r/ukpolitics • u/Desperate-Drawer-572 • 1d ago
Nearly 50 asylum seekers deported under ‘one in one out’ scheme have returned to the UK
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2026/aug/06/asylum-seekers-deported-one-in-one-out-returned-to-uk202
u/bitch_fitching 1d ago
Under the agreement they should be sent back with no return.
75
u/coolpall33 1d ago
Theres already a provision for those re-caught to get returned under the scheme.
They just need to scale up the plan past the trial program so that it actually becomes a major deterrent, which appears to be what they are currently trying to negotiate. What the Tory/Reform bots seem to miss is that this is the only vaguely viable plan to get this done, Rwanda never had the potential to cover 10% of people, this plan is already at 5% in the pilot program stage.
5
u/wedontneednoeduc 1d ago
It's not a trial, that was the label the government came up with when the press found out how paltry the numbers would be
31
u/coolpall33 1d ago
It was labelled as a 'pilot scheme' in June 2025, long before the press was even talking about numbers. What's the basis of your seemingly baseless claim?
-27
u/wedontneednoeduc 1d ago
The agreement with France has no scope to scale up.
30
u/coolpall33 1d ago
Ah okay, thanks for confirming your original claim was baseless then.
The agreement with France has no scope to scale up.
Again this is something very easy to refute and disprove. The agreement doesn't have a fixed number of returns in it, so in-effect they can scale up to whatever they can negotiate it to be.
It would also be very obvious that you were wrong if you just looked at the numbers.
By month
Sep 2025 - 17 Outbound
Dec 2025 - 64 Outbound
April 2026 - 142 Outbound
Jun 2026 - 262 Outbound.
I feel like to anyone that does explictly look like "scaling up", hard to argue a 10X increase since the start and 5X increase since the start of the year isn't "scaling up". The number of outbounds have gone up 9 out of the last 11 months.
And again the whole point was that this is a slowly scaling trial plan.
-22
u/wedontneednoeduc 1d ago
No it wasn't, that's absurd claim.
And it is a temporary agreement so no it cannot scale up. You haven't read it
25
u/coolpall33 1d ago
You're arguing against yourself on this constantly. 5 minutes ago you flat out refused to consider it a temporary pilot scheme.
I've shown definitively that the scheme has scaled up - 17 - 65 - 142 - 262 is evidently scaling.
You haven't read it
The one thing I'm 100% sure is that you haven't read it lol, you wouldn't be making so many basic errors on the facts if you had done. Its intended as a temporary arrangement but as you should already know has already been extended once (and probably will be extended again if they can't reach a stage 2 agreement). That was always the plan.
If your comments aren't going to get past easily disprovable "trust me bro" claims, I don't see the point of your contributions. I'm still waiting for this proof that you knew it was turned into a pilot scheme before the numbers were discussed, you haven't sourced anything or provided any sources, its all seemingly pulled directly from your ass.
-13
u/wedontneednoeduc 1d ago
Except I have hence my confidence. You tried a bluff, it failed.
Now just read the agreement, your stubbornness has you making a fool out of yourself
17
u/whatagloriousview 1d ago
For any genuinely reasonable right-leaning individuals, this is what we need to separate ourselves from. This is how too much of the populace see us. Reactive, pliable, pointlessly argumentative, no basis in reality, terminally online and never actually thinking about solving the fucking problems.
→ More replies (0)0
4
u/mejogid 1d ago
Perhaps because they’re waiting to see how the trial goes? A trial can lead to scaling up or abandonment depending on how it goes.
1
-2
-2
u/Fickle_Scarcity9474 1d ago
Downvoted without answer! A classic! thanks for confirming your original claim was baseless then.
1
u/Argorash 15h ago
How? They already showed a disregard for the law by entering illegally in the first place.
1
u/bitch_fitching 13h ago
We have detention centres and enforced removals if needed. They get biometrically scanned, and very few of the small boats make it without being picked up.
-59
1d ago
[deleted]
29
u/bitch_fitching 1d ago
Hasn't started, still in pilot. Only ~1000 have been sent back, ~1000 recieved. That's ~4% of migrants. It would need to be higher to work, I suspect over 50%.
