Too easy to attack, everyone is well versed in the arguments. We all know unregulated financial adventurism caused the problem. However vested interest and parochialism mean that the process of othering can flourish. Individual gain has been inculcated since the 1980's and it's the current credo. Even those that are unproductive feel entitled to demonise outsiders rather than address the problems caused by the familiar. The real sadness lays in that generationally our successors will have it harder than us. That's almost counter intuitive but technology that removes the need for our skills and poverty that drives others to risk their lives to come and work serving us will create a real conundrum for my children's generation. On the basis that synthetic boundaries remain for our lifetimes and beyond the problem will never be solved. So Red accept that the majority of the population when push comes to shove couldn't give a toss about drowning migrants as long as they can get to Bluewater when they need a pick me up or find a workable solution that allows the global poor to service an indolent society in return for their payment for the privilege.
If you are trying to make a point of some kind I am afraid it has not registered despite 3 readings!
He's trying to let you know that the Labour Party, won over 100 fewer seats than their Conservative party counterparts.
They're failure was even more marked in the South of England - where, I assume you live. Get over it. The South can't stand Socialists.
To be blunt people here feel hard done by. They would vent their spleen at outsiders rather than those that created the situation. Example Typhoon flying over Warton today keeps how many employed? Do BAE employees think about conflict in the middle east as a necessary evil to keep their bills paid? So you trying to counter every contentious point, every ill worded diatribe is pointless. Most people don't think like you. If they did, Cameron wouldn't be in position to screw things even more than they already are. offer them alternatives, workable solutions rather than argument. If the anger subsides we may get somewhere. p.s. having a row gets you nowhere in the end, nobody ever changed their mind because they got a smack in the mouth.
So if we let all 5000 in via the tunnel, then it will only cost
£28080000 over the 3 years value for money right there, as they could easily pau that back in tax once we have educated them and assisted them
That is a tiny tiny fraction of the £850 billion the banking bail out has reportedly cost the UK tax payer.
FFS stop changing the subject to suit your political point of view.
Remind me which Government bailed out the Banks?
I work fucking hard to provide for my family, yet I still have to check on an almost daily basis to make sure I can afford to continue doing what little I do outside of paying my monthly bills.
And yes, I resent that so much of the £1400 I paid in income tax last month goes to assist 'asylum seekers' when I could help my kids and step kids so much more. They're my priority, not the hundreds of economic migrants camping in Calais.
Selfish? Maybe. But I know where my priorities lay.
Red / addicted you seem to know a lot about policies and shit like that, how and who bought that legislation in that people are entitled to the figures on that website
Too easy to attack, everyone is well versed in the arguments. We all know unregulated financial adventurism caused the problem. However vested interest and parochialism mean that the process of othering can flourish. Individual gain has been inculcated since the 1980's and it's the current credo. Even those that are unproductive feel entitled to demonise outsiders rather than address the problems caused by the familiar. The real sadness lays in that generationally our successors will have it harder than us. That's almost counter intuitive but technology that removes the need for our skills and poverty that drives others to risk their lives to come and work serving us will create a real conundrum for my children's generation. On the basis that synthetic boundaries remain for our lifetimes and beyond the problem will never be solved. So Red accept that the majority of the population when push comes to shove couldn't give a toss about drowning migrants as long as they can get to Bluewater when they need a pick me up or find a workable solution that allows the global poor to service an indolent society in return for their payment for the privilege.
If you are trying to make a point of some kind I am afraid it has not registered despite 3 readings!
He's trying to let you know that the Labour Party, won over 100 fewer seats than their Conservative party counterparts.
They're failure was even more marked in the South of England - where, I assume you live. Get over it. The South can't stand Socialists.
I live in London. Not only did most seats go to Labour but significantly more people voted Labour than Tory. Something like 44% to 37%.
That legislation is ridiculous and just takes the piss out of us tax payers.
In the paper yesterday it talked about how a council in kent (I think it was ) had shut a old peoples care home down because they couldn't afford to refurbish it. Work has now started on it 2 years later to modernise it to house migrants, just sums this country up make homeless and shit all over people that were born and raised here paid into the system and contributed all their lives to welcome with open arms a bunch of ponces coming to bleed this country dry
This was meant to be about how much of a pain in the arse it is getting round Kent during operation stack.
