It’s from the official gov.co.uk website and lists all the legal schemes available. There are other specific routes for Afghanistan (that’s the subject for a separate debate as there are thousands stranded that we should bring here immediately), Hong Kong, and Ukrain, all for obvious reasons, apart from that these 3 are the only legitimate routes for asylum seekers to come to this country. a suggested solution Set up proper legal routes Deal with people arriving by these routes efficiently, fairly and quickly, ensure anyone that fails can be repatriated quickly and humanely As this wouldn’t cost the individuals, it would take away the need for costly, dangerous, illegal trips, we’d also then have the morale justification to deport illegal migrants. bearing in mind by the governments own reckoning it’s going to cost £170k per person to send people to Rwanda, and costs around £6m per day to look after them at present in this country, surely it would make financial sense too.
At current levels, plus the backlog it's reckoned that this will be costing the taxpayer the best part of £200m PER DAY by 2025 if they don't get tough and get this sorted once and for all. Many countries in Europe is also reintroducing border controls, which proves that the open borders experiment is a failure, and potentially a dangerous one at that as it's been abused by those coming from the likes of India, Albania Egypt, Nigeria etc.
we are a small Island already overpopulated and the taking away of greenbelt land for housing usage [ includes all the utility aspects ] will leave us like Sudan/ Ethiopia / Eritrea and other famine hit countries in the world .... houses people ne food production ... not enough anyway, no industry . A few years ago there was a consultative forum of eco;ogists and economists that published a paper on the UK of the future [ a few decades ago ] it stated that the UK would reach a tipping point of around 65 million people. It stated facts about the 3 most important things being water.. yep number 1 on the list .. cant remember the rest in order but included things like energy and food sanitation [ that was on the list as it stated the problem with rivers and coastal deposition of the same ] bearing in mind there was no or very little mention of masses of illegals I am assuming the comment that 65 million was a result of mostly a projection of the time back then when we had 2.3 children! and limited selective migration and a few persecuted asylum seekers
So for clarity, you are quoting a possible paper, that was probably done decades ago projecting forward to today, but you aren’t sure of the details . Wouldn’t it be fair and reasonable to say this post is complete nonsense
probably in your eyes as you love a dig without engaging in "what you so often state " a dialogue".. without actually absorbing what you read whatever itis!! ........... FOR CLARITY ................ There is nothing to say it was for today [ lets say not today exactly or this time period 2 or 3 years either side of today ] but for the future when the population reach's 65 million [ which we have gone past] details are there but not in order!!!! weird isnt it all those years ago said water shortage [ EAST SUSSEX HOSEPIPE BAN AS CANT KEEP UP WITH DRINKING WATER ] sanitation would lead to the fact not enough infrastructure to cope process extra poo generated .. which would come from all the extra houses built and increase in population really it is just plain old common sense ..... and back then whilst thought provoking, not enough was done and population explosion is fired via immigration .... simples Probably done decades ago ... or a few years ago ... sorry I cant put an exact date on it, but it was pre 1990 .. and after 1981 ..... Fair and reasonable .. oh how droll , obviously you havent a sensible answer to it, although it is a reply to your ........... ... in reality you are adopting an opinion that it is better to try and save money rather to to stop the cause that is the seed of the spending ....
My original point was surely rather than spend £170k per person to send them to Rwanda, that’s not including the Legal fees they are having to spend when they knew it would be challenged, and £6m per day housing them whilst processing them , again that’s per day and they take years to process, that’s one hell of a lot of money. Only at the end for a large majority to be allowed in anyway. Surely it would be better to spend the money on setting up proper routes and a proper efficient system to process them when they arrive. Then any that fail can be sent back quickly and we’d at least have a moral case for doing so. None of your points contradict this really, as for poo as you put it. The sewer system, is donkeys years old , mostly was built by the romans for gods sake surely it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out it’ll need fixing soon regardless of immigration or not. We need a decent infrastructure as a nation in order to succeed, we also need working age immigrants to help pay tax to pay for all us our pensions etc
But we also need extra housing without eradicating the greenbelt, and services we pay for that the British public can rely on such as getting Doctors and hospital appointments, before any immigrant gets pushed to the front of the queue Nay, nay and thrice nay
Without immigrants the NHS wouldn’t work, with controlled immigration we can allow in more doctors and nurses which we help the situation not make it worse, we often conflate immigration and asylum seekers, they are different. We don’t have enough young people to support us older ones, that’s why the pension age has risen.
