To think it's time to leave the ECHR?

[Sausagenbacon]

www.thejc.com/news/uk/gazan-family-refugee-status-asylum-rejection-gwsq2c8b

There is a choice but it’s when people vote.

Okay, so when we have an election, struggling British families can vote to reclaim their £125.

I would assume however that it won’t be taken off their tax, it’ll be spent somewhere else.

That’s a lot.

At least for me.

It’s 0.42% of our total tax revenue.

You don't care there are people going to come and getting taxpayer funded housing and money for living costs? Just automatically and they aren't even citizens.

PPE money was wasted AND this is as well.

Source?

Everyone knows we're in massive debt as a country and it's rising right? We're borrowing more and more money and the debt is there for our children to pay.

We are not the nearest safe country.

The government.

• Total Tax Revenue: According to the latest annual data from HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC), the government collected £938.8 billion in total taxes and National Insurance contributions.

• Annual Asylum Costs: Reports from the National Audit Office (NAO) put the annual cost of asylum accommodation, support, and processing at approximately £4 billion (following recent hotel closures and enforcement cuts).

£4bn / £938bn x 100 = 0.42%.

@Lasttraintolondon It's about to get a lot worse.

That is a lot.

What year was that?

@RodneyKitten

That’s personal opinion, happy to differ on whether 0.42% is a lot. The remaining 99.58% of our spend obviously accounts for far more.

24 - 26 tax and fiscal years.

Still a lot.

I can't imagine the new, stricter rules being successfully challenged in any substantial way, given that they're in keeping with other laws, from other member states, that have successfully survived ECtHR challenges.

Okay. 0.42% is a lot.

Out of interest, do you have a similar threshold for how many war torn children is “a lot”?

Ah, once you lose the reasonable argument the sentiment comes out.

Are you being deliberately obtuse? If Governments could do what they liked with immigration policy, this thread wouldn’t exist! For starters, the last Government would have implemented its Rwanda policy.

Sentiment for children who lived in war torn countries, of which there are apparently 11 in this specific case?

Yes. That would be me.

I didn’t lose a reasonable argument. You lost understanding percentages.

I’m surprised at that but I suppose it’s a reason for the heavy focus on single males for asylum.

Aren't there numerous other nations they can go? Perhaps nearer

There are millions of children in war torn countries.

How many are you happy to pay for?

The eleven mentioned above?
The millions more?

What percentage will that be? How do you choose who to pay for? Who are the deserving ones your percentage will be going to?

There's numerous starving children in Sudan and Somalia. I don't think this means they have a right to enter the UK.

I’ve got no idea how many my specific percentage pays for, because that’s not how tax works.

But that percentage isn’t enough to rile me up. If/when a different one does though, I’ll be sure to let you know?

So, how many children from
war torn countries are you ready to take in?

Hundreds?
Thousands?
Why not millions?

If the pp is correct it looks like children and spouses can be blocked. It’s more paying for the men arriving.