My two cents though are easy to chuck in
I actually have no problem with immigration, I have a problem with the amount of immigrants that have landed themselves in medway that are a royal pain in the arse. And having lived in Chatham as long as I have I can say we already have enough pains in the arse living in chatham. Maybe we could swap? Ours for theirs?
I also have a problem with how little the french do to resolve this problem. This country would not allow a humanitarian crisis to foster itself in Folkestone or Dover like the selfish french have in calais.
Perhaps while Big Dave is sunning himself on the beach, he might want to consider diverting the £36 a week that failed asylum's can claim, to the small businesses of Kent, or the RHA for their members.
Red these are old arguments, find some solutions. You make yourself too easy to dig out. There's a problem, who's fault is subjective, any practical solutions?
Wasn't making an argument. I was trying to provide perspective.
Your problem is that the perspective is completely irrelevant (for example one could counter that the cost to support one migrant family is a fraction of the hundreds of millions of public money trade unions get from the the taxpayer but it would be equally irrelevant).
Your £850bn figure is also hilariously inaccurate and I doubt you even understand what it actually means. £850bn was the figure that was made available by the Government to provide short-term support to the banking system in terms of emergency liquidity - in fact only £76bn of that was used to purchase shares in failing banks, with any other money being used to pay for auditors, consultants, financial experts etc. to assess the situation, the total cost of which only ran into the tens of millions.
So no, the bank bailout did not cost the taxpayer £850bn. The RBS shares are being sold at a loss but the Government is hoping to make up the loss by selling the recovering Lloyds shares at a profit, so in the end the net cost to the taxpayer will likely only be millions, perhaps a billion or two if things go a bit Pete Tong. This is compared to perhaps over a trillion that could have been lost if the banking system had been allowed to fail.
How's that for perspective?
It's getting like Question Time on here when they allow the audience to have a comment on the question and Dimbleby seems to always be able to find the tinfoil hat loony who, not matter what the question is (fox hunting, prescription charges, lifeboats) will always pipe up "Yeah but it's the Tory Eton Bankers who are the real problem! Let's get rid of them before we sort out any other issues!".
The French contribute carts, when they strike send blockade the road they leave every poor sod in that jam as vulnerable to the situation more than any other time as the little the ob and security services actually do attempt to do, they can't because arseholes have decided to kick off light fires and have their own mini agenda until they want a baguette and a glass of red, then they go back to work,
I always thought until recently that these horrible cnuts that are doing it were legitimate refugees that had been fed up waiting for the process to complete, it was only on one of the long nights stuck there, that I struck up conversation with a Spaniard. Who told me other wise and actually could spot the gang masters and exactly what they would do and which vehicle would be next, he also said about the disposal of any Id and the fact that Italy are very good at the propaganda with the boats coming in and the reports they publicise about how many they rescue and how many actually get through, he stated it wouldn't be long until another eu state offer assistance at sea so they couldn't do this any more and low and behold several weeks later other countries battleships and frigates to patrol the seas,
The issue is very much the one with regards to the incentive at reaching our shores and I can not for one minute believe that such legislation should gave been either put forward at the point of election and in the manifesto or to the general population of this country to make a decision on, it's disgusting and unacceptable and if the tories did do this I certainly won't be voting for them again and if it was labour then my general opinion of them and their total contempt for any one British and especially English is proven beyond doubt
Tories tried to reduce payments by 30% in the Asylum Support (Amendment) regulations 2015, but the planned reduction was revoked following pressure from the Refugee Council.
Red these are old arguments, find some solutions. You make yourself too easy to dig out. There's a problem, who's fault is subjective, any practical solutions?
Wasn't making an argument. I was trying to provide perspective.
Your problem is that the perspective is completely irrelevant (for example one could counter that the cost to support one migrant family is a fraction of the hundreds of millions of public money trade unions get from the the taxpayer but it would be equally irrelevant).
Your £850bn figure is also hilariously inaccurate and I doubt you even understand what it actually means. £850bn was the figure that was made available by the Government to provide short-term support to the banking system in terms of emergency liquidity - in fact only £76bn of that was used to purchase shares in failing banks, with any other money being used to pay for auditors, consultants, financial experts etc. to assess the situation, the total cost of which only ran into the tens of millions.
So no, the bank bailout did not cost the taxpayer £850bn. The RBS shares are being sold at a loss but the Government is hoping to make up the loss by selling the recovering Lloyds shares at a profit, so in the end the net cost to the taxpayer will likely only be millions, perhaps a billion or two if things go a bit Pete Tong. This is compared to perhaps over a trillion that could have been lost if the banking system had been allowed to fail.