cough .. only some ?? a few odd bits but usually they were open ...might go back to romans! thats why some rockets dont work then!!!! most of the sewers are victorians it was, as I remember a question in one of my exams when by whom and why ! etc ... OK so you are on the side of flooding the country with immigrants ... who pays their pensions? most working immigrants dont contribute as much as they arrive with maybe the bare term to contribute .. I started contributing at 18 and stopped when I was 65 via National insurance contributions ... a lot of the people coming here are not able to contribute 40 years and family members drain the system when here
I was exaggerating somewhat about the age of the sewers, but they are really old, that was my point. You are also exaggerating though, I’m not suggesting flooding anything, at present we have tens of thousands coming illegally on boats, they cost millions per day to house and the governments only so called solution involves spending £170k per person to send them to Rwanda, plus all the associated legal costs to potentially be told it’s illegal. Lucky you I will have to continue paying it till I’m 67, that’s due to the lack of younger people paying in. Plus older people living longer. You were part of the baby boom, with contraception so less children being born and older people living longer we need more working age people. It’s not just a UK issue, it’s a first world issue. France recently had a National strike because their government wants to increase their retirement age to 62, for the same reason, there aren’t enough people paying to cover the costs of their pensions either. BTW the money you paid in over the years via national insurance etc was used to pay for the pensioners at the time, it wasn’t put on a “pot” to pay for your retirement. But I’m sure you knew that anyway.
If we had proper routes and they were processed quickly we’d have much more control than now. If nothing else we could evidence how many we’d successfully let in, and if necessary put up a case for slowing down the numbers . As it is it’s a free for all.
Those are existing citizens, well the vast majority at least The point is that as the host we should be able to fast track specialist skills that are needed and be very picky who we take and choose to deny entry to The same way Australia are stealing our better Doctors with better standard of living and conditions As I’ve said before I’m not anti immigration. But we are not a charity, can’t cope with even our own people needs and demands and we should be the ones calling the shots and not out of date human rights laws no longer fit for purpose.
It’s a silly question, irrelevant, we are obliged to take legitimate asylum seekers in, the question is how best do we do it. If we set up legal routes and process them better it wouldn’t cost as much and we’d have control over the numbers. As for immigrants we need them. I’m all for controlled immigration, sealed borders and choosing which we take.
OH, and there was me and a couple others whom I socialized with tonight thinking it was because the expected length of life had been extended [ by an average ] longer. From something like 73 for men to 79 for men and to 84 for women from 81 [ these were an average our guesstimates 9 people ] Also from discussion we agreed that current paying in people fund the present pensioners, but changes to system mean more emphasis is now on the individual to fund their own!
we have them they dont use them reason is if they dont get accepted then harder to warrant being here illegally he wont answer that ... ! it would rather pay to keep them here as to costly to send them back !!!
I pointed out the available routes, from the government’s own website, and the numbers used, because they are useless, I even provided you with the source so you can look it up yourself , but as usual you don’t let actual facts get in the way, you invent your own. If you read my posts (heaven forbid) again you’d rather invent your own facts , I’ve answered the question on numbers, I will spell it out for you . We are obliged to accept genuine asylum seekers, our problem is we don’t have proper routes for them, nor a “fit for purpose” system to deal with them, or process them. We’d be better off spending our money on setting up a system to deal with them efficiently than half brain systems that don’t work, that are expensive, and only serve lawyers. If we had an efficient, quick system we’d be able to process them, deport the ones that fail and integrate the ones that succeed, bearing in mind the successful ones will succeed anyhow, but at present they are stuck in a system for years costing a Fortune to house and look after. What is it £6m per day. Ridiculous. Plus the failures can be deported quickly and we don’t end up paying £m’s to house and feed them only to then find it difficult to deport them because they’ve been here so long. We should have closed borders and choose our own level’s of immigration ( which is different to asylum) , so we can allow In people that are In professions we need. However we should not use this method to over flood professions to artificial keep labour costs cheap as this will make matters worse by encouraging emigration to other better paid countries, such as nurses to Australia etc, as we are in a global market. It’s certainly a better system than we have in place at the moment and less expensive. It would take money to set up, but we wouldn’t have to pay £6m a day on keeping people here years just waiting to be assessed, nor would it cost £170k per person plus legal fees only to be told its ilegal so can’t be done anyhow.
The Government are apparently addressing the backlog issue by letting nearly everyone stay, including Albanians and those coming from countries where they are not in fear for their lives or from persecution because they are democracies, such as India They would rather let everyone stay than do their job and send those who don’t qualify home. That puts yet more strain on services where some common sense could be applied Disgusting
QUOTE="realred1952, post: 16799610, member: 1049859"]OH, and there was me and a couple others whom I socialized with tonight thinking it was because the expected length of life had been extended [ by an average ] longer. From something like 73 for men to 79 for men and to 84 for women from 81 [ these were an average our guesstimates 9 people ] Also from discussion we agreed that current paying in people fund the present pensioners, but changes to system mean more emphasis is now on the individual to fund their own![/QUOTE] You needed a discussion with 9 people to figure out current people paying in their taxes fund the present pensioners , really ?, WOW, and reckon a change will mean individuals will somehow pay for their own moving forward? , so who pays for today’s pensioners? , you know the ones whose money has already been used ? , will they be left without a pension ? . Ask your friends that question at your next meeting, or maybe come up with your own answer??. WOW . The average age expectancy is actually coming down at the moment, but until recently was going up, but there are also fewer young people than years ago. Bottom line we need more young people paying taxes to generate enough cash to fund pensions, along with everything else of course , but pensions do take up a large portion.
