The Home Secretary is not telling the truth about rioters 'paying the price' ...

[jxpop665]

as it will be the choice of a jury whether or not the accused is found guilty. She is being a very dishonest politician pretending it is her choice.

There could be a significant situation as in the statue of Edward Colston case, that if sufficient people in a jury agree with the underlying motivations the jury may use jury equity to find the accused not guilty.

Given the purported motivation of failed immigration policy is a political issue for a significant proportion of the population, this is an unlikely be possible outcome.

YABU = The Home Secretary is right, they will pay the price.
YANBU = The Home Secretary should be honest as that choice is for a jury.

Then they aren’t illegal are they - they are asylum seekers- who have a right to be here while their claim is processed - maybe invest in speeding up the process!

For asylum seekers, yes. For illegal immigrants no.

How is it people still don't know the difference between illegal migrants, legal migrants and asylum seekers when it's apparently the biggest issue the country has ever faced?

We don’t need an additional supply of labour. We need fit and healthy people to come off benefits and into work. Benefits should be for the genuinely ill or disabled, not seen as a career choice.

If they are claiming asylum then they are not an illegal migrant, until the point at which their claim has been decided and only then if they don't have grounds to remain in the UK, which is a small proportion of asylum applications.

And when this was government policy- cut the number of people doing the paperwork, house them in a tory party donors hotels, redirect the money there from processing the claims- where were the riots protests,

This new government has returned more failed asylum seekers in the last month, than the tory government managed in the previous year. The policy is not to enrich their mates at the cost of taxpayers.

How much will need to be spent repairing the damage done by these yobs, and paying the emergency services for trying to keep the rest of us safe? If they hadn't cost the country money, then you might have a point, as it is, the cost of running public services, including housing immigrants is very far from these fascists thoughts.

Suella, is that you?

Its simply not the question of this AIBU though - which is whether the Home Secretary can honestly make such a statement that those involved will pay the price given she nor the government has any role.
She is announcing an intention for the government to do all it can to ensure as many as possible are arrested and prosecuted, thereby ensuring as many as possible "pay the price". It isn't dishonest for her to state that everyone will pay the price, it's rhetoric.

But every arrival is an asylum seeker, aren’t they?

I can’t believe people land at Dover and declare themselves to be illegal immigrants.

Whether the applicant is a genuine refugee or an economic migrant can’t be known until after processing and all the associated costs. What am I not getting?

I do want to be very clear that I think the subject of immigration is a bogus issue for rioters and Reform agitators. But honesty is always better.

The largest group of benefit recipients (over 12million people) are pensioners.

Are you suggesting they should go out and work?

The second largest group of benefit recipients are those in work. I am not sure how they would come off benefits and into work? Well unless you are suggesting that employers should pay them a proper wage?

Was your post just a demonstration of a lack of knowledge of the benefits system?

This new government has returned more failed asylum seekers in the last month, than the tory government managed in the previous year.

Really? Where does this come from?

Fair play to the government if it’s true.

There has been some confusion previously as to whether it was asylum seekers or economic migrants that we were not supposed to like.

This perhaps was not helped by the previous Prime Minister being an economic migrant.

Of course she is not being dishonest. She is saying people will be prosecuted.
I rather think you have an anti labour agenda to suggest such a thing.
What would you suggest? Let the looters, arsonists and violent thugs off scot free because they are using a wave of public dissatisfaction with how the tories managed immigration? This government has only been in power five minutes and nobody is even waiting to see what their strategies will achieve and think mob rule is a better plan.

This government should be allowing the use of water cannons as this would surely be a deterrent to stop the thugs rioting. Why is the goverment so weak to allow this method!.

We needs quicker processing - I have young people I work with waiting 5+ years for a home office decision - one even missed out on starting uni because they had not had a decision - the previous government spent way too much time and money on crowd pleasing Rwanda shite and not enough on speeding up the system- no one wants to sit in a hotel room for years with no education and no work - this is why people DO go underground and work illegally - often being exploited in the process

But how can one know what a new arrival’s circumstances are without spending time looking into them?

I was given a stern response by a poster who was apparently exasperated by the lack of understanding about the difference between asylum seekers and illegal immigrants.

I just want to understand how the demarcation works in practice.

Who’s that to?

No, most illegal migrants are visa overstayers who have come in legally on work or student visas and then not left. Others come in specifically to work in the black/grey market (drugs, prostitution, nail bars, takeaways, etc) either willingly or by force, and only a small % are failed asylum seekers, but majority of illegal migrants never see a boat.

Because Theresa May did5 license them and sold them off - they are now only in NI.

I know over the past 5 years we have grown used to the government breaking the law, but I think perhaps the current government has a rather different way of doing things.

Added to that the use of water cannons is generally an ineffective method of crowd control.

Have you done any reading about the policing of crowds and the theories of rioting?

I assume the OP given it doesn't quote anyone else and is a direct response to OP's question.

There is an Olympian who has lived in Bolton for 15 years.
Had to represent the refugee team, because the UK will not give her citizenship.

YABU and weird @jxpop665. Did you NC specifically to post this?

If you claim asylum then you have an absolute right to remain in the UK until your application is processed and a decision made, you are perfectly legally entitled to be in the UK.

If you are an illegal immigrant you have no right to be in the UK.

15% of the population didn't vote reform the turnout in the election was one of the lowest ever. So you might be looking at maybe 10% of people supporting reform. Of those some are disillusioned tory voters who couldn't bring themselves to vote Labour and are very big on crime and justice concerns. So you are really talking about a very small number of people whose concerns over immigration will over rule the oath they take as jurors for the very small number of most serious cases that make it to a jury trial.

Five plus years? Are you sure they haven't lodged several appeals - they've had Home Office decisions they don't like so they keep trying? Is Yvette Cooper going to ban immigration appeals?