Current Affairs The Conservative Party

[Bruce Wayne]

Yeah, not sure that ‘optically’ it’s a good move, as it’s a nuanced topic, but she’s talking about illegal immigration, and deportations (removals - I.e those who have been through the asylum system, then the appeals system, and have come to the end of the road, and are then subject to removal).

It’s a tricky part of the migration system, to remove people who have been refused refugee status and then exhausted all their legal options of appeal and dispute. The process takes so long, that people often then have families here, which complicates the situation, and their country of origin could be somewhere so politically unsettled that it’s not feasible to deport them there.

Given that the asylum system currently costs around £1.5bn a year, it would be terrible if it was these people that were costing the country money rather than our ridiculous attempts to stop them.

 

[Amw79]

The language around the discussion is deliberately unhelpful.

There's an almost mythical standard for who, in the eyes of some, should be eligible. A largely unachievable standard - no men, children, but only young children, women, but not those that embrace the culture they've left, highly skilled, but we don't recognize the expertise, "real" refugees but not others (see Pete's ridiculous distinction between Ukraine and other countries).

Yeah, it doesn’t help that people confuse the terminology so often.

I mean, as you say, for some there’s clearly no standard which can be met and I suspect they welcome that ambiguity - immigrant = asylum seeker = illegal immigrant = refugee. In their eyes these are all the same, when clearly, they’re legally distinct classifications.

 

[Amw79]

Given that the asylum system currently costs around £1.5bn a year, it would be terrible if it was these people that were costing the country money rather than our ridiculous attempts to stop them.

Oh no, I don’t think the cost is necessarily the problem. An efficient and compassionate asylum system should be the aim, other countries manage it. However there is an end point to such a system, where applicants have exhausted their legal options, and at that point don’t have a legal right to remain.

What to do with those people who have been through the process, unsuccessfully, is difficult; practically, politically and morally.

 

[sbbefc]

It's astonishing how much time and resources are spent on immigration. We obviously need a system that works but is meddling with it such a priority? Police, NHS, schools, councils and so on all cut to the bare bone. There's nothing else to cut yet we're happy to spend billions on evil vanity projects like Rwanda. It's absurd.

 

[Yarrgh]

But but but, she had a Cambridge education

I'm starting to think that Cambridge need to re-evaluate their student intake policy. Pronto.

 

[FrenchDarrenBent]

I'm starting to think that Cambridge need to re-evaluate their student intake policy. Pronto.

It baffles me how people with moral compasses like this get in. Same for the likes of Ted Cruz & co.

 

[Yarrgh]

It baffles me how people with moral compasses like this get in. Same for the likes of Ted Cruz & co.

You and me both.

 

[Blue 1]

Get in the bin you disgusting fascist.

I haven't got any more words I can use for her on here that the swear filter won't get.

She appears to actually enjoy hurting people. Gets a kick from it. She's a monster.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Oh no, I don’t think the cost is necessarily the problem. An efficient and compassionate asylum system should be the aim, other countries manage it. However there is an end point to such a system, where applicants have exhausted their legal options, and at that point don’t have a legal right to remain.

What to do with those people who have been through the process, unsuccessfully, is difficult; practically, politically and morally.

That's my point. It currently costs around £1.5 billion a year to run the asylum system. There are around 48,000 applicants in a given year, so each one is costing the taxpayer about £30,000 a year. Are we seriously suggesting that just letting people get on with their lives, start working and contributing taxes, is going to cost the taxpayer more than £30k a year each?

To be honest with you, I'm not sure the costs stack up and it's far more likely to be just appearing tough against forens.

 

[Yarrgh]

I haven't got any more words I can use for her on here that the swear filter won't get.

She appears to actually enjoy hurting people. Gets a kick from it. She's a monster.

Suella Mengeles.

 

[ChesterBlue]

Get in the bin you disgusting fascist.

She also said this in the same interview. I don’t think I can actually post my opinion on her as the swear filter would 100% get me a ban

 

[JimmyJeffers]

She also said this in the same interview. I don’t think I can actually post my opinion on her as the swear filter would 100% get me a ban

She’s a [Poor language removed] or a [Poor language removed]?

 

[Jebus_lives]

I've only ever seen the phrase "illegal immigrant" used in relation to those crossing the channel in boats, when my understanding is that all of those people are claiming asylum. In most countries, by far the biggest element of "illegal immigration" is people overstaying their visa. Do we really think it's "those" people that the politicians are talking about?

No. Not in the slightest. As I said in my other point, the whole dialogue around immigration is skewed.

The default should be that asylum is acceptable and a positive action. But we've confused economic migrants from EU (perfectly legal), with asylum seekers (legal), who we confuse with refugees (legal), which is conflated with illegal immigrants.

It's why you have blanket statements about "immigrants" receiving benefits and an "invasion" of people coming to the UK. It's ignorance, fear and hate wrapped up as "looking after our own" and the "vulnerable in the UK".

I remember having a conversation with a local community group about possibility of around 300 asylum seekers being put up in a hotel - "we need to look after the homeless we already have", "it'll cause crime", "strain on services", "why should we pay".

"Well let's give those 300 places to the homeless in the area".

"Errrrrrrr....but...."

It's a constant punching down.

 

[Amw79]

That's my point. It currently costs around £1.5 billion a year to run the asylum system. There are around 48,000 applicants in a given year, so each one is costing the taxpayer about £30,000 a year. Are we seriously suggesting that just letting people get on with their lives, start working and contributing taxes, is going to cost the taxpayer more than £30k a year each?

To be honest with you, I'm not sure the costs stack up and it's far more likely to be just appearing tough against forens.

Mmm. It’s an interesting one, as you’re basically advocating an open door policy, presumably post some sort of security checking / registration process. I think you’re right, it would be more cost effective for sure (think the system cost is more like £2b these days).

I’m thinking more about the practical and ethical difficulty dealing with those who’ve been through the existing process, rather than essentially scrapping the process itself.

Definitely more cost effective, likely political kryptonite though.

 

[Marius57]

Cleverly: "The prime minister made it really clear what her philosophy was when she was running for the leadership. If people weren’t listening properly, I mean that’s more their problem than hers"

We were listening you bell, but when only 0.11% of the Uk population voted for her, it is our problem.