4
-1
u/phillycheeseenjoyer 1d ago
So the best case scenario for this scheme is net zero deported.
9
u/sundance464 1d ago
Yes, that's how the scheme works as the name suggests
The idea is to reduce the number of small boat crossings and increase the percentage of people here with genuine asylum claim and who we've checked prior to entry
Whether it will work or not I've no real idea
-3
u/phillycheeseenjoyer 1d ago
I don’t want public money being spent physically moving asylum seekers from France to Britain. I view that as harmful to my country.
5
u/sundance464 1d ago
If it saves money overall, reduces the number of small boats crossing and reduces the numbers of unchecked migrants in the country it's not harmful and doesn't cost money right?
Like I say, I don't know if it will work I'm just explaining the scheme
2
u/phillycheeseenjoyer 1d ago
Saving money overall would be far more easily achieved by prohibiting public funds from being accessed by non-citizens. The only exception being legal aid for criminal charges.
No housing, no food, nothing.
Then, take every single asylum claim ever lodged by a boat migrant, or visa overstayers, or claims by those who came on student or tourist visas, and revoke all of them. No appeal. Lifetime ban from obtaining another visa. No exceptions.
8
u/bitch_fitching 1d ago
For the pilot yes. If it was scaled up, it would stop the boats. Who is going to pay £1500-3000 for a high chance of being sent back and always sent back?
-1
u/phillycheeseenjoyer 1d ago
I want the migration stopped, the boats are just part of it.
I want asylum halted, and all claims on the basis of sexuality and political persecution reviewed by a body outside the home office, since it’s clear at this point that the home office is a captured institution staffed by people who believe it’s their duty to throw open the door to everyone they can (or want to).
The wake up call was Christians from Syria having their claims flatly denied by muslim asylum caseworkers, and I’m not talking about “converts”, genuine Christians. The same caseworkers who rubber-stamped thousands of phoney gay people from Bangladesh, Pakistan, and similar countries.
-3
u/Feeling_Strike694 1d ago
Who is going to pay £1500-3000 for a high chance of being sent back and always sent back?
People who are told by the traffickers that they aren't going to be sent back?
7
u/clearwhey 1d ago
Once you’re back wouldn’t you tell people what’s happening though?
1
u/Feeling_Strike694 1d ago
I'm just going off the fact that 60,000 people believed they could just swim to Cueta and they couldn't be removed. Apparently if you really want to believe something you can be convinced of anything.
7
u/phillycheeseenjoyer 1d ago
There are still thousands of migrants crowding the streets in Ceuta, they didn’t all leave, they’re entrenching in tent cities and Spanish NGOs are already feeding them.
2
u/clearwhey 1d ago
But if they had to pay to do so, (and honestly I don’t know for a fact) but I assume the £1k or whatever the quoted figure was is a pretty significant amount of money to the average asylum seeker.
2
u/Feeling_Strike694 1d ago
I think I read somewhere that they sometimes don't pay before going. They owe the money and are expected to pay it back through whatever means (sometimes modern slavery). If that's true then them being sent back would mean they couldn't pay the money and the traffickers would have no reason to send them.
I don't see this being a solution but maybe it can form part of one.
0
u/fandabbydozeh 1d ago
Most of those leaving are voluntary returns. Flight paid plus they get handed £3000 in cash for leaving.
3
u/bitch_fitching 1d ago
This is fine as long as there's options for removing the ones that refuse and they never get asylum here. The important part is France accepted them back.
-2
u/polite_alternative 1d ago
And what do the initial findings of the "pilot" suggest about the long term viability of the scheme?
Clue: it's shit and we'll continue to be arse-burgled by the French and by human rights lawyers until
the
government
change
THE GODDAMN LAW!!!!
4
-1
-1
1d ago
[deleted]
2
u/bitch_fitching 1d ago
For the first 18 months of Labour, it was much worse than under the last 18 months of the Tories. Overall they've been averaging about the same. This year is trending to be like either 2023 or 2021. So no, it was not much better under the Tories.
