Keir Starmer

[Hypnotic Chimera]

I wouldn't be swayed either way at present.
Historically it was 200, but given the talk and agreements, that knowledge will have impacts on future numbers. The shear knowledge of the decision will have an impact on decisions as to the why people arrive illegally, it may deter people, it may have no impact or it could encourage more to get there ASAP.
Only on observation of change now, can we start to determine within a statistical confidence interval as to which way it's going to go.
Anything else is pure finger in the air guesswork, and yes, one thing I do agree on, is that mass media love guessing without evidence, but state it in such a way as to imply they know something we don't, which generally results in total bulls carp...

Correction.
Arriving to claim asylum, no matter by what means, is not illegal.
Your mention of "illegally" - Is this a sign of a personal bias, I wonder?

 

[Sachakins]

Correction.
Arriving to claim asylum, no matter by what means, is not illegal.
Your mention of "illegally" - Is this a sign of a personal bias, I wonder?

The arrival is illegal, until such time as asylum is requested.
Those that arrive and don't claim asylum remain illegal.
Claiming asylum does not make it legal entry. Entry is still illegal.
Once asylum is granted then it all changes ,that I agree.

No it's not personal bias, it's an understanding of the process and it's stages from travelling without permission to a country landing without permission in a country.
Once contact with recognised government authority and then claiming asylum changes their status, up till then they are illegal.