How's that for perspective?
It's getting like Question Time on here when they allow the audience to have a comment on the question and Dimbleby seems to always be able to find the tinfoil hat loony who, not matter what the question is (fox hunting, prescription charges, lifeboats) will always pipe up "Yeah but it's the Tory Eton Bankers who are the real problem! Let's get rid of them before we sort out any other issues!".
Another typically pompous and arrogant post from CL's self appointed 'expert' on all matters political. I could google 'cost to UK tax payer of bank bail out' and find links to many articles by eminent and respected economic observers which would suggest you are completely wrong. But, you could do the same and find articles that suggest I am wrong. We both choose to believe what we want so there is no point starting a pointless debate about it. However, I note even this morning Osbourne is defending the loss of £1 billion to the Uk tax payer on the latest sale of RBS assets.
But, this thread is about the issues caused by the mass migration from failed states surrounding Europe. It is a EU problem even though some in the EU would say 70%-80% of the migration is the direct result of the UK's (and it's ally the US) failed military policies in some of those countries. More specifically, this thread is about the immense problems being endured by people in Kent and by the owners and employees (and their families) of the businesses in Kent and the small haulage and logistic businesses that rely on efficient transport links across the channel. Given that they are not responsible for these problems (unlike the Bankers) I think it is entirely appropriate that all these businesses should be 'bailed out' by the UK tax payer immediately. Do you not agree with that single point?
So if we let all 5000 in via the tunnel, then it will only cost
£28080000 over the 3 years value for money right there, as they could easily pau that back in tax once we have educated them and assisted them
That is a tiny tiny fraction of the £850 billion the banking bail out has reportedly cost the UK tax payer.
FFS stop changing the subject to suit your political point of view.
Remind me which Government bailed out the Banks?
I work fucking hard to provide for my family, yet I still have to check on an almost daily basis to make sure I can afford to continue doing what little I do outside of paying my monthly bills.
And yes, I resent that so much of the £1400 I paid in income tax last month goes to assist 'asylum seekers' when I could help my kids and step kids so much more. They're my priority, not the hundreds of economic migrants camping in Calais.
Selfish? Maybe. But I know where my priorities lay.
Hope you feel better after that little rant!
That reply makes you sound like a right.....'pompous twat'
On reflection I think you might have a point. But I won't flag your post.
Do you think those scum are entitled to money paid for by you and I and every other tax payer in this country regardless of their eligibility to seek legal asylum in the UK,
Honest question, and none of the politician response, just a yes or no and the reasons for the answer
Do you think those scum are entitled to money paid for by you and I and every other tax payer in this country regardless of their eligibility to seek legal asylum in the UK,
Honest question, and none of the politician response, just a yes or no and the reasons for the answer
Impossible to give a simple answer to a question phrased and framed in that manner.
If the question is 'do I think it is right that the UK tax payer provides subsistence to asylum seekers whilst they are in this country?' My answer is an emphatic 'Yes'.
Do I think it is fair? Am I happy with that use of our tax funds? My answer is 'No' on both counts. But we are a modern developed secular country and once these people are on our shores we have a responsibility for them irrespective of their race, creed or origin.
This view has nothing to do with politics. It is a core belief. The fact that this has been a 'core belief' of all UK governments down the years, Labour or Tory, is something that makes me proud to be a citizen of this country.
Do you think those scum are entitled to money paid for by you and I and every other tax payer in this country regardless of their eligibility to seek legal asylum in the UK,
Honest question, and none of the politician response, just a yes or no and the reasons for the answer
Impossible to give a simple answer to a question phrased and framed in that manner.
If the question is 'do I think it is right that the UK tax payer provides subsistence to asylum seekers whilst they are in this country?' My answer is an emphatic 'Yes'.
Do I think it is fair? Am I happy with that use of our tax funds? My answer is 'No' on both counts. But we are a modern developed secular country and once these people are on our shores we have a responsibility for them irrespective of their race, creed or origin.
This view has nothing to do with politics. It is a core belief. The fact that this has been a 'core belief' of all UK governments down the years, Labour or Tory, is something that makes me proud to be a citizen of this country.
So in summary, yes because the UK is a secular country.
