Channel Migrants

[beazley]

15 minutes ago, Gordon R said:

beazley - please stop this nonsense. I believe you are a definite troll. My only other explanation would be that you are still at school, lacking an education and real life experience. 🙂

excuse me!, regarding trolling and nonsense have you read the twaddle(with notable exceptions) of the first 17 or so pages on this thread?, tbh i read them with growing incredulity.

have a read of the big issue thread if you want to find nonsense

Edited December 15, 2021 by beazley

[Pushandpull]

Just as an aside, the European Convention on Human Rights is nothing to do with the EU. It includes more than 40 countries and Mrs Thatcher played a significant part in framing it.

[discobob]

1 hour ago, beazley said:

my condolences to you and yours on your loss,

i would not expect any laws to be retrospective,

atb

Thanks for that - however, I wasn't on about retrospectively - I was putting the case to you that my Brother - under your suggested rules - would have been kicked out of the country (irrespective of him being a full UK citizen) with me alongside him - just ignore the fact that he is dead - however he fell into the bracket that you described

1 hour ago, TIGHTCHOKE said:

Beazley how many are you taking in?

I think it is more about dosage level rather than how many  

[old man]

On 14/12/2021 at 13:35, beazley said:

i would expect that the ones we see are not all of them,

most likely some have stopped off in safe countries along the way,most at the first safe country they came to,i have heard that all countries along the way take more of these souls than the u.k, the numbers taper off the further away from their countries of origin

we are just seeing the ones with more 'get up and go' than the ones that lie back and do nothing to change their situation,

this is a inate human trait which is embedded in mankinds dna, 

what they are doing are hardly the actions of spongers and drains on our economy,

a measured humane approach is the answer 

We are talking of illegal immigration here not through the proper access routes for migration?

When you have a government sponsored situation as here where illegal entrants who have not contributed anything receive more benefit than people who have paid in for 50* years I would propose that something is very seriously off kilter from both an economic and social point of view? 

[Gordon R]

Quote

have a read of the big issue thread if you want to find nonsense

Your posts put them in the shade. Hilarious rubbish.

[Rewulf]

2 hours ago, beazley said:

have a read of the big issue thread if you want to find nonsense

What exactly is this nonsense you speak of ?
Are you saying that every big issue seller is a genuine needy and possibly homeless person ?
Are you saying that the EU migrants that came here to work and settle, pay taxes ect , are just unfortunate , and have to sell the big issue , play accordians and beg because they have no other option ?

Please do join in the thread and enlighten us.

[12gauge82]

Beazley is henry d, he's got to be. 

[henry d]

On 14/12/2021 at 12:00, Vince Green said:

A four star hotel for £560 a month???????? including food? dream on...

You really need to learn how to read and understand simple words and phrases, here's what I posted (from The Times); "The average cost of accommodating an asylum seeker is £560 a month, plus a weekly allowance of £39.63 for food and other costs, for an average monthly bill of £731.73 per asylum seeker"

I have highlighted in bold the relevant parts for you, any problems please take it up with The Times.

[scutt]

The point many are trying to put across is the tax payer does not want to pay one penny towards helping ILLEGALS .

 

[henry d]

8 hours ago, Gordon R said:

In fairness to henry d - I very often don't agree with him, but beazley is something else. Simplistic rubbish, with arguments which wouldn't stand any scrutiny whatsoever. Bizarre solutions which could never ever work. never gets his facts right, doesn't mind when his thought process (I use that term lightly) is trashed.

Definite troll.

And definitely not me

[Gordon R]

henry d - beazley's bizarre posts set him aside from you or any other normal member.

I would query the cost of asylum seekers - the £731.73 does not cover the cost of policing them, keeping a fair number in prison, nor the burden on the NHS. In my opinion, the Times is downplaying the very real cost for reasons for their own purpose.

[12gauge82]

50 minutes ago, henry d said:

And definitely not me

Be honest, he's your alter ego 😂

[henry d]

4 hours ago, Gordon R said:

henry d - beazley's bizarre posts set him aside from you or any other normal member.

I would query the cost of asylum seekers - the £731.73 does not cover the cost of policing them, keeping a fair number in prison, nor the burden on the NHS. In my opinion, the Times is downplaying the very real cost for reasons for their own purpose.

Query away, I did with ditchies £58k pa per asylum seeker. So we have circa £9k and £58k and no one else has provided any proof elsewhere, so I had another look at the Times figure, it comes from the NAO. Here's the link

[Rewulf]

1 hour ago, henry d said:

Query away, I did with ditchies £58k pa per asylum seeker. So we have circa £9k and £58k and no one else has provided any proof elsewhere, so I had another look at the Times figure, it comes from the NAO. Here's the link

From the link. 

The overall cost of the asylum system is more than £1.3 billion. As part of this spending, the government is required by the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 (henceforth ‘the 1999 Act’) to provide housing and payments to certain eligible asylum seekers and failed claimants. 

