Immigration lawyer Ivon Sampson entered a heated debate with British Reform UK politician Rupert Lowe on GB News yesterday (23 January) over the tracking of migrants.
Speaking on the news channel, Rupert says the interests of British taxpayers are being put behind those of illegal migrants. Meanwhile, Ivor commented that the deportation of over a million illegal immigrants in Britain is ‘an impossible task.’
Speaking from Great Yarmouth, Rupert said that we ‘have to start behaving like a sovereign nation’ after The Telegraph revealed that up to 585,000 immigrants are living in London.
He also commented that most immigrants are ‘not asylum seekers’ or ‘economic migrants.’ Rupert also said the British taxpayer is being ‘effectively mistreated by the government’ and ‘treated like second-class citizens.’
Rupert later added that the UK must execute several ‘treaties’ to deport illegal migrants, not just leave the ECHR. Meanwhile, immigration lawyer Ivon Sampson disagreed and said there is a ‘practical problem to all of this.’
Reform UK politican Rupert Lowe on GB News (Image: X/YouTube)
He explained: “Our prisons are already full to the brim – where do we put them? That’s another problem. You say it’s a simple solution to remove them. Estimates are that removing a million people from the country would take 50 to 75 years.
GB News host Matt Goodwin then quizzed Ivor about where he got those statistics from, to which Ivor replied that the Government ‘knows that it is an impossible task.’
Rupert then stated that we ‘have to take back our own borders’ and ‘declare a national emergency like Trump is doing.’ He also said that as a nation, we must be prepared ‘to make hard decisions and deport, deport, deport.’
Get reviews, gossip and upcoming show releases plus selected offers and competition
Invalid email
You agree you are 18 or over. We use your sign-up to provide content in ways you’ve consented to and to improve our understanding of you. This may include adverts from us and third parties based on our knowledge of you. You can unsubscribe at any time. More Info.
When replying to Ivor’s argument, Rupert said, “These human rights lawyers pork barrel a living off the back of all this Tony Blair legislation, which has created our problem.”
He then called for tougher measures for migrants who should be sent to stay in ‘uncomfortable, untested camps’ on remote islands.
It comes after a report by The Telegraph revealed that 585,000 illegal migrants are living in London, equivalent to one in 12 of the city’s population.
GB News Guest Clashes With Human Rights Lawyer Over ‘Outrageous’ Immigrant Demand
A heated immigration debate on GB News has reignited arguments over border control, human rights and the responsibilities of the British government towards people living in the country illegally. The confrontation highlighted a fundamental disagreement about how Britain should respond to irregular migration, with one side demanding tougher enforcement and the other emphasising legal obligations and the practical difficulties of removing people.
The dispute reflects a wider political argument that has become increasingly prominent in Britain: whether the country’s immigration system is sufficiently effective, and how far human rights protections should influence decisions about deportation and residence.
For critics of the current system, the central concern is that lengthy legal processes and restrictions on removals can undermine public confidence in immigration enforcement. Those defending existing protections argue that immigration decisions must comply with the law and that individual circumstances cannot simply be ignored.
A Debate That Exposes Britain’s Immigration Divide
Immigration remains one of the most contested issues in British politics. Discussions about small-boat crossings, asylum applications, deportation and the cost of accommodating people while their claims are processed frequently produce sharp disagreements between politicians, campaigners and legal specialists.
For those calling for tougher controls, the government must demonstrate that entering the country unlawfully does not automatically lead to a permanent opportunity to remain. They argue that an immigration system loses credibility if people whose claims are rejected cannot be removed within a reasonable period.
Supporters of stronger enforcement also point to the financial implications of delays. Accommodation, legal proceedings, detention and administrative costs can place pressure on public resources. They contend that the government should prioritise efficient decision-making and establish clear procedures for returning people who have no lawful basis to stay.
Human rights lawyers approach the issue from a different starting point. They argue that immigration enforcement must operate within domestic and international law, including protections against persecution and inhuman treatment. A person’s arrival by an irregular route does not, by itself, determine whether that person qualifies for international protection.
This distinction is central to the debate. A person may enter Britain without authorisation and still have a legitimate asylum claim. Equally, making an asylum claim does not guarantee permission to remain permanently.
The challenge for policymakers is to establish a system that can distinguish between different cases, make decisions promptly and enforce the outcome lawfully.
The Question of Amnesty
One of the most controversial proposals in the wider immigration debate is whether some people who have lived in Britain without legal status should be offered a route towards regularising their position.
Supporters of an amnesty or regularisation scheme argue that some undocumented residents may have lived in the country for many years, built family lives and become part of their communities. They suggest that bringing eligible people into the formal system could improve oversight, clarify employment status and reduce the number of cases that remain unresolved.
However, opponents regard such proposals as potentially damaging to the credibility of border controls.
They argue that offering legal status to people who entered or remained in the country unlawfully could create the perception that those who avoid immigration rules may eventually receive permission to stay. Critics also question whether a broad scheme would be fair to people who have followed the established immigration process, paid the required fees and waited for decisions through official channels.
These competing arguments cannot be resolved by slogans alone. The details of any proposal would matter enormously, including eligibility requirements, criminal-record checks, the treatment of rejected asylum applicants and the safeguards against fraudulent applications.
A limited scheme for particular groups would also differ significantly from a blanket amnesty covering everyone without lawful status.
Any serious discussion therefore needs to establish precisely which people would qualify, what conditions would apply and how the government would prevent the system from encouraging further irregular migration.
