hello, i'm rajini vaidyanathan. you're watching the context on bbc news. parliament resumes voting on the government's plan to send asylum—seekers to rwanda — the bill could be given final approval by the end of the week.

let's go live to the house of commons, where the government's flagship rwanda bill is being debated. the government wants to send some asylum—seekers to rwanda. it has been going back and forth. voting on some of the lords amendments. they voted to reject a lords proposal for remanded to be only regarded as safe or as long as the provisions of the uk's to do with that country —— for rwanda. a big debate between the governments and some of its critics over whether rwanda should be deemed a safe country for asylum—seekers to be sent to, and effect supreme court here in the uk a year ago deemed

that it was not a safe place. so that it was not a safe place. so that was one of the votes that has come through this evening, another one here, and peas rejected another amendment from the house of lords which would have required age assessments for those facing removal to be conducted by local authorities. there is another one that's just come in, authorities. there is another one that'sjust come in, i'm just authorities. there is another one that's just come in, i'm just trying to open up the right one here, they also rejected another amendment, lords amendment six b, if you're a follower of each one. this one sought to restore the jurisdiction of domestic courts and allow individual immigration decisions to take into account the safety of glenda. those votes are continuing. we understand they are around halfway through all of the votes —— the safety of rwanda. we will bring you the outcome of all of them when they are complete. as you can see, mps are still working, it is 9:30pm

here in the uk, and you can still see some members of parliament coming in and out of the chamber as those votes continue. let's discuss this with our panel. i'm joined by independent economist rebecca harding and elise labott, the author of cosmopolitics on substack. welcome back, both of you. rebecca, let's talk about this from an economics point of view. there's a lot of debate about whether this is value for money. this is being seen as a deterrent. the government has given rwanda quite a bit of money to fund this scheme. and that was some of the debate about the financial side of it in house of commons today. as an economist, what more is your take on that? so today. as an economist, what more is your take on that? sui today. as an economist, what more is your take on that?— your take on that? so i think you have to look _ your take on that? so i think you have to look at _ your take on that? so i think you have to look at this not - your take on that? so i think you have to look at this not as - your take on that? so i think you have to look at this not as an - have to look at this not as an economic issue in the first instance. it is about politics. this is about a promise that has been made by the current government to resolve the problem of illegal migration into this country, using

the channel crossing. the problem we haveis the channel crossing. the problem we have is the solution they have come up have is the solution they have come up with is very expensive for the uk and actually, although we have seen and actually, although we have seen an increased number of people crossing the channel so far this year, quite significantly, it's still not a very large proportion of total migration into the uk. and there are enough a lot of studies that suggest that if you can appropriate migration into the uk, and appropriate migration around, that actually as to productivity, helps the economy for some this is really all about the politics, pre—election, of the government delivering on one of its five pledges. delivering on one of its five ledues. , ., pledges. elise, from your perspective _ pledges. elise, from your perspective in _ pledges. elise, from your perspective in the - pledges. elise, from your perspective in the united | pledges. elise, from your - perspective in the united states, i want to start by asking you this — is this issue getting in a sort of play where you are? it is is this issue getting in a sort of play where you are? it is getting a -la from play where you are? it is getting a play from human _ play where you are? it is getting a play from human rights _ play where you are? it is getting a play from human rights groups. i play from human rights groups. refugee — play from human rights groups. refugee resentment groups, imminent groups— refugee resentment groups, imminent groups are _ refugee resentment groups, imminent groups are advocates of the issue itself _ groups are advocates of the issue itself it _ groups are advocates of the issue itself it is— groups are advocates of the issue itself. it is not really getting a lot of— itself. it is not really getting a lot of play as an economic issue. it

is much _ lot of play as an economic issue. it is much more _ lot of play as an economic issue. it is much more of a criticism of the racial_ is much more of a criticism of the racial implications, where they are being _ racial implications, where they are being sent — racial implications, where they are being sent to, and i might add that it is actually the attractive option for republicans and others that want to not _ for republicans and others that want to not really do anything to encourage immigration into this country— encourage immigration into this country try and send them back the stuff you _ country try and send them back the stuff you cannot send them back to a country _ stuff you cannot send them back to a country where there is a lot of conflict, — country where there is a lot of conflict, their country of origin, is there — conflict, their country of origin, is there a — conflict, their country of origin, is there a third country that could be is there a third country that could he sent— is there a third country that could be sent back? i have heard backhanded comments, is that something we should do, send them to africa? _ something we should do, send them to africa? i— something we should do, send them to africa? i think not only, is not necessarily— africa? i think not only, is not necessarily an economic issue here, there _ necessarily an economic issue here, there are _ necessarily an economic issue here, there are whispers of racist sentiment, ofanti—immigration sentiment, of anti—immigration sentiments sentiment, ofanti—immigration sentiments here, and certainly rights — sentiments here, and certainly rights groups are thinking it is a violation — rights groups are thinking it is a violation of rights. | rights groups are thinking it is a violation of rights.— violation of rights. i should 'ust add, i violation of rights. i should 'ust add. i was fl violation of rights. i should 'ust add, i was not i violation of rights. i should 'ust add, i was not saying it i

violation of rights. i should just add, i was not saying it was - violation of rights. i should just add, i was not saying it was an| add, i was not saying it was an economics issue, but because rebecca is an economist, i thought i would get your insight on that specific angle of the story because of course we talk about the politics a lot, but rebecca i will bring you back in. if as is predicted the government will win this series of votes, this could go through by the end of this week. and that means that the goal, certainly from the government perspective, would be constructed and people on those planes as we enter an election campaign?— planes as we enter an election cam-cain? , ., ., ., campaign? exactly, and the optics of that for the government _ campaign? exactly, and the optics of that for the government could - campaign? exactly, and the optics of that for the government could play . that for the government could play either way. so for the government supporters who believe this is a good policy, it will obviously show them delivering on something and mean they have achieved one of their five pledges, so from that point of view, it is going to be a good thing for the government. i think we also have to ask the question whether or not it will be actually possible to put people on those planes before

