this is a huge bugbear of mine.

"What's that? We have a problem with knife crime? I know let's add some more laws to deal specifically with crimes involving knives even though its already covered by bucket full of other laws and it's not actually the 'stabbing not being illegal enough' bit which is causing the crime."

I think the vast majority of cases their claim shouldn’t have failed. Which is the general view of the majority of migrant right NGOs and legal firms.

I am sorry, but that wasn't the question. Even a perfectly legal and compassionate asylum system (which I am not arguing that we currently have) will find that some people are not entitled to asylum, even on appeal - for example if they're found to have a serious criminal record which precludes them remaining in the country.

What should happen to those people if not deportation?

Those people should be given knighthoods, life salaries and lauded for proving starmers labour aren't Left enough. Obviously

Okay perhaps we should focus on what Rachel Reeves said as she is the Shadow Chancellor and this is a thread about the current Labour leadership.

The problem is the government are not deporting people today, even when their claims have failed.
What the government need to do is get a grip of the system, process claims quicker, and ensure people who have not got a right to be here are sent home.

As you recognise, we don't currently have a legal and compassionate asylum system. The Nationality and Borders Act 2022, was condemned by Amnesty International, who said

the new laws are highly likely to cause the UK to wrongly refuse asylum to thousands of people despite them having presented a grave risk that if sent back to their home countries they will face torture and other forms of persecution [https://www.amnesty.org.uk/press-releases/uk-priti-patels-borders-act-unlawfully-rewriting-what-it-means-be-refugee]

In this context, I don't agree that Labour should be encouraging the home office to be deporting people who's claims they deemed to have failed.

Oh she also said

The Conservatives have been in government for 12 years now and illegal immigration is on the increase, so this is a problem that's been made under their watch.

'Illegal immigration' is a right-wing dog whistle and has no standing in law. No one is 'illegal' when entering the UK. Also, since asylum claim success rates have increased until recently, I'm not sure how 'illegal immigration' could be increasing either.

Basically her statement was complete tosh.

Doesn't the term illegal immigration largely (90%+ of the time) refer to people who arrived legally but overstay their visas etc as opposed to the dog whistle about asylum seekers that you mentioned.

Yeah, much better for Labour to keep this as a wedge issue and lose again.

You're confusing two things - "illegal immigration" (i.e. not regularised immigration, people coming in who are not legally entitled to) and "illegal immigrant" (used as a derogatory term, implying a lower entitlement to rights etc).

It clearly is illegal to enter the UK through non-permitted means, due to some horribly illiberal legislation passed this year. That's not what I want the law to be, but pretending it isn't doesn't help to get us to a more liberal position.

I'm not.

It clearly is illegal to enter the UK through non-permitted means, due to some horribly illiberal legislation passed this year.

There are no safe and legal routes to the UK however, the Home Office only allows people to make an asylum claim when they are in the UK. Everyone has a right to claim asylum under international law (the 1951 Refugee Convention which the UK is party to). Under international law, when you enter the UK, you should declare yourself to the Home Office who will assess your claim of asylum. As we've seen, the percentage of people at this stage being granted some form of leave to remain has increased.

much better

For whom? Those people who are deported and face risk of persecution, torture or death?

When you say "there's no such thing as illegal immigration" you are wrong. Sorry, you just are - some immigration is not legally allowed.

Not all immigrants are asylum seekers either, but you seem to discuss this as if all are. Some people just want to live here and would otherwise be somewhere else but safe.

It isn't better for them if labour lose and the system keeps getting more illiberal, though

Okay perhaps we should focus on what Rachel Reeves said as she is the Shadow Chancellor and this is a thread about the current Labour leadership.

Absolutely. Rachel Reeves said that the government is not deporting people when their claims have failed. You say that's a moral failing, so I'm asking you what SHOULD happen to people when their claims have failed - I'm asking about in a perfect system, but you can answer what you think should happen under this one too if you like.

I'm asking because it seems to me that you're making a very black and white argument that we shouldn't deport anyone under any circumstances and - imo - that strikes me as being very dangerous. I want to know if it's what you actually believe.

Doesn't the term illegal immigration largely (90%+ of the time) refer to people who arrived legally but overstay their visas etc as opposed to the dog whistle about asylum seekers that you mentioned.

The term illegal immigration shouldn't really be used. Yes people are overstaying their visa and therefore living here illegally, but when you say 'illegal immigration' to someone on the street they're going to think of small boats crossing the channel (who are then entitled to claim asylum), not someone overstaying their work visa. Also pretty sure the Home Office don't publish stats on overstays.

I'm gonna bow out now as it's a Friday but enjoy yourselves

I'm asking because it seems to me that you're making a very black and white argument that we shouldn't deport anyone under any circumstances and - imo - that strikes me as being very dangerous. I want to know if it's what you actually believe.

Are you a cop and are you trying to deport me for my very dangerous views?

Are you a cop and are you trying to deport me for my very dangerous views?

I've no idea what your views are because you keep dodging the question.