Another part of the link suggests there are 60000 people in the asylum system requiring and receiving assistance. First off, at £9k a year, that comes to far less than £1.3 bn

The figure of 60000 seems incredibly low too, when 1000 a day were coming in on dinghies, every day at one point. 

It also fails to address the costs of legal bills, translators, and the cost of service and policing. 

Frankly I believe this is only a small part of the story. 

[12gauge82]

3 hours ago, Rewulf said:

From the link. 

The overall cost of the asylum system is more than £1.3 billion. As part of this spending, the government is required by the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 (henceforth ‘the 1999 Act’) to provide housing and payments to certain eligible asylum seekers and failed claimants. 

Another part of the link suggests there are 60000 people in the asylum system requiring and receiving assistance. First off, at £9k a year, that comes to far less than £1.3 bn

The figure of 60000 seems incredibly low too, when 1000 a day were coming in on dinghies, every day at one point. 

It also fails to address the costs of legal bills, translators, and the cost of service and policing. 

Frankly I believe this is only a small part of the story. 

Unfortunately henry won't answer that, it doesn't help his warped version of what he wants to believe is true. 

[Nuke]

15 hours ago, old man said:

We are talking of illegal immigration here not through the proper access routes for migration?

Are there any "proper" routes availible?

[henry d]

13 hours ago, scutt said:

The point many are trying to put across is the tax payer does not want to pay one penny towards helping ILLEGALS .

 

There is no such thing as an illegal asylum seeker, and it is not illegal to enter the UK to claim asylum.

Under international law, anyone has the right to apply for asylum in any country.

The UN Refugee Convention also recognises people fleeing persecution may have to use irregular means to escape and claim asylum in another country, and they cannot be penalised for doing so.

[Gordon R]

They enter the country illegally and then claim asylum. These are not people fleeing persecution in France. They are mainly economic migrants, who ditch their passports or any other ID, so you never know who you are getting or where they came from.

[scutt]

14 minutes ago, Gordon R said:

They enter the country illegally and then claim asylum. These are not people fleeing persecution in France. They are mainly economic migrants, who ditch their passports or any other ID, so you never know who you are getting or where they came from.

Henry is the above statement correct or not one word answer please

[TRINITY]

Well I saw an article on newsnight where they interviewed a bunch of these 'people' in a Midlands hotel that had been  hired to house them. They were all complaining their free  accomodation was not up to the standard they expected and the free food they were provided with was terrible. The left wing BBC was trying to make a case we should all feel sorry for them . 

If they don't like it then they should foxtrot oscar to another country to scam an existence. I bet there are many genuine homeless Brits on the streets who would gladly move into the hotel in their place.

[henry d]

1 hour ago, scutt said:

Henry is the above statement correct or not one word answer please

Generally incorrect, check back as there are plenty of links.

[Gordon R]

henry d - got to disagree. Entering the UK to claim asylum means that they have fled their own country and fear persecution if they return. That applies to a small number of those crossing the Channel. The majority are economic migrants and do not qualify as asylum seekers.

There are plenty of links.

[old man]

11 hours ago, Nuke said:

Are there any "proper" routes availible?

Applications even on line?

[henry d]

1 hour ago, Gordon R said:

henry d - got to disagree. Entering the UK to claim asylum means that they have fled their own country and fear persecution if they return. That applies to a small number of those crossing the Channel. The majority are economic migrants and do not qualify as asylum seekers.

There are plenty of links.

If that were so then the majority would fail in their application and any appeal.

"...the percentage of applicants refused at initial decision fell to 59% in 2014, then rose again before dropping to 48% in 2019." (House of commons library)

A common reason for refusal is coming from a country that is not "unsafe" and there are cases of EU (Brazilian, Indian, and other) citizens claiming asylum and being refused. Another is not applying quickly enough and not having enough paperwork. I'm sure that there are a lot of asylum seekers who are economic migrants but the vast majority will be weeded out. If you are really worried about the UK filling up just remember...

"Asylum seekers made up around 6% of immigrants to the UK in 2019." (ibid)

 

EDIT- Forgot to say, it is not illegal to enter the UK in the way they have as it is the only option available to them, the traffickers are another matter

Edited December 16, 2021 by henry d

[TRINITY]

12 minutes ago, henry d said:

 

EDIT- Forgot to say, it is not illegal to enter the UK in the way they have as it is the only option available to them, the traffickers are another matter

Just a point.

I was abroad recently when the travel rules changed. I was informed it was illegal for me to return to the UK without proof of a negative lateral flow test less than 48 hrs before departure. Completion of a on line travel document. Purchase of a PCR to be made in UK before my departure. Even if I got around these rules and managed to get back. I would commit an offence and face considerable fines. 

One law for law abiding UK citizens and no rules for others.