Channel migrants

[ditchman]

13 minutes ago, 12gauge82 said:

The only thing starmer has smashed so far is pensioners. Utterly disgusting. 

if this present govt' dosnt face this foremost existential threat..........the cork is going to blow out of the bottle.........and itaint going to be pretty

[12gauge82]

I'm seriously considering emigrating. The only problem is where to. 

[ditchman]

35 minutes ago, 12gauge82 said:

I'm seriously considering emigrating. The only problem is where to. 

Tatuoonwi............just keep out of beggars canyon...

[oldypigeonpopper]

Hello, I see the Labour Government are stumping up more millions of pounds to in the words of Keir Starmer, Smash the Gangs, This money is to catch the smuggling gangs ( Laugh ) why not just get the French Government  who we paid Millions of £s to put more patrols along the French Coast to stop them entering the Channel ? Destroy the Boats, and Supply, or failing that allow our Border force to set up stations along the French coast

On 26/10/2024 at 21:43, 12gauge82 said:

I'm seriously considering emigrating. The only problem is where to. 

Hello, My Sister Son went to Canada about 20 years ago, now has a family/ business/ and cabin in the woods, 

Edited November 4 by oldypigeonpopper

[johnphilip]

7 minutes ago, oldypigeonpopper said:

Hello, I see the Labour Government are stumping up more millions of pounds to in the words of Keir Starmer, Smash the Gangs, This money is to catch the smuggling gangs ( Laugh ) why not just get the French Government  who we paid Millions of £s to put more patrols along the French Coast to stop them entering the Channel ? Destroy the Boats, and Supply, or failing that allow our Border force to set up stations along the French coast

Hello, My Sister Son went to Canada about 20 years ago, now has a family/ business/ and cabin in the woods

Smash the gangs , while others are sitting in waiting to take there place .

[vmaxphil]

The French aren't likely to stop them as they don't want them anymore than we do 

[oldypigeonpopper]

12 minutes ago, vmaxphil said:

The French aren't likely to stop them as they don't want them anymore than we do 

Yes your right on there

[B686]

4 minutes ago, vmaxphil said:

The French aren't likely to stop them as they don't want them anymore than we do 

Exactly. They don’t want them . But France isn’t a soft touch like the uk is . How many idiots do you see over there holding banners saying we welcome migrants like you do in this country. All they should be given when they get here is a bit of paper with “**** off back to where you came from you are getting **** all from us! This country has enough of its own problems without you adding to them ! Bye Bye.! 

[oldypigeonpopper]

30 minutes ago, johnphilip said:

Smash the gangs , while others are sitting in waiting to take there place .

Keir Starmer could not even Smash a Potato !!!!!!!!!!!!!

[ditchman]

And how would Kemi Badenok sort this problem...............?????

i rest my case.........another useless polititico

[Old Boggy]

Unless I missed it, Illegal immigration and `Smashing the gangs` didn`t even get a mention in the budget and yet the problem is probably in the forefront of most peoples minds, except Ooowee that is.

I wonder why that was  Fanny Adams doesn`t even get close.

[oldypigeonpopper]

Hello, Where did the put all those illegal immigrants off the Libby Barge ??, More Hotel costs ??

[B686]

This country will end up like a third world **** hole with sharia law we will be 2nd class citizens in our own country because politicians are to scared to do anything about it  , and if we ever get anyone with the balls to stand up to it it will probably be too late  to do something about it because we will probably have a Muslim government. Because pricks like Starmer want people locked up who actually say anything about it.

[12gauge82]

3 hours ago, oldypigeonpopper said:

 

Hello, My Sister Son went to Canada about 20 years ago, now has a family/ business/ and cabin in the woods, 

That sounds like heaven. 

1 hour ago, ditchman said:

And how would Kemi Badenok sort this problem...............?????

i rest my case.........another useless polititico

I'm pretty sure another who was anti Brexit to. 

[Westley]

1 hour ago, oldypigeonpopper said:

Hello, Where did the put all those illegal immigrants off the Libby Barge ??, More Hotel costs ??

No, into 'Social Housing'   !    I am aware of a large vicarage that was empty, prior to sale. It was converted into flats to house immigrants. It has just had a total refurbishment,  wonder who paid the cost  ?

[daveboy]

Estimate of £400,000 cost per asylum seeker based on the Netherlands, not the UK – Full Fact

[Yellow Bear]

53 minutes ago, 12gauge82 said:

I'm pretty sure another who was anti Brexit to

I checked on this as I had the same thought but it seems she was pretty pro brexit (so she may not last long)

[oowee]

On 26/10/2024 at 21:43, 12gauge82 said:

I'm seriously considering emigrating. The only problem is where to. 

Channel Islands. 

[Rewulf]

3 hours ago, daveboy said:

Estimate of £400,000 cost per asylum seeker based on the Netherlands, not the UK – Full Fact

The University of Oxford’s Migration Observatory says: “Research on the fiscal impact of refugees is limited, but it is likely that over the course of their lifetimes, refugees require net fiscal support because they tend to have lower employment rates and often struggle to find well-paid work.”

It further says: “While the fiscal impact of migration to the UK is small, refugees are therefore less likely than other migrants to be among those who make net fiscal contributions (i.e. to pay more into government finances through tax and other contributions than it costs to provide them with benefits and public services).”

The government has published information on the cost of supporting asylum seekers while their claims are being processed.

The Home Office estimated that in 2022/23 the “unit cost” of processing each case in the asylum workload was around £21,000.

And in an impact assessment of the Illegal Migration Act published last year, it estimated that the cost of supporting someone for four years while their asylum claim was processed was £106,000.