Do you think those scum are entitled to money paid for by you and I and every other tax payer in this country regardless of their eligibility to seek legal asylum in the UK,
Honest question, and none of the politician response, just a yes or no and the reasons for the answer
Impossible to give a simple answer to a question phrased and framed in that manner.
If the question is 'do I think it is right that the UK tax payer provides subsistence to asylum seekers whilst they are in this country?' My answer is an emphatic 'Yes'.
Do I think it is fair? Am I happy with that use of our tax funds? My answer is 'No' on both counts. But we are a modern developed secular country and once these people are on our shores we have a responsibility for them irrespective of their race, creed or origin.
This view has nothing to do with politics. It is a core belief. The fact that this has been a 'core belief' of all UK governments down the years, Labour or Tory, is something that makes me proud to be a citizen of this country.
So in summary, yes because the UK is a secular country.
Is France a secular country?
Are you trying to claim that France does not provide subsistence to its asylum seekers?
Do you think those scum are entitled to money paid for by you and I and every other tax payer in this country regardless of their eligibility to seek legal asylum in the UK,
Honest question, and none of the politician response, just a yes or no and the reasons for the answer
Impossible to give a simple answer to a question phrased and framed in that manner.
If the question is 'do I think it is right that the UK tax payer provides subsistence to asylum seekers whilst they are in this country?' My answer is an emphatic 'Yes'.
Do I think it is fair? Am I happy with that use of our tax funds? My answer is 'No' on both counts. But we are a modern developed secular country and once these people are on our shores we have a responsibility for them irrespective of their race, creed or origin.
This view has nothing to do with politics. It is a core belief. The fact that this has been a 'core belief' of all UK governments down the years, Labour or Tory, is something that makes me proud to be a citizen of this country.
So in summary, yes because the UK is a secular country.
Is France a secular country?
Are you trying to claim that France does not provide subsistence to its asylum seekers?
Obviously not or they all wouldn't wanna storm through the tunnel
France is a more secular country than the UK. They have a far clearer and greater separation of church and state than even we do.
Whilst handing cash to asylum seeker awaiting a decision sticks in the craw, the alternative is probably worse, and more expensive. If you don't give them cost of living expenses there are two options whilst they are here, either give them nothing, forcing them to commit crime to survive or place them in a prison-like environment where they're survival needs are met. Both of those would cost significantly more than the figures mentioned above either in policing or paying for such an institution (prisons costs around £45k per prisoner per year, and asylum-seeker holding centre would cost less potentially, but not a huge amount, and certainly not down to the sub £25k figures that would be needed to get even close the benefits costs).
Of course the other alternative is to turn away all asylum seekers at the border. Successive governments have been loath to do that, and then there is always the question of where do you send back people with no paperwork? Those seeking to come here illegally may have dumped theirs, but there are obviously a number of reasons why somebody legitimately fleeing a warzone may have no paperwork. As pointed out above, they really shouldn't be coming here in those circumstances, but many will. Whether that be because they know the language, have family here, see a possibility of a better future here, or whatever. Also, you've then got the added security/repatriation/administrative costs involved in turning away all asylum seekers at the border. One of the main reasons I imagine the Italians wave so many through (unofficially of course) is to avoid these very costs.
Long and short of it, benefits, whilst politically unsavoury, are most likely the cheapest option available.
Not what I asked though is it I Said regardless of their eligibility to seek legal asylum in the UK, I have no issue contributing to a fellow human being that needs assistance in being safe from persecution and violence in their own country once they have been correctly investigated and it's been verified they are a genuine asylum seekers/ refugee
So I will ask again do you think it is in anyway acceptable or correct that someone who is not a genuine asylum seeker and has not left their country under the required and accepted reasons to gain sanctuary and safety but have done so due to economic or other reasons that do not and are not accepted in any eu country as a valid reason to enter another country and as a consequence have broken the law and are an illegal immigrant with no legal rights to be in this or any other country and have only gained entry via illegal and deceitful means
I think that is clear enough and not framed in any way so that you can provide a yes or no answer and to then explain your reason why, it's a debate not a trick or trip hazard, and I also would love to know your view on how such a legislation could be passed and nor be in any political manifesto of the labour government provided to the people they represent
And at what point will we have to say 'no more' because at some point however wonderful our core values may be, we will. The consequences for the country up to and just prior to that point will be huge and will cause a significant proportion of our electorate to demand a change to the open door kind heartedness.
