Vocal Voices

We have been told by reliable sources that illegal immigration is costing the taxpayer five milllion pounds per day in hotel accommodation to house migrants, including economic migrants who are entering this country by illegal means, in particular crossing the channel in small boats. Either the government has huge amounts of money in reserve to meet these costs, or five million pounds a day is completely unsustainable and to the detriment of people already living in this country. Two suggestions have been put forward so far - Rwanda and an ex army barracks just outside a small village in Yorkshire. Regarding the first option it is suggested this is against the human rights of the immigrants and human rights lawyers are already circling to scupper any plans. These lawyers are the milk of human kindness I am sure, but no doubt they will make a lot of money out of representing the migrants (taxpayers money of course). The second suggestion is very alarming for the small village in Yorkshire awaiting the arrival of at least 1500 young able bodied men to a village with only 600 people and one shop. This places immense strain on the locals with concerns about bored young men wandering through the village with nothing much to do. Also of note, has any account been taken of the additional strain on local resources such as police, doctors, dentists etc.

I am shocked that people who have never contributed in any way to this country can land on its shores and the taxpayer has no option but to foot the extremely large bill. Of course the migrants want a better life and they think the UK can provide that for them - but most of us during some point in our lives either want something we cannot have or something that we are not entitled to. Have we the right then to go and take it? I don't think so.

In this present climate it is outrageous for taxpayers to meet the bill for over 5 million pounds a day when the majority of people, sometimes two to a household, cannot afford to heat their homes and rely on food banks and family members for a top up. Reading about the cost of fuel this morning, perhaps costing £100 to fill the tank of an average family car, you would wonder how many low paid workers can still continue to travel to work and will find it eventually more economical to leave work and go on benefits. And notwithstanding all of this, every migrant who comes into the country will have to be housed. How will that be feasible with many homeless people on the streets already, some ex-servicemen, or