 I said before, the average cost of keeping an asylum seeker per annum (without excessive legal costs, is around £50K, (£150 a day x 365 = £54750) so the £106K figure sounds a bit on the low side for 4 years, obviously if they use our legal system to challenge a decision (which the vast majority do) this figure can skyrocket. 
After they have been granted leave to remain, they are entitled to benefits, which with housing benefit and NHS care, could easily keep that £50K pa bill going for the years leading up to their state pension age.

If anyone thinks this figure is sustainable, even in the short term, they need to give their heads a wobble.

[oowee]

23 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

The University of Oxford’s Migration Observatory says: “Research on the fiscal impact of refugees is limited, but it is likely that over the course of their lifetimes, refugees require net fiscal support because they tend to have lower employment rates and often struggle to find well-paid work.”

It further says: “While the fiscal impact of migration to the UK is small, refugees are therefore less likely than other migrants to be among those who make net fiscal contributions (i.e. to pay more into government finances through tax and other contributions than it costs to provide them with benefits and public services).”

The government has published information on the cost of supporting asylum seekers while their claims are being processed.

The Home Office estimated that in 2022/23 the “unit cost” of processing each case in the asylum workload was around £21,000.

And in an impact assessment of the Illegal Migration Act published last year, it estimated that the cost of supporting someone for four years while their asylum claim was processed was £106,000.

 I said before, the average cost of keeping an asylum seeker per annum (without excessive legal costs, is around £50K, (£150 a day x 365 = £54750) so the £106K figure sounds a bit on the low side for 4 years, obviously if they use our legal system to challenge a decision (which the vast majority do) this figure can skyrocket. 
After they have been granted leave to remain, they are entitled to benefits, which with housing benefit and NHS care, could easily keep that £50K pa bill going for the years leading up to their state pension age.

If anyone thinks this figure is sustainable, even in the short term, they need to give their heads a wobble.

Its an interesting report albeit it's based on not a lot of data. The challenge is firstly what we can do to reduce the numbers coming here and then for those that are accepted how can we best make use of them.

Surely there must be a way to utilise our overseas aid funding to better support origin countries. Finding ways to link aid (including global warming budget) to migrant numbers. 

We seem to have a system where there are no safe routes. We process very slowly. There appears to be limited repatriation (or at the very least we don't see it even where it's happening). There is a disconnect between the agencies involved all with competing objectives. A complete lack of transparency on the numbers, the origins, the outcomes etc etc. 

All of this leads to distrust and hostility. 

 

[Gordon R]

oowee - you suggest safer routes, faster processing. How will these reduce illegals crossing the channel? We don't seem to be removing many. What happens if asylum claims are refused? More human rights lawyers fighting for them to stay. Your whole thrust seems to be getting more of what we cannot afford.

What exactly are these competing objectives? If the Civil Service is to be trusted they should all be working towards reducing the numbers.

You are correct in saying there is a complete lack of transparency in numbers. You cannot state how many are already here, nor how many arrive on a daily basis.

Why do we need to give bribes to other countries? We waste billions on foreign aid, with little measurable return.

[12gauge82]

41 minutes ago, oowee said:

Its an interesting report albeit it's based on not a lot of data. The challenge is firstly what we can do to reduce the numbers coming here and then for those that are accepted how can we best make use of them.

Surely there must be a way to utilise our overseas aid funding to better support origin countries. Finding ways to link aid (including global warming budget) to migrant numbers. 

We seem to have a system where there are no safe routes. We process very slowly. There appears to be limited repatriation (or at the very least we don't see it even where it's happening). There is a disconnect between the agencies involved all with competing objectives. A complete lack of transparency on the numbers, the origins, the outcomes etc etc. 

All of this leads to distrust and hostility. 

 

The simplest and most cost effective method is immediately deport them back to France the moment their feet touch our soil. It's simple, easy and would within a week if not sooner stop illegal immigration in its tracks. 

[oowee]

2 minutes ago, Gordon R said:

oowee - you suggest safer routes, faster processing. How will these reduce illegals crossing the channel? We don't seem to be removing many. What happens if asylum claims are refused? More human rights lawyers fighting for them to stay. Your whole thrust seems to be getting more of what we cannot afford.

What exactly are these competing objectives? If the Civil Service is to be trusted they should all be working towards reducing the numbers.

You are correct in saying there is a complete lack of transparency in numbers. You cannot state how many are already here, nor how many arrive on a daily basis.

Why do we need to give bribes to other countries? We waste billions on foreign aid, with little measurable return.

It's appears to be that the UK has largely followed a policy focused on the migrants themselves, the symptom rather than the cause. 

Much of the foreign aid goes through Syria and Turkey. How can it be utilised to reduce some of causes of migration? 

Faster processing and quicker repatriation or integration would reduce the financial burden. Safe routes (processing centre in Syria maybe?) could cut off the supply of business to the traffickers. 

3 minutes ago, 12gauge82 said:

The simplest and most cost effective method is immediately deport them back to France the moment their feet touch our soil. It's simple, easy and would within a week if not sooner stop illegal immigration in its tracks. 

Explain how. 

France will not accept them and we cannot force them to take them back. 

[Gordon R]

Struggling with this "faster repatriation". Whilst we pay for lawyers to delay or completely block repatriation, I don't see it speeding up. Perhaps we should rely on the simplistic gang smasher Cooper. It is laughable.

If we have a faster processing centre in Syria, do you honestly believe that anyone failing permission will accept that or will they resort to the Channel? No prizes for spotting the glaring hole in your plan.

As for the cause of unlimited immigration - the UK dishes out money like confetti. We also attract criminals, with little deterrent.

[old man]

Starmer the clown?

Needs to join the comedy circuit?