I'm moving from sarf London to Folkestone on Friday. If my removal vans get stuck in operation stack I'll happily vote for the machine gunning of every illegal migrant and striking transport worker in Calais. If the roads are clear it's peace and love to all men.
Not what I asked though is it I Said regardless of their eligibility to seek legal asylum in the UK, I have no issue contributing to a fellow human being that needs assistance in being safe from persecution and violence in their own country once they have been correctly investigated and it's been verified they are a genuine asylum seekers/ refugee
So I will ask again do you think it is in anyway acceptable or correct that someone who is not a genuine asylum seeker and has not left their country under the required and accepted reasons to gain sanctuary and safety but have done so due to economic or other reasons that do not and are not accepted in any eu country as a valid reason to enter another country and as a consequence have broken the law and are an illegal immigrant with no legal rights to be in this or any other country and have only gained entry via illegal and deceitful means
I think that is clear enough and not framed in any way so that you can provide a yes or no answer and to then explain your reason why, it's a debate not a trick or trip hazard, and I also would love to know your view on how such a legislation could be passed and nor be in any political manifesto of the labour government provided to the people they represent
I used the term 'asylum seekers'. Some will turn out to be genuine and some will not. Whilst their status is being established we have a responsibility to provide them with subsistence. I don't know what the the regulations are in the circumstances where the asylum seeker is deemed not to be genuine. Not sure why you think I have not answered your question. I can't be more clear. Yes, I think we should pay asylum seekers subsistence.
Comments
They're failure was even more marked in the South of England - where, I assume you live. Get over it. The South can't stand Socialists.
So you trying to counter every contentious point, every ill worded diatribe is pointless. Most people don't think like you. If they did, Cameron wouldn't be in position to screw things even more than they already are. offer them alternatives, workable solutions rather than argument. If the anger subsides we may get somewhere.
p.s. having a row gets you nowhere in the end, nobody ever changed their mind because they got a smack in the mouth.
In the paper yesterday it talked about how a council in kent (I think it was ) had shut a old peoples care home down because they couldn't afford to refurbish it. Work has now started on it 2 years later to modernise it to house migrants, just sums this country up make homeless and shit all over people that were born and raised here paid into the system and contributed all their lives to welcome with open arms a bunch of ponces coming to bleed this country dry
This was meant to be about how much of a pain in the arse it is getting round Kent during operation stack.
My two cents though are easy to chuck in
I actually have no problem with immigration, I have a problem with the amount of immigrants that have landed themselves in medway that are a royal pain in the arse. And having lived in Chatham as long as I have I can say we already have enough pains in the arse living in chatham. Maybe we could swap? Ours for theirs?
I also have a problem with how little the french do to resolve this problem. This country would not allow a humanitarian crisis to foster itself in Folkestone or Dover like the selfish french have in calais.
Your £850bn figure is also hilariously inaccurate and I doubt you even understand what it actually means. £850bn was the figure that was made available by the Government to provide short-term support to the banking system in terms of emergency liquidity - in fact only £76bn of that was used to purchase shares in failing banks, with any other money being used to pay for auditors, consultants, financial experts etc. to assess the situation, the total cost of which only ran into the tens of millions.
So no, the bank bailout did not cost the taxpayer £850bn. The RBS shares are being sold at a loss but the Government is hoping to make up the loss by selling the recovering Lloyds shares at a profit, so in the end the net cost to the taxpayer will likely only be millions, perhaps a billion or two if things go a bit Pete Tong. This is compared to perhaps over a trillion that could have been lost if the banking system had been allowed to fail.
How's that for perspective?
It's getting like Question Time on here when they allow the audience to have a comment on the question and Dimbleby seems to always be able to find the tinfoil hat loony who, not matter what the question is (fox hunting, prescription charges, lifeboats) will always pipe up "Yeah but it's the Tory Eton Bankers who are the real problem! Let's get rid of them before we sort out any other issues!".