Why Human Rights Law Matters
The role of human rights law is often at the centre of confrontations between immigration hardliners and legal experts.
Critics argue that legal challenges can delay deportations, particularly when cases involve family life, medical circumstances or claims that returning someone to their country of origin would expose them to serious harm. They question whether the current framework gives sufficient weight to the public interest in enforcing immigration rules.
Lawyers respond that legal safeguards exist to prevent wrongful or unlawful removals. Deportation can have profound consequences, especially where an individual faces a credible risk of persecution or where children and other family members would be affected.
The European Convention on Human Rights, incorporated into British law through the Human Rights Act 1998, is frequently discussed in this context. Article 3 prohibits torture and inhuman or degrading treatment, while Article 8 protects the right to respect for private and family life, subject to specified conditions and lawful limitations.
Neither provision automatically prevents deportation in every case. Article 8, in particular, requires a legal assessment of competing interests, while Article 3 can prohibit removal where the necessary threshold of risk is met.
The debate is therefore not simply about whether human rights should apply. It is also about how the law should be interpreted, how quickly claims should be assessed and whether current procedures strike an appropriate balance between individual protection and immigration enforcement.
The Cost of Delays
The financial consequences of an inefficient immigration system are another source of public concern.
When asylum claims take a long time to resolve, the government may need to provide accommodation and support for extended periods. Appeals and administrative errors can add further delays, while people whose claims are refused may remain in Britain if removal arrangements cannot be completed.
Critics argue that faster decisions would help reduce these costs and make the system more predictable. They also contend that the government should focus on removing people who have exhausted their legal options and have no remaining right to stay.
But speeding up the process requires more than political declarations. Officials need adequate resources, reliable documentation, functioning case-management systems and cooperation from countries of origin.
Some removals are complicated because a person’s identity cannot be established promptly or because the receiving country will not issue the necessary travel documents. Other cases involve legal appeals or credible protection claims that must be examined before a final decision can be implemented.
This does not mean delays are unavoidable or that administrative failures should be accepted. It means that a workable policy must address the practical obstacles as well as the legal ones.
A government that promises rapid removals without explaining how it will secure cooperation from other countries risks creating expectations that its system cannot meet.
The Political Impact on Labour and Reform UK
Immigration policy also has significant consequences for Britain’s political parties.
Reform UK has made tighter border controls and stronger action against irregular migration central to its political message. Its approach appeals to voters who believe successive governments have failed to control immigration effectively or have been reluctant to confront difficult questions about enforcement.
For Reform, confrontations between political commentators and human rights lawyers provide opportunities to highlight disagreements over national sovereignty, legal constraints and public spending.
Labour, meanwhile, faces the challenge of demonstrating that it can manage the asylum system while maintaining its commitments to the rule of law. The government must address public concern about irregular arrivals without treating every asylum applicant as though their circumstances were identical.
The Conservatives also continue to face scrutiny over their record in government, including previous promises to reduce irregular migration and their attempts to reform the asylum system.
For all three parties, the issue involves more than the number of people arriving. Voters are also concerned about whether rules are enforced consistently, whether public money is being used effectively and whether ministers can explain the results of their policies.
A televised confrontation may capture attention, but it cannot resolve these broader questions. Ultimately, political credibility will depend on measurable results and clear explanations of what can realistically be achieved.
What Would a Workable Solution Look Like?
A sustainable immigration system would need to combine effective enforcement with fair and timely decision-making.
First, asylum applications should be processed as quickly as possible without sacrificing the quality of decisions. Inaccurate assessments can result in wrongful refusals, successful appeals and additional costs.
Second, people who qualify for protection should receive clear decisions and appropriate support, while those whose applications are finally rejected and who have no other lawful basis to remain should be subject to lawful return procedures.
Third, the government should strengthen cooperation with countries of origin and transit. Removal policies depend on practical agreements, identity verification and the willingness of other governments to accept their nationals.
Fourth, immigration rules should be communicated clearly. The public needs to understand the difference between an asylum applicant, a recognised refugee, a person with another lawful immigration status and someone who has no current permission to remain.
Finally, any proposed amnesty or regularisation programme should be assessed against transparent criteria. Ministers would need to explain its intended purpose, its likely costs, its safeguards and its potential consequences for future migration.
These measures would not eliminate every disagreement. However, they would provide a more concrete basis for judging whether a policy is effective than arguments that reduce the entire issue to a choice between compassion and control.
A Debate With No Easy Answers
The confrontation over an alleged immigrant demand illustrates how sharply divided Britain remains over immigration and human rights.
Those calling for tougher enforcement believe the government must restore public confidence by ensuring that immigration rules have practical consequences. Those defending legal protections argue that effective enforcement must not come at the expense of lawful procedures or the rights of people facing genuine danger.
Both the legal details and the practical outcomes matter. A system that cannot enforce final decisions risks losing public trust, but a system that removes people without properly assessing their claims risks serious injustice and legal failure.
The question for Britain is therefore not simply whether its immigration policy should be tougher or more generous. It is whether the country can establish a system that is efficient, transparent, legally sound and capable of delivering the outcomes ministers promise.
As immigration continues to shape political debate, televised clashes may provide dramatic moments, but the real test will come through policy, administration and results. The government will ultimately be judged on whether it can control its borders, process claims fairly, enforce lawful decisions and maintain public confidence in the rules governing who can live in Britain.