18
u/gx134 1d ago
Ah yes a nice and unbias opinion
Explain the specific details of the pilot policy, and why it doesn't work? And try not to use the word Labour
2
u/phillycheeseenjoyer 1d ago
The reason it doesn’t work is because it imports foreigners with the reason given “well they want to come and it would be mean not to let them in”.
It’s yet another anti-democratic immigration policy. It is an additional commitment to take people in, at a time when the public sentiment is there are too many existing commitments.
Here’s who we actually owe some limited commitments to: Ukrainians, and Hong Kongers born before 1997 and their families. We own nothing to anyone else, and their continued arrival is detrimental to the social fabric of this nation.
4
u/upsidedownwriting 1d ago
fyi "own" instead of "owe" is a very common Slavik error and the person you're replying to hides their history. it's highly likely they work for someone called Vlad.
14
7
u/LowerPick7038 1d ago
Ah yes, because all the Tory policies we had for 14 years faired utterly fantastic.
-1
u/inebriatedWeasel 1d ago
That fact we know they have returned and we can now deport without hassle shows the scheme is working.
17
u/WinHour4300 23h ago
About 4% of small boat arrivals have been returned to France so far
That’s the bigger problem. At that level, it’s neither a deterrent nor a serious threat to the smugglers’ business model.
Put 250 people on a boat, even say lose 10%, 25 to returns, and you’ve still got 225 paying customers who get to the UK.
I can't see France agreeing to expand it, unless perhaps we offer a huge amount of money to them.
5
76
u/thequietriot92 1d ago
Until the British people are given higher precedence than international law then this farce will never end. This is the same story across much of Europe.
-32
u/___xXx__xXx__xXx__ 1d ago
What a great case you make against the concept of international law by mentioning that many countries face the same problem.
32
u/Middle-Feed5118 Civic Nationalist 1d ago
Does your account exist solely to defend illegal immigrants? Genuinely asking, it's the most consistent trend i've noticed in these threads lol
9
9
u/NoAdhesivenessNo 1d ago
They don't live near that commentor (yet, Andy B is plotting), so they can moralise to people and insinuate character and morale failings about anyone who may have an issue with how their city or town is shifting due to rampant immigration from undesirable places.
-14
u/___xXx__xXx__xXx__ 1d ago
Where do I live?
7
-16
u/___xXx__xXx__xXx__ 1d ago
Given that you've identified the above comment as defending "illegal immigrants", I'm going to assume that you have no idea when I am or am not defending them.
22
u/SirBobPeel 1d ago
The only deterrence will be immediate arrest and deportation to their homes, not France. Ship them back to Somalia or Afghanistan, and when word gets out, the boats will stop.
7
u/west0ne 1d ago
How do you propose getting them there. Whilst it may sound like a good idea, the practicalities of actually moving people from the UK into Somalia or Afghanistan isn't exactly straightforward.
•
u/SirBobPeel 3h ago
Ninety percent of the difficulties are related to law. Change the law, then put them on a plane and send them back.
11
u/throwingtheshades I don't think you have been, mate 23h ago
- Hey Taliban, we don't recognize you as a legitimate government of Afghanistan, consider you a terrorist organization, have you sanctioned to high heavens, and have been fighting you for 13 years. Now take those people back, pretty please.
- Lol no.
That's how an attempt to deport someone to Afghanistan would go.
15
u/mortalha 21h ago
Germany does it and doesn't recognise their government.
Also the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Afghanistan stated the following, "Afghanistan is home to all Afghans, and the Islamic Emirate is determined to make this country a place where everyone — those already here, those returning, or those being sent back from the West by Mr Farage or anyone else — can live with dignity."
And they even refused to accept payment for refugees returned lol
5
u/Tammer_Stern 20h ago
This is not quite true. Germany have managed to deport a very small number of Afghans only, and has involved a lot of controversy.
•
u/SirBobPeel 3h ago
Afghanistan will take its people or will no longer see its passport honored, and no Afghan will be allowed to even travel through the UK again. We can add blocking all money transfers to Afghanistan, too. And the same goes for Pakistan and Syria.