the election. it is, as i said, extremely expensive, and that is going to be an issue, and there will be appeals as well.— be appeals as well. elise, i want to net our be appeals as well. elise, i want to get your thoughts _ be appeals as well. elise, i want to get your thoughts on _ be appeals as well. elise, i want to get your thoughts on that - be appeals as well. elise, i want to get your thoughts on that as - be appeals as well. elise, i want to get your thoughts on that as well? | get your thoughts on that as well? look, it is not the same because it is in _ look, it is not the same because it is in this— look, it is not the same because it is in this country, but when states like florida. — is in this country, but when states like florida, the governor of florida. _ like florida, the governor of florida, the governor of texas, have sent immigrants outside of their states, — sent immigrants outside of their states, it — sent immigrants outside of their states, itjust had a very bad sent immigrants outside of their states, it just had a very bad taste here irr— states, it just had a very bad taste here in the — states, it just had a very bad taste here in the united states, sol think— here in the united states, sol think that's really what people are talking _ think that's really what people are talking about here, about, that the whole _ talking about here, about, that the whole idea — talking about here, about, that the whole idea of migrants and immigrants is a negative thing, i think— immigrants is a negative thing, i think people here that support orderly— think people here that support orderly migration here into the country. — orderly migration here into the country, and it is a crisis here, it is a _ country, and it is a crisis here, it is a crisis — country, and it is a crisis here, it is a crisis in _ country, and it is a crisis here, it is a crisis in the uk, they are trying to— is a crisis in the uk, they are trying to flip the script of what it means _ trying to flip the script of what it means in — trying to flip the script of what it means in terms of immigration. is there _ means in terms of immigration. is there a _ means in terms of immigration. is there a way— means in terms of immigration. is there a way you can incorporate these _ there a way you can incorporate these into — there a way you can incorporate these into the country and canada, i think. _ these into the country and canada, i think. is— these into the country and canada, i think. is a _ these into the country and canada, i think, is a model of that? it has a very— think, is a model of that? it has a very poor— think, is a model of that? it has a very poor taste, i think.

interesting times. in both the countries where you reside, immigration is likely to be a big election issue. let's move on. the weapons supervisor for the film rust has been jailed for 18 months, following the fatal shooting of the film's cinematographer on set. 26—year—old hannah gutierrez was sentenced today after being found guilty of involuntary manslaughter. she was in charge of weapons during the production of the film in 2021, when a revolver fired by actor alec baldwin went off. halyna hutchins died following the incident, while directorjoel souza was injured. mr baldwin, who is a producer for the film as well as its star, faces a separate trial injuly. earlier, our la correspondent emma vardy brought us up to date. it was the maximum sentence she could receive for that involuntary manslaughter charge that she'd been found guilty of. and the court heard various victim impact statements

from halyna hutchins's friends, from her mother and her sister in ukraine, and from the director of the movie, too, joel souza. now, in this court case, hannah gutierrez—reed herself got a chance to speak, and when she spoke today, she said that a mistake happened and that makes her human and not a monster. but there was little sympathy shown by thejudge, really. in his comments, he said if it wasn't for her actions, a little boy would still have a mother — halyna hutchins had a young son when she was killed. and he said to hannah gutierrez—reed, "you turned a safe weapon into a lethal weapon," so she was sentenced to 18 months behind bars for that involuntary manslaughter charge. and what next for alec baldwin, who was in that film when this all happened? well, this is the key question. he is facing the same charge, but his trial has been somewhat delayed because he was initially charged, then the charges were dropped, and then he was recharged again when the gun he was using was subject to more forensic examination.

what it could potentially mean for him, some lawyers believe this might work in his favour. the prosecution is going to argue that alec baldwin also acted recklessly in the way he was using the gun, but his defence is going to argue it was not his job to load it let's ta ke let's take you live to new york, as you can see there, donald trump is leaving the courtroom in new york. let's have a listen.— let's have a listen. thank you very much. let's have a listen. thank you very much- we — let's have a listen. thank you very much- we had _ let's have a listen. thank you very much. we had some _ let's have a listen. thank you very much. we had some amazing - let's have a listen. thank you very i much. we had some amazing things happen today, as you know. my son graduated from high school and it looks like thejudge graduated from high school and it looks like the judge let libby go to the graduation of my son, who has worked very, very hard. a great student and he's very proud the fact he did so well, and i was looking forward for years to have graduation with his mother and father there, but looks like the judge is with his mother and father there, but looks like thejudge is not going to allow me to escape this

scam. it is a scam trial. if you read all of the legal pundits, all of the legal scholars today, not one that i see that said this is a case that i see that said this is a case that should be brought or tried. it is a scam, it is a political witchhunt, it continues and it continues forever. and we're not going to be given a fair trial. it is very, very sad thing. in addition, as you know, next thursday, before the united states supreme court, a very big hearing on immunity. and this is something that we have been waiting for a long time, and thejudge of course, is not going to allow us. he is not going to allow us to go to that. he won't allow me to leave here for half a day, go to dc and go before the united states supreme court, because he thinks he is superior, i guess, to the supreme court for we have got a real problem with this judge, we have a real problem with a lot of things happening to do with this trial, including the da, because you go right outside, the

people are being mugged and killed all day long and he is sitting here all day long and he is sitting here all day long and he is sitting here all day with ten or 12 prosecutors, over nothing, over nothing. over what people say over nothing, over nothing. ove