Asylum hotels

[motorbiking]

OMG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You are doing exactly the same thing you did last time. Quoting the wrong bit on purpose. I am beginning to think there is something not quite right about you. Last time, eventually, after my prompting, you quoted the correct part, which says they have examined all the data and there is no evidence the threat was working as a deterrent.

Because you are wrong!!!! I’ve quoted the part that says they didn’t know. They then talk about the available evidence notwithstanding the statement that says they don’t know. You can’t ignore it.

 

[MNW67]

I’ve quoted the part that says they didn’t know. They then talk about the available evidence notwithstanding the statement that says they don’t know. You can’t ignore it

You are not normal. Twice before you have been pwned over this, and yet you keep repeating the same nonsense.

 

[motorbiking]

You are not normal. Twice before you have been pwned over this, and yet you keep repeating the same nonsense.

It’s a direct quote from their article.

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

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To ALL:
Multiple deletions made. You will need references for claims
mod

 

[MNW67]

It’s a direct quote from their article.

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

Read the bit in bold. AGAIN!! Is this the fourth the time now?

Why can't you just man up and say you disagree with Oxford University's conclusions. You claim it had a large deterrent effect. Oxford University says it didn't.

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.

 

[noseall]

You are not normal.

The old duffer ain't well

 

[motorbiking]

Read the bit in bold. AGAIN!! Is this the fourth the time now?

Why can't you just man up and say you disagree with Oxford University's conclusions. You claim it had a large deterrent effect. Oxford University says it didn't.

I don’t disagree with their conclusions, I disagree with your incorrect interpretation. They clearly say they don’t know. They clearly set out all the legal hurdles it had to go through. They clearly say it was never implemented, despite some people here claiming it was running for 2 years.

They then go on to discuss similar schemes which also had a deterrent effect.

Do you think the Irish were confused, when they blamed the U.K. for the massive influx?

The fact is there was a deterrent, sufficient to cause upset and panic among our neighbours who felt the impact.

 

[MNW67]

I don’t disagree with their conclusions, I disagree with your incorrect interpretation. They clearly say they don’t know. They clearly set out all the legal hurdles it had to go through. They clearly say it was never implemented, despite some people here claiming it was running for 2 years.

They then go on to discuss similar schemes which also had a deterrent effect.

Do you think the Irish were confused, when they blamed the U.K. for the massive influx?

I think the Irish government were playing politics. But that is not what we have been discussing. Please don't deflect.

I am happy to continue discussing the other part, though.

You say I have misinterpreted the phrase:

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

Please tell me what you think that means.

 

[Notch7]

which also had a deterrent effect

You can’t say ‘also’

there is no evidence to show it was a deterrent

 

[Notch7]

Do you think the Irish were confused, when they blamed the U.K. for the massive influx?

They were people in the U.K.

Not people coming from France.

Not same

 

[Notch7]

despite some people here claiming it was running for 2 years

Nobody said that

 

[Notch7]

The fact is there was a deterrent

Your post summarising the article states otherwise

 

[motorbiking]

I think the Irish government were playing politics.

I'm happy to discuss the other bit, though.

thats opinion and you are welcome to that. But note the date April-24 we will come back to that later.

You say I have misinterpreted the phrase:

There is no evidence that political discussions surrounding the Rwanda policy deterred small boat arrivals.

They are talking about Political discussions. They clearly set out the challenges the scheme faced coming into effect from 2022 to april-2024. The scheme was widely challenged and Sunak was ridiculed by the opposition, who said it would never happen and they didn't support it. In 2023 Sunak bet his future on it, knowing it was a hot topic (safety of Rwanda bill etc) By the time it had finally got through the process April 2024, we have the complaint from Ireland that "the UK is sending their problems here" (my paraphrase). That coexisted with quite low small boat numbers for 2023 and the first quarter of 2024. One month Later Sir K says his government will scrap the scheme and almost everyone expected he would form a government. So after momentum building behind it in 2023, its fate was sealed in under 60 days.

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.

Announcing a policy doesn't have much effect if alsost immediately it is challenged as unworkable. The same is true for 1 in 1 out. No argument.

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.

Thats pretty clear - they say they don't know, because it never happened.

The available evidence suggests the deterrent effect of asylum policies is often small,

Again Policies and in the context of the above

which means there was no guarantee the Rwanda policy would have been the game-changer that the Conservative government had hoped it would be.

"Saying there is no guarantee", Now thats interesting language and probably not very impartial. it is not dismissing the idea that it would have been a game changer. They are saying it might not have been the game changer that the government hoped it would be. Not much in life is "guaranteed". There is no guarantee that WW3 wont break out tomorrow. But we agree the probability is low.

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 bit is saying if not many were sent and the numbers coming didn't fall then the impact would have been small - well no sh*t Sherlock. If it didn't work, it didn't work.

 

[motorbiking]

Nobody said that

They did and it was deleted.

Additionally people have repeatedly asked how many people were deported in the 2 years it was running.

 

[motorbiking]

They were people in the U.K.

Not people coming from France.

Not same

they were leaving because they were worried about being deported. The Irish agreed.

 

[MNW67]

thats opinion and you are welcome to that. But note the date April-24 we will come back to that later.




They are talking about Political discussions. They clearly set out the challenges the scheme faced coming into effect from 20022 to april-2024. The scheme was widely challenged and Sunak was ridiculed by the opposition, who said it would never happen and they didn't support it. In 2023 Sunak bet his future on it knowing it was a hot topic (safety of Rwanda bill etc) By the time it had finally got through the process April 2024, we have the complaint from Ireland that "the UK is sending their problems here" (my paraphrase). That coexisted with quite low small boat numbers for 2023 and the first quarter of 2024. One month Later Sir K says his government will scrap the scheme and almost everyone expected he would form a government. So after momentum building behind it in 2023, its fate was sealed in under 60 days.


Announcing a policy doesn't have much effect if alsost immediately it is challenged as unworkable. The same is true for 1 in 1 out. No argument.


Thats pretty clear - they say they don't know, because it never happened.


Again Policies and in the context of the above

"Saying there is no guarantee", Now thats interesting language and probably not very impartial. it is not dismissing the idea that it would have been a game changer. They are saying it might not have been the game changer that the government hoped it would be. Not much is life is "guaranteed". There is no guarantee that WW3 wont break out tomorrow. But we agree the probability is low.


This bit is saying if not many were sent and the numbers coming didn't fall then the impact would have been small - well no sh*t Sherlock. If it didn't work, it didn't work.

I agree that we can't know to what extent it would have been a deterrent if it had gone ahead. I have never said otherwise. So, you have spent a lot of effort arguing against something I have never said. The only point I have been making, is that you keep saying it was already acting as a "massive deterrent" even before it started. And I keep pointing you to Oxford University who say:

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