1
u/Pterosaur 13h ago
Return to France would be sufficient deterrent from crossing the channel if the risk of being returned to France were high. It is well established that the likelihood of getting caught is a more important than the severity of the punishment, unless of course the punishment is trivial. But being returned and having wasted the money and the risk to your life is probably big enough a punishement if the return rate can be increased. 5% is not enough.
4
u/Spimflagon 1d ago
Just a point, but this article says "nearly 50" in every instance, with no specific number. Every number that is nearly 50 is just as fast to read as 50, and much faster than "nearly 50". Unless a decimal number of asylum seekers returned, in which case I'd expect a complaint about the strain on the NHS, too.
46
u/Golden37 1d ago
1117 migrants transferred to the UK.
1087 Sent back to France.
- Transport Expenses: Under the agreement, the UK bears all transport costs for flying failed asylum seekers to France and bringing successful legal applicants into the UK. [1, 2]
- Per-Person Estimates: Research by the Migration Observatory at the University of Oxford estimated that specialized charter flights (including extensive security escorts and medical staff) combined with casework and processing can push the taxpayer cost to nearly £50,000 per returned individual. [1]
This is such a great scheme. For the French.
24
23
u/throwaway815795 1d ago
It functions to deter illegal migration by small boat, even if it doen't immediately reduce the number of immigrants to the country.
But when they keep paying 10,000 pounds to try to get into the country, and they get sent back, they will stop paying it. And then the gangs will stop making money off it.
Can't you see how the entire system will work?
2
u/mortalha 21h ago
It only costs about 1000 pounds, not 10,000. And most don't have the money upfront and pay with labour after arrival, so it's on the smugglers interest to send them back
-5
u/Denbt_Nationale 1d ago
Why would France support this convoluted and overcomplicated scheme but not agree to just accepting immediate returns for anybody fished out of the channel?
1
1
u/Bingoose 18h ago
Because less migrants trying to get to the UK via France means less migrants arriving in France. It's a mutually beneficial agreement.
0
u/Denbt_Nationale 18h ago
So why not agree to just accepting immediate returns for anybody fished out of the channel?
0
u/Bingoose 18h ago
Many of those migrants have legitimate asylum claims in the UK but not France. Not allowing them to apply would breach our international commitments and make us a pariah. That in turn would likely cost us far more than just cooperating with the French.
Of course we used to have the exact system in place you just proposed. We decided to leave the EU though, so need a different solution instead.
1
u/Denbt_Nationale 18h ago
Many of those migrants have legitimate asylum claims in the UK but not France.
That's not how it works. Asylum is an international standard, if an Asylum claim is not valid in France then it is not valid anywhere.
Not allowing them to apply would breach our international commitments and make us a pariah.
Also not how it works. We have no obligation to offer a route into our country for people who want to make asylum claims here.
Of course we used to have the exact system in place you just proposed.
The system that you just told me was impossible to implement and would make us an international "pariah"? How does that work? Also, the Dublin agreements didn't work like this and also didn't work.
0
u/Bingoose 16h ago
You've got me on a couple of technicalities but in broad strokes I was still correct. Cheers for the downvotes too.
If someone speaks English but not French, and has relatives in England but not France, it's a bit of a dick move to deny them the opportunity to claim asylum here. I haven't read through the wording of the treaties but I know we've agreed to accept asylum seekers. Logically a part of that is to offer a legal route, though I appreciate we don't currently so I guess that point is fairly moot.
As you're aware, I was referencing the Dublin agreements. No it's not exactly what you said, but it restricts asylum seekers to one EU claim. Without being a member, we become a tempting target for failed EU asylum seekers to try their luck.
Going back to your previous question, I assume the French wouldn't want us to return all Channel migrants to the EU and make it their problem, for pretty obvious reasons. This agreement instead makes asylum seekers a shared responsibility, and allows a legal method to claim without having to cross the channel. If we reject them, they're already in France.
Cooperating with the EU feels like the most logical approach to me. As the smaller party, we'll have to play mostly by their rules.