I always thought until recently that these horrible cnuts that are doing it were legitimate refugees that had been fed up waiting for the process to complete, it was only on one of the long nights stuck there, that I struck up conversation with a Spaniard. Who told me other wise and actually could spot the gang masters and exactly what they would do and which vehicle would be next, he also said about the disposal of any Id and the fact that Italy are very good at the propaganda with the boats coming in and the reports they publicise about how many they rescue and how many actually get through, he stated it wouldn't be long until another eu state offer assistance at sea so they couldn't do this any more and low and behold several weeks later other countries battleships and frigates to patrol the seas,
The issue is very much the one with regards to the incentive at reaching our shores and I can not for one minute believe that such legislation should gave been either put forward at the point of election and in the manifesto or to the general population of this country to make a decision on, it's disgusting and unacceptable and if the tories did do this I certainly won't be voting for them again and if it was labour then my general opinion of them and their total contempt for any one British and especially English is proven beyond doubt
Introduced by "New Labour"
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1999/33/part/VI
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/libertycentral/2009/jan/13/immigration-asylum-act
Tories tried to reduce payments by 30% in the Asylum Support (Amendment) regulations 2015, but the planned reduction was revoked following pressure from the Refugee Council.
https://www.ein.org.uk/news/refugee-council-criticises-forthcoming-reduction-asylum-support-rates-children
But, this thread is about the issues caused by the mass migration from failed states surrounding Europe. It is a EU problem even though some in the EU would say 70%-80% of the migration is the direct result of the UK's (and it's ally the US) failed military policies in some of those countries. More specifically, this thread is about the immense problems being endured by people in Kent and by the owners and employees (and their families) of the businesses in Kent and the small haulage and logistic businesses that rely on efficient transport links across the channel. Given that they are not responsible for these problems (unlike the Bankers) I think it is entirely appropriate that all these businesses should be 'bailed out' by the UK tax payer immediately. Do you not agree with that single point?
Hope the motorway and surrounding roads are not a nightmare,
Otherwise, heading back......
Do you think those scum are entitled to money paid for by you and I and every other tax payer in this country regardless of their eligibility to seek legal asylum in the UK,
Honest question, and none of the politician response, just a yes or no and the reasons for the answer
If the question is 'do I think it is right that the UK tax payer provides subsistence to asylum seekers whilst they are in this country?' My answer is an emphatic 'Yes'.
Do I think it is fair? Am I happy with that use of our tax funds? My answer is 'No' on both counts. But we are a modern developed secular country and once these people are on our shores we have a responsibility for them irrespective of their race, creed or origin.
This view has nothing to do with politics. It is a core belief. The fact that this has been a 'core belief' of all UK governments down the years, Labour or Tory, is something that makes me proud to be a citizen of this country.
Is France a secular country?
Whilst handing cash to asylum seeker awaiting a decision sticks in the craw, the alternative is probably worse, and more expensive. If you don't give them cost of living expenses there are two options whilst they are here, either give them nothing, forcing them to commit crime to survive or place them in a prison-like environment where they're survival needs are met. Both of those would cost significantly more than the figures mentioned above either in policing or paying for such an institution (prisons costs around £45k per prisoner per year, and asylum-seeker holding centre would cost less potentially, but not a huge amount, and certainly not down to the sub £25k figures that would be needed to get even close the benefits costs).
Of course the other alternative is to turn away all asylum seekers at the border. Successive governments have been loath to do that, and then there is always the question of where do you send back people with no paperwork? Those seeking to come here illegally may have dumped theirs, but there are obviously a number of reasons why somebody legitimately fleeing a warzone may have no paperwork. As pointed out above, they really shouldn't be coming here in those circumstances, but many will. Whether that be because they know the language, have family here, see a possibility of a better future here, or whatever. Also, you've then got the added security/repatriation/administrative costs involved in turning away all asylum seekers at the border. One of the main reasons I imagine the Italians wave so many through (unofficially of course) is to avoid these very costs.
Long and short of it, benefits, whilst politically unsavoury, are most likely the cheapest option available.
So I will ask again do you think it is in anyway acceptable or correct that someone who is not a genuine asylum seeker and has not left their country under the required and accepted reasons to gain sanctuary and safety but have done so due to economic or other reasons that do not and are not accepted in any eu country as a valid reason to enter another country and as a consequence have broken the law and are an illegal immigrant with no legal rights to be in this or any other country and have only gained entry via illegal and deceitful means
I think that is clear enough and not framed in any way so that you can provide a yes or no answer and to then explain your reason why, it's a debate not a trick or trip hazard, and I also would love to know your view on how such a legislation could be passed and nor be in any political manifesto of the labour government provided to the people they represent
The consequences for the country up to and just prior to that point will be huge and will cause a significant proportion of our electorate to demand a change to the open door kind heartedness.