10 facts about immigration?

[motorbiking]

They said there was no evidence it had worked. They disagree with your claim that it was a "massive deterrent" or reduced the numbers.

they don't have any evidence, but know it didn't work. righto.

 

[MNW67]

they don't have any evidence, but know it didn't work. righto.

Don't be a moron. I can't be bothered trying to explain simple English to you.

 

[noseall]

Of the thousands that still landed on English shores, how many were actually deported to Rwanda?

 

[motorbiking]

Don't be a moron. I can't be bothered trying to explain simple English to you.

No need to be rude.

you claim this:

Q&A: The UK’s former policy to send asylum seekers to Rwanda - Migration Observatory

This updated commentary answers some common questions about the Rwanda asylum policy and its implications, reflects the Labour government’s announcement that it is cancelling the Rwanda scheme, and to review the financial cost of the policy to date.

migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk

They said there was no evidence it had worked. They disagree with your claim that it was a "massive deterrent" or reduced the numbers.

nope they didn't

Because the Rwanda policy was never implemented, we cannot be sure what its impact would have been on the number of people crossing the Channel in small boats or claiming asylum in the UK.

lets not be a moron and pretend it said something it didn't.

 

[noseall]

they don't have any evidence, but know it didn't work. righto.

Of the thousands that still landed on English shores, how many were deported to Rwanda?

Give or take?

 

[MNW67]

nope they didn't

lets not be a moron and pretend it said something it didn't.

You've quoted the wrong bit. Find the quote I schooled you with the last time you made up your own nonsense.

 

[noseall]

You've quoted the wrong bit. Find the quote I schooled you with the last time you made up your own nonsense.

The bloke is not well.

 

[motorbiking]

You've quoted the wrong bit. Find the quote I schooled you with the last time you made up your own nonsense.

I've quoted the wrong bit. righto

Would the policy have deterred unauthorised arrivals?

There is no evidence that political discussions surrounding the Rwanda policy deterred small boat arrivals. The number of people taking this route did not fall following the policy’s announcement in April 2022, for example. If there was a deterrent effect, it was too small to see in the data.

Because the Rwanda policy was never implemented, we cannot be sure what its impact would have been on the number of people crossing the Channel in small boats or claiming asylum in the UK.

The available evidence suggests the deterrent effect of asylum policies is often small, which means there was no guarantee the Rwanda policy would have been the game-changer that the Conservative government had hoped it would be.

The deterrent impact of the policy would likely have depended on the number of people sent to Rwanda. If only a few hundred asylum seekers were sent to Rwanda each year (as suggested by the Deputy Prime Minister and the Home Office’s modelling) and unauthorised arrivals had continued at rates similar to those seen in 2022 and 2023, then the probability of a person crossing the Channel in a small boat being sent to Rwanda would have be small – around 1–2%. This raises the question about how high the likelihood of removal to Rwanda would have to have been to materially reduce irregular entry to the UK – especially given that the dangerous small boat journey itself has not been enough to dissuade many people.

Fundamentally, there was a high degree of uncertainty about the deterrent effect of the Rwanda policy. The Home Office’s Permanent Secretary, the department’s most senior civil servant, wrote in a 13 April letter to Priti Patel, then Home Secretary, that “evidence of a deterrent effect is highly uncertain and cannot be quantified with sufficient certainty to provide me with the necessary level of assurance over [the policy’s] value for money”. In other words, because there was insufficient evidence that the policy would deter irregular arrivals, the Home Office could not firmly conclude that it would have been cost-effective.

yep, wasn't implemented, so we don't know.

meanwhile illegal boats went up after Labour announced they'd scrap it.

who would be stupid enough to scrap a possible deterrent without a replacement?

Labour the craperest.

 

[MNW67]

I've quoted the wrong bit. righto


yep, wasn't implemented, so we don't know.

Here we go:

If there was a deterrent effect, it was too small to see in the data.

 

[motorbiking]

Here we go:

yep they don't know.

Because the Rwanda policy was never implemented, we cannot be sure what its impact would have been on the number of people crossing the Channel in small boats or claiming asylum in the UK.

 

[Koolpc]

Yes, what’s changed is a lot of your brain cells have snuffed it

At least i have some!!! You aint even got one proper brain cell!!! Look at all the tripe you post Notchy...

 

[MNW67]

yep they don't know.

YAWN

 

[Deleted member 317777]

Find the quote I schooled you with the last time you made up your own nonsense.

Condescending and double standards!

 

[noseall]

I've quoted the wrong bit. righto


yep, wasn't implemented, so we don't know.

meanwhile illegal boats went up after Labour announced they'd scrap it.

who would be stupid enough to scrap a possible deterrent without a replacement?

Labour the craperest.

Of those that came to our shores (thousands during the Rwanda fùckup), how many were deported under the Rwanda scheme?
Give or take?

 

[pete01]

Of those that came to our shores (thousands during the Rwanda fùckup), how many were deported under the Rwanda scheme?
Give or take?

Same as the one in one out scheme probably