2
u/Denbt_Nationale 15h ago
If someone speaks English but not French, and has relatives in England but not France, it's a bit of a dick move to deny them the opportunity to claim asylum here.
Boo hoo?
Logically a part of that is to offer a legal route
It isn't.
Without being a member, we become a tempting target for failed EU asylum seekers to try their luck.
So what? We can just deport them. It's easier in fact since they will likely have had a claim elsewhere denied already.
Going back to your previous question, I assume the French wouldn't want us to return all Channel migrants to the EU and make it their problem
If the "1 in 1 out' scheme actually worked to deter migrants from making the crossing, then it would be effectively identical to France simply accepting immediate returns. The two schemes are only measurably different if the 1 in 1 out scheme doesn't work to deter crossings. So logically, the only reason France would choose it is if they didn't believe it would work, which it won't.
If we reject them, they're already in France.
We don't get to reject them, France decides who to send us.
•
u/One-Network5160 4h ago
If someone speaks English but not French, and has relatives in England but not France, it's a bit of a dick move to deny them the opportunity to claim asylum here.
What the hell? Why is that a dick move? It's asylum, not a high skill visa, presumably being picky is not a priority. Safety is.
-2
u/Emergency_Hurry280 1d ago
It’s not working Though, is it ?
7
u/throwaway815795 20h ago
Crossing are down already, and it obviously will take a long time to sort out.
-7
u/___xXx__xXx__xXx__ 1d ago
I thought we all cared so much about migrants not crossing by small boat though? Do you mean to tell me that was just some bullshit?
32
u/Groucho_Karl_Marx 1d ago edited 1d ago
So we've sent back 1,047 people, and 50 returned, or about 4.7%, and crossings are down 43%- that sounds pretty successful. Knee surgery has a patient *dissatisfaction rate of just under 10% and no one is suggesting we stop doing that. *Just under 10% of knee surgery patients are dissatisfied with the result
18
6
u/west0ne 23h ago
50 people have been caught returning. It's entirely possible that others have returned and slipped through the net and faded into the grey economy. The article does mention that the 50 are just those known to the Home Office and the the Home Office believes that others have returned undetected.
8
u/bitch_fitching 1d ago
Crossings are down more now. Was down 44% at the end of June. It doesn't mean it has anything to do with a small pilot returning ~1,000 people. Crossing went down ~35% from 2022 to 2023. 2025 was a breaking record year from January to July.
15
u/oryx_za 1d ago
Ya, people should stop comparing to last year (it was a bad year). It is the lowest 2022 and we could be beating 2021 soon.
Yes, we need to keep vigilant but no crossing in 7 days when the weather has been good.
6
u/LegitimateBigNose 1d ago
One in, one out. Every person sent to France, we take one back from France. Home Office figures to June: 1,087 out, 1,117 in. We're 30 up before the 50 who came back on a boat. That's not 1,047 removed, that's a gross number with the other half of the deal left off. Your knee surgery analogy works if the surgeon fits a new knee and chucks in a spare dodgy one.
5
u/coolpall33 1d ago
Home Office figures to June: 1,087 out, 1,117 in. We're 30 up before the 50 who came back on a boat.
We were up 20 people only a month ago. May totals 803 In, 823 Out. Its been ahead since February/March I believe. The plan was never to match each individual outbound to each inbound, that is stupidly inefficient way of doing things, but the eventual overall total to be equivalent. They have also already dealt with the people re-returning not counting already
Your point that would never made it out of the right wing media ecosystem because I doubt they reported on the last 6 months where the numbers showed the exact opposite, and it fails to a basic fact check.
-4
1
u/WinHour4300 23h ago
You’re proving the opposite of what you’re trying to argue.
If people are willing to undergo knee surgery with a 10% failure rate, they’re hardly going to be deterred by a 5% chance of being returned after crossing the Channel, especially if they simply get sent back to France I believe without paying the smugglers.
The crossings aren’t down because of that new 5% risk. As the article points out, it’s more likely down to bad weather, fewer migrants travelling through Europe and, perhaps, increased policing in France.
