Illegal Immigrants In Hotels

[Goldengirl123]

What are your thoughts?

Which is why we don’t prosecute… What’s your point? Are you under the impression that it ceases to be an illegal act because we deal with it administratively instead of prosecuting? Because it doesn’t.

1 third of them is committed by 1 tenth of the population.

Stop jumping around the fact. You either don’t understand or you’re purposely trying to misrepresent the data.

I think we might have if 76% of Ukrainian refugees had been young men.

Yes you clearly have.
Also as I said, try reading the thread if you were genuinely asking why some come to the UK.
You clearly aren't genuinely asking though otherwise you wouldn't be deflecting and dodging and you'd have a look.

Ridiculous argument. "Whatever you want to call them" - they ARE asylum seekers. There's no telling whether they are illegal or not.
Also, do you house the homeless/ex-servicemen etc in your house? No, of course you don't because that's not the answer.
Really hate these ignorant comments.

Except I haven’t because I said I got your point and agreed with proportionality. I said that the facts of what we both said were correct. You just want a stick to bang your drum with. It’s boring. I stand by everything I say so keep harping on about it, I honestly don’t care unless you bring something new to the table. Which you won’t.

Essentially, yes. Both laws are just Tories thumbing their noses at international law. The international law takes precedence, so the national law means nothing.

We don’t ‘deal with it administratively’. We actively ignore it.

No.
You're trying subvert the statistics to suit your agenda.

PS we would be violating the treaty if we tried to enforce. That’s rather stronger than your statement, @WilfredsPies

Great. So try resolving some of them now. Not even all of them. Just respond to a couple of them if you like. How would you get around any of the points I raised, within the law and with the restrictions we currently have?

This is a long term issue and we need long term solutions.

Creating the infrastructure on an offshore location to create compounds for asylum seekers to be processed would be an investment.

We can reward any British national who works there in a education, medical, administrative capacity etc. for a specified amount of time by reducing their tax for the next X amount of years, or by creating savings accounts in which money for house deposits are stored.

We need new ideas. We need to create safe environments for the asylum seekers and we need to safeguard our own citizens.

The current framework does NONE of that. We need radical changes.

No, I’m it. I’m stating facts because those people who use the wishy washy bollocks they come out with, like the poster I responded to, use them incorrectly. I’m doing that whilst partially agreeing with you. Seriously, give up.

I genuinely can't find your thoughts on why they go through France to come here.

But hey ho, maybe I've got the wrong glasses on.....

I am an immigrant in the .uK (white, professional, high earner, tax payer, in a job I took from no one as only I can do it - requires 6 languages, I own my house, claimed maternity pay once, no other “bennies”, so don’t worry!) but the racism and xenophobia on here is making me feel sick.
some of you need to have a fucking word with yourselves.

Perhaps they already speak English and have friends and family in the uk.

It's like saying "if you are so concerned about all the pensioners losing their extra money for heating from the government, then get round there and pay for their heating yourself, instead of them sponging off the state".

But we don't say that do we? Because it isn't up to individuals to cough up for it, it's for the government. We operate as a society.

Not sure about the details (I know you don’t intend them as the last word) but the idea of incentivising Brits to be part of a proper solution is rather cool.

Good for you

International law trumps national law.

That grossly oversimplifies the situation. In the UK international law must be put into domestic law before it can be enforced. Many many countries simply ignore much international law and do so without impact. Remember also who the countries are who are involved in enforcing international law and the fact that they all have their own interests in play. It is not the case that China, Russia and UAE can push something through the UN and everyone else must follow it.

But our pensioners are British.....

Ahh, I see. You don’t know as much about immigration law as you think you do and instead of actually reading the Act and researching how long this particular law has been in place (hint, it’s older than me and has lasted through Tory and Labour governments) and asking what dealing with something administratively actually means, you’ve decided to double down on your position and insist that you’re right. Interesting approach.

I’ve had this discussion on a different thread with someone else who thought they’d understood it properly as well. All that happened is that we spent a few hours of them insisting they were right and me repeating that they were wrong. It was utterly futile, so I’m going to employ the Keanu Reeves approach. You’re absolutely right. Have a lovely evening.

So you’re admitting it’s based on racism? And not about helping the less fortunate?

It’s pointless talking stats. The stats in the boats show majority men but people don’t want to believe it.
I know I will never convince some people that these men are not here purely because of humanitarian reasons. People just want to believe they are all more victims who need rescuing.
Do I understand why they leave? Of course, they want a better life. However that doesn’t mean we are obligated to accept them. Asylum should predominantly be for women and children fleeing war not fighting age men looking to improve their situation.
I have said this a million times on this forum but people don’t get it. I live in a poor area that’s always been diverse. We get on well as a community. We are currently experiencing a lot of problems because of recent high economic migration. Everyone (from every background) is fed up with it. Our area is already pretty difficult but no one cares because we are in a “rough” area.

What is different to taking in ukranians for a fee per month, to housing these?

a poster on this thread said they’re were seeking asylum too.

I'd happily house an asylum seeker for a fee per month, totally not an issue.

More sensible info