James O’Brien CONFRONTS Military Caller on UK Immigration Debate

Added: 2026-06-03

[00:00:00]You might have got away with some of this, but here you are on the on the line.

[00:00:04]>> Not at all.

[00:00:05]>> The lips are moving.

[00:00:06]>> This is part of a conversation, James.

[00:00:08]You're saying one thing.

[00:00:09]>> No, no, no. I'm telling you the facts, and you're now spluttering inanely.

[00:00:14]>> I'm not spluttering inanely.

[00:00:16]>> Oh, no, you are. Again, that's another fact.

[00:00:22]>> Something very revealing is about to happen here, because every now and then a live radio call perfectly captures a much bigger political problem happening across the country. People passionately defending policies they don't fully understand, while repeating talking points that completely fall apart the moment someone checks the facts. And this one, it spirals fast. You're about to hear a caller who says he works in the military phone into James' show to defend one of Britain's most controversial immigration policies, the Rwanda asylum scheme.

[00:00:56]Now, at first, he sounds confident. He believes he's approaching this logically, calmly, rationally in his mind.

[00:01:04]This is all about money, efficiency, and protecting the system. But there's just one problem. The entire argument he's making is built on one key assumption, and that assumption turns out to be completely wrong. And once James spots the flaw, what happens next is honestly difficult to look away from. Because this stops being a normal political disagreement and turns into something much bigger, a real-time example of what happens when certainty collides with facts live on air. You can almost hear the moment confidence turns into confusion. And trust me, when the central belief holding someone's argument together suddenly disappears, what comes next gets very uncomfortable.

[00:01:45]Before we dive into the full story, comment where you're watching from.

[00:01:50]And don't forget to like and subscribe so you don't miss the next one. Now, let's watch this exchange together.

[00:01:56]Because by the end of it, you may be asking yourself a very uncomfortable question. How many people are passionately defending policies they don't actually understand?

[00:02:06]>> Jim's in Watford. Jim, what would you like to say?

[00:02:09]>> Uh hello James. Well, one potential way of looking at this is yes, we've got immigration in this country. We've got to offer these people a very safe and secure way of seeking asylum and going through the natural process then of whether they're legitimate or not. But perhaps one element to look at here is purely the cost of it. And by all accounts, it's costing 5 million pounds a day.

[00:02:35]So, 5 million a day, 365 days in the year, that's just under 2 billion.

[00:02:41]So, when you take the different >> Sorry, what what is? What's costing that?

[00:02:46]>> So, by all accounts, the government is >> you say by all accounts, I don't mean which accounts?

[00:02:52]>> Well, the government actually declares says that immigration costs 5 million pounds a day.

[00:02:57]>> No, it doesn't. I mean, immigration is a is a net positive for the British economy. You must be talking about a specific >> No, no, looking after asylum seekers.

[00:03:05]>> Well, that's nothing to do with immigration, is it? That's I mean, you know, immigration is everybody who wasn't born here, but currently works here and the financial contribution that they make to the country. So, if you want to by all accounts it, we'd have to do a calculation there, wouldn't we?

[00:03:20]And also, I'm very much in favor of letting asylum seekers work as they are permitted to do in other countries, in which case the cost becomes zero overnight. So, we've solved that problem.

[00:03:29]>> I have no problem with that.

[00:03:30]If if once they've actually proved who they are and what they are, because our borders are >> They can work they can work they can work while their while their application is being processed.

[00:03:40]>> Well, I work in the military >> in other countries.

[00:03:44]>> Well, you know, I work in the military and you know, part of my role is to keep this country safe.

[00:03:50]>> Yes.

[00:03:50]>> So, by doing that, you when you actually seeing people actually rolling up on your doorsteps without any paperwork and there is a a huge amount of >> Well, that I mean but they're they're not going to go through the application process, are they under your scheme? They're just going to disappear into the black economy.

[00:04:11]And that and that of course won't cost the country anything.

[00:04:14]>> Not at all, but anybody that's arriving in this country without pay without paperwork that's seeking asylum for instance.

[00:04:21]>> Yes.

[00:04:22]>> [snorts] >> We need to put them through a process.

[00:04:25]Now, one way of looking at this what success could be like is to reduce the cost of that.

[00:04:29]>> Well, you keep you keep going on about this, but the cost of sending them to Rwanda as opposed to letting them work while they're being processed here is going to be immeasurably higher.

[00:04:39]>> Well, >> I mean you sound I'm sure you don't mean to, but you sound like someone who's desperately trying to come up with a theory that doesn't sound callous and racist to justify something that actually appeals to you on a more base level. But I'm sure you're not. I'm not absolutely. I'm categorically sure you're not. I'm just warning you that that's what you sound like.

[00:04:55]>> It's just one way of looking at >> though, is it? We've just established that that this is a pointless argument, which is why it sounds a little bit like a fig leaf designed to disguise something uglier because you can reduce the costs of asylum applications overnight by letting asylum applicants work and earn earn earn a crust and even pay perhaps some taxes.

[00:05:14]And the cost of sending them to Rwanda, if there are five people on the plane tonight, is going to be 100,000 pounds per capita. So, how does that save us money?

[00:05:23]>> But that's assuming those people that that arriving in this country without any paperwork.

[00:05:28]>> But you keep saying that they're arriving without any paperwork. So, what what what do we do? This Iranian fellow, this Iranian policeman presumably arrived with his Iranian passport and they're trying to deport him. So, again, it's one of those figures of speech that I keep hearing from people who seem to be desperately trying to to sound Well, that's not beating about the bush. And it it's like a phrase that's used by people who are desperate to pretend they're not just racist. So, what do we do with this Iranian police officer? He's got his passport with him. Why are you talking about people who haven't got any papers when he was supposed to be on the plane today?