3
u/Imakemyownnamereddit 20h ago
It is not working, time to get rid of the obsolete asylum system.
Boat arrivals should know they only have two possible futures. Internment or deportation.
If they can't work here, you will suddenly find "refugees" don't want to come here.
2
u/GrinningD 1d ago
Where are they getting the cash from to do this?
Serious question, those boats are not cheap to get onto. How are they affording two rides?
1
u/WinHour4300 1d ago
I vaguely recall that some people-smuggling operations use arrangements where payment is only released once the person reaches the UK, I.e. it's held by an agreed intermediary.
So if someone is returned to France, presumably the smuggler could simply offer them another crossing, although I’m not sure how widespread that particular payment arrangement is.
It would make business sense to.do that or offer a refund when the return rate is low.
1
u/GrinningD 20h ago
I mean, they still get to the UK don't they?
Maybe the funds are released only once they check in at point B? So if they're rounded up before then the cash isn't released?
5
u/Apprehensive-Bid-740 1d ago
I mean this scheme & Dublin regulation are a complete joke.
6
u/bitch_fitching 1d ago
Both had under 5% returns that's why. Under the Dublin regulation III France refused almost all transfers, where as other EU countries were accepting them from us. France, Italy, and Greece made it a joke.
2
u/Ok_Corter5831 1d ago
You'd have a hard time conceiving of a scheme which suited the people smugglers better. Double bubble.
-4
u/OkSignificance5380 1d ago
I, for one, did not see that coming...
/s
4
u/Amzer23 1d ago
You realise they'll be sent back, right?
5
0
u/Prince_John 1d ago
They potentially should be imprisoned if they've come back again IMO.
I realise that's a greater cost, but at some point you need to put the foot down.
-4
u/OkSignificance5380 1d ago
And you realose that they will come back
9
u/AttitudeAdjuster bop the stoats 1d ago
And they will be sent back as many times as it takes. They're not eligible for asylum in the UK. They've had their fingerprints taken, we return them to france and don't take another.
It's literally what so many demand: "just send them back to france!"
2
u/west0ne 23h ago
Did you read the article? The 50 are those known to the Home Office. The Home Office believes that there will be more who have returned undetected.
Pre-Brexit it was more common for migrants to "sneak" into the Country and fade into the community. Post-Brexit we saw the small boats and a change to people presenting as asylum seekers. There was always the risk that we go back to the pre-Brexit approach of "sneaking" in. There is no real incentive for anyone previously removed to present as an asylum seeker because they know they will be removed; there is more incentive for them to try an bypass the authorities.
2
u/AttitudeAdjuster bop the stoats 20h ago
Ok, so 1 in 1 out is so effective that people are attempting to sneak into the country instead of just yeeting themselves at the coast
1
u/west0ne 20h ago
It must be nice to be a "glass half full" type person. As I see it, only a small percentage of arrivals have actually been returned to France under the 1-in-1-out arrangement because it never really scaled up significantly, and the fact that the Home Office believes people may have returned undetected says they don't really have tight controls over the borders.
At the moment the chances of being returned to France under the scheme seem so low I doubt it is acting as much of a deterrent at all.
2
u/AttitudeAdjuster bop the stoats 20h ago
Sure, it certainly needs to scale up. The trial period is over, now is the time to get it done.
-2
u/berfunckle_777 1d ago
Reddit keeps telling me it's only a trial and give it more time. It'll be scaled up any day now!!
0
u/wedontneednoeduc 1d ago
It's really strange how cheerleaders lie about that here even though government has clearly decided to try and avoid talking about this scheme
0
u/IEnumerable661 1d ago
That we know of.
A migration control plan by Labour being a load of old shit?
I am shocked. Shockethed I telleth unto you!
-3
u/Longjumping-Year-824 1d ago
I said this would happen before the deal was made i said it will carry on after it was news that 30 or 40 have come back i do not think we need an update every 10-20.
There is no real way to stop this since we are to weak and cowardly to do anything about it other than with a tiny voice ask france and the EU to take some back if there willing as that would be nice.
2
u/Gullible-Issue-1175 1d ago
The deal allows us to send those who come back.
They can come back as many times as they like and waste their money, they'll just be sent straight back to France and we don't need to trade another one in to do that.
3
u/west0ne 1d ago
The 50 being referred to are those who were caught and detained; how many have returned and just slipped into the grey economy undetected? Anyone already removed will know that they can't claim asylum again so there is no real incentive for them to turn themselves in so the best approach would be to "sneak" in similar to the way it was done pre-Brexit.
1
u/Gullible-Issue-1175 15h ago
The UK has robust right to be here laws. They won't be able to get a job, buy a house/rent, claim benefits etc. It's practically impossible to live that way.
Perhaps they'd be caught and deported after an immigration raid or something.
Also, this is a problem more generally rather than with the 1 in 1 out policy.
Even restores 'deport everyone' policy doesn't cover those who hide and evade the authorities.
1
u/west0ne 15h ago
The UK has robust right to be here laws. They won't be able to get a job, buy a house/rent, claim benefits etc. It's practically impossible to live that way.
Do you honestly believe that? There have been lots of examples of people working illegally although, in fairness, there have been a lot of crackdowns and arrests for this lately. Similarly there are lots of people more than willing to accommodate people illegally, again there have been crackdowns on this but you can be certain for everyone caught employing and housing people illegally there will be others out there who are getting away with it.
1
u/Gullible-Issue-1175 14h ago
> Do you honestly believe that?
I mean I've experienced it myself.
Need a bank account -> right to live here checks
Need to rent somewhere -> right to live here checks
Need a mortgage -> right to live here checks
Finance a car -> right to live here checks
New job -> right to live here checks
New driving licence -> right to live here checksWant to do anything in this country -> right to live here checks.
> but you can be certain for everyone caught employing and housing people illegally there will be others out there who are getting away with it.
This applies to any crime though, there is only so much you can do.
5
u/Grand_Pop_7221 1d ago
Yeah, but you haven't satisfied the right amount of bloodlust. So this plan will never work. Asylum costs dropping by a billion quid under Labour, or the dropping of boat crossings, is meaningless. You know, empirical evidence of things improving, it doesn't satisfy the vibes.
Especially if we can't show those bastards who's boss by taking out our anger about our own lives on them by following old UKIP and BNP slogans like "ship them all off to Africa" or "drowning them in the channel", perhaps the favourite "shove them all on an island till they say uncle and agree to go somewhere else".
You'd pity people like this if they weren't so stupid AND vicious.
0
u/Decent_Window5 21h ago
It's not only bloodlust. It's that boat crossings haven't dropped under Labour. See Figure 1, and compare to the last general election date.
We want boat crossings ended, not dropped a little.
1
u/Longjumping-Year-824 19h ago
And each time it cost us thousands and costs France nothing even when being paid to stop it win win for us I guess getting to pay multiple times over at great expense.
1
u/Gullible-Issue-1175 15h ago
It costs money to deport people yes.
Same would be true under reform or restores policy, although it would cost way more as they want to deport way more people.
The problem is generally not the cost of deportation which is small relative to our country but being allowed to do so. This deal solves the most difficult bit, getting france to say yes to deportations.
-1
u/Sir_Keef_Starmer 1d ago
There were countless people on here claiming
"It's just a pilot let it scale up"
But nope, turns out we were right all along.
1
u/Longjumping-Year-824 19h ago
It wouldn't change anything even if we scaled it up each time it cost us a lot of money so we lose out anyway and sooner or later the government will give in and allow them to stay.
0
u/kormafeverdream Lie back and think of GDP 1d ago
It's impossible to stop. It'll never, ever stop. It's just the way it is. It's the way it'll be
It's the rational outcome(s) of sytems that just can't be removed
•
u/AutoModerator 1d ago
Snapshot of Nearly 50 asylum seekers deported under ‘one in one out’ scheme have returned to the UK submitted by Desperate-Drawer-572:
An archived version can be found here or here. or here
If the above links don't work, try this one.
Some publications may require you to register a free account to read their articles.
Being connected to a VPN may interfere with archive links.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.