Deportation of illegal migrants

[GrimUpNorth]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Yup, people crossing the English Channel in boats have soared in number since we forfeited the chance to return them to the EU.

You mean not so much of an open door policy, but a closed exit door policy?

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Yup, people crossing the English Channel in boats have soared in number since we forfeited the chance to return them to the EU.

They didn’t arrive in boats in the first place, so that’s a load of tosh. Can’t send non-existent people not arriving in boats back.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Mick

They didn’t arrive in boats in the first place, so that’s a load of tosh. Can’t send non-existent people not arriving in boats back.

I was quoting from the chart in Paul's post.

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

I was quoting from the chart in Paul's post.

Funny, that remark suspiciously looks like an opinion from you.

You spouted rubbish about not being able send folk in boats back, suggesting pre-Brexit era, you could, however, arriving by boat wasn’t a thing then. The people smuggling trade was also in it’s infancy.

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

It's more complex than that. Morality cuts in more than one way. It seems immoral to me that illegal migration causes the Guvmin to spend millions (c. £5m/day --> https://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-b2006820.html ) when poor citizens can't afford to buy food or travel to their medical appointments and so on.

The Guvmin's duty to the UK people also includes knowing who is entering our country. These fit young men are economic migrants (at least mainly) - and where did they get the money to pay the traffickers? What's going on there?

I am interested why you link the cost of processing asylum seekers to the poor being unable to afford food? You know very well that there are many areas where the Government is literally giving away billions of revenue that might be used to "feed the poor". We have recent tax cuts for the banks to the tune of £4bn and a myriad of non-dom loopholes leaking billions each year for cite two examples and yet you equate the cost of processing these people with the poor not eating. Do you not think your logic is skewed?

The other interesting point (as pointed out by Yvette Cooper in the Commons) is that a Government is asking the National Crime Agency, whose job it is to target the criminal trafficking gangs (in collaboration with France), to draw up 20% staff cuts. This would not be happening if they were serious at stopping the trafficking gangs. Clear demonstration this Rwanda policy is yet another "red meat" gimmick to feed their core right-wing supporters.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by ianch99

I am interested why you link the cost of processing asylum seekers to the poor being unable to afford food? You know very well that there are many areas where the Government is literally giving away billions of revenue that might be used to "feed the poor". We have recent tax cuts for the banks to the tune of £4bn and a myriad of non-dom loopholes leaking billions each year for cite two examples and yet you equate the cost of processing these people with the poor not eating. Do you not think your logic is skewed?

The other interesting point (as pointed out by Yvette Cooper in the Commons) is that a Government is asking the National Crime Agency, whose job it is to target the criminal trafficking gangs (in collaboration with France), to draw up 20% staff cuts. This would not be happening if they were serious at stopping the trafficking gangs. Clear demonstration this Rwanda policy is yet another "red meat" gimmick to feed their core right-wing supporters.

To answer your question, I linked the cost to "feed the poor" because that cost is met from the same pot (taxpayers' money) that is now not available urgently to the legal needy.

I'm interested to know from you whether undocumented Muslim males coming to the UK is consistent with the Guvmin's duty to know who it is letting in?

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

To answer your question, I linked the cost to "feed the poor" because that cost is met from the same pot (taxpayers' money) that is now not available urgently to the legal needy.

I'm interested to know from you whether undocumented Muslim males coming to the UK is consistent with the Guvmin's duty to know who it is letting in?

So you don't think that the taxpayers' money that we could have from reducing the giveaway to the ultra-wealthy is equally not available to the needy? I find it strange that you focus on the relatively small amount involved here when you are content to let billions slip through our fingers. Strange priorities.

I think their duty is the same for whoever is coming into the country.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by ianch99

So you don't think that the taxpayers' money that we could have from reducing the giveaway to the ultra-wealthy is equally not available to the needy? I find it strange that you focus on the relatively small amount involved here when you are content to let billions slip through our fingers. Strange priorities.

I think their duty is the same for whoever is coming into the country.

Migrants are the topic here not the ultra-wealthy.

[GrimUpNorth]

Originally Posted by ianch99

So you don't think that the taxpayers' money that we could have from reducing the giveaway to the ultra-wealthy is equally not available to the needy? I find it strange that you focus on the relatively small amount involved here when you are content to let billions slip through our fingers. Strange priorities.

I think their duty is the same for whoever is coming into the country.

Nothing will change until we overhaul the funding of political parties. Why would a politician do anything that harms the hand that feeds it?

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

Migrants are the topic here not the ultra-wealthy.

The topic that you introduced, not me, is the link between wasted millions not being spent on the poor. I just pointed out the hypocrisy in your position.

You also failed to address the National Crime Agency 20% reduction - this being the acid test of whether the Government is actually serious in tackling the traffic smugglers.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by ianch99

You also failed to address the National Crime Agency 20% reduction - this being the acid test of whether the Government is actually serious in tackling the traffic smugglers.

It does seem to suggest a lack of seriousness on the government's behalf.

[heero_yuy]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

It does seem to suggest a lack of seriousness on the government's behalf.

Since the people trafficers are in France there's little El Gov. can do apart from trying to bribe the French authorites into action.