[00:06:00]>> Well, once you've established who and what they are, but you firstly need to establish who and what they are.

[00:06:05]>> what we do. That's the asylum application process.

[00:06:08]>> Yes.

[00:06:09]>> And he's still getting deported.

[00:06:12]>> Well, you're not being deported.

[00:06:14]>> He He might His ticket was canceled yesterday. If it wasn't for those lefty lawyers, he'd be in Rwanda tonight.

[00:06:20]>> They're not deporting them. What they were actually doing is moving them off country into a safe place while they actually go through their process of seeking asylum in this country.

[00:06:30]>> and if it succeeds, no, Jim, you've misunderstood that as well. If If the application succeeds, they stay in Rwanda, Jim.

[00:06:38]>> No, they have Well, that's not what my understanding My understanding >> I don't Wait. With respect, I don't care what your understanding is. I I'm dealing with the facts. If the application is successful, they stay in Rwanda.

[00:06:50]So, your whole support for this scheme is based upon ignorance.

[00:06:55]>> I I I wouldn't say that at all, James.

[00:06:58]>> Well, what would you say? How would you describe thinking something is true that categorically isn't? What word do you prefer? Cuz I'm keen to be generous.

[00:07:05]>> Well, I think you You're telling me now something that is different to what I've I've been instructed about, which is the fact >> you, Jim?

[00:07:14]>> Well, process is part of my job, so >> Yeah, who instructed you that the people who successfully apply for asylum in Rwanda get flown straight back to Britain?

[00:07:24]>> No, they they have They have a right then if they're given >> No, they don't, Jim. So, but who instructed you this? Cuz if this is something that people in the British military are being instructed about, and it's categorically wrong, I'm 100% confident of that. We've got quite a big story on our hands, and I'll have to alert the news desk. So, who told you that the successful applicants can come back to Britain?

[00:07:44]>> James, I can't go into that.

[00:07:45]>> Well, you have to, Jim. Seriously, it's all right. I've signed the Official Secrets Act.

[00:07:50]>> So I So >> Yeah, so who told you that, Jim? Who Who told you that nonsense? Or have you just humiliated yourself on national radio?

[00:07:57]>> No, not at all. And >> So who told you then?

[00:08:00]>> Perhaps James to some of your your colleagues.

[00:08:03]>> Poss- Possibly I did, Jim, but I'm listening to you. I'm listening to you at the moment. So who Who gave you this false information upon which you've based your entire support for a racist policy?

[00:08:13]>> It's not James, it's not a racist policy.

[00:08:15]>> Mate, you didn't know what the policy was until I told you 3 minutes ago. How can you even have an opinion on it?

[00:08:20]>> Well, I've been told the policy is very different.

[00:08:23]>> told you that?

[00:08:25]>> My superiors.

[00:08:27]>> Now you're lying.

[00:08:28]>> I'm not [snorts] lying, James.

[00:08:29]>> Okay, so who told you that successful applications in Rwanda Just Just give me the sort of job description of what they do or or the rank.

[00:08:37]>> James, this is just coming down through paperwork and how how they do it.

[00:08:41]>> Danny, can I see the paperwork?

[00:08:43]>> No, you can't see the paperwork.

[00:08:44]>> Cuz it doesn't exist, Jim. Nor can you.

[00:08:47]It's imaginary paperwork.

[00:08:50]>> James, listen.

[00:08:52]>> I have listened. That's the problem, Jim.

[00:08:54]If I hadn't, you might have got away with some of this, but here you are on on a line.

[00:08:59]>> Not at all.

[00:09:00]>> The lips are moving.

[00:09:02]>> This is part of a conversation, James.

[00:09:03]You're saying one thing.

[00:09:04]>> No, no, no. I'm telling you the facts, and you're now spluttering inanely.

[00:09:09]>> I'm not spluttering inanely.

[00:09:11]>> Oh, no, you are. Again, that's another fact.

[00:09:13]>> Not at all.

[00:09:14]>> So final chance, who who gave you the duff information about this?

[00:09:18]>> James, it's duff in your opinion, and your opinion is >> not an opinion, Jim. It's It's written down in law.

[00:09:25]>> James, it's not written in law.

[00:09:27]>> Okay, Jim.

[00:09:28]You going to tell me who told you?

[00:09:30]>> No.

[00:09:31]>> [snorts] >> Have a great day, mate.

[00:09:33]>> Thank you. Bye-bye.

[00:09:35]>> So after all of that, what did we actually just watch? Because this call wasn't just a debate, it was a political argument completely falling apart in real time. Jim built his entire defense of the Rwanda policy around one belief, that successful asylum applicants would eventually return to the UK. There was just one problem, that wasn't true. As James pointed out, successful applicants were never meant to come back to Britain. They were intended to stay in Rwanda.

[00:10:05]And the moment that key fact entered the conversation, the entire argument started wobbling. Now, here's the interesting part. Did Jim stop and rethink his position? Not exactly.

[00:10:15]Instead, the conversation shifted toward mysterious paperwork, unnamed superiors, and information nobody could verify.

[00:10:24]A caller who started the conversation sounding completely certain suddenly found himself defending claims he couldn't actually back up. And honestly, this is what makes moments like this so fascinating. It's not just about one radio call, it's about what happens when strongly held opinions crash into hard facts. So, what do you think?

[00:10:45]Was James fair? Or do you think Jim had a point? Drop your thoughts in the comments below, and if you enjoyed this breakdown, don't forget to like, subscribe, and turn on notifications for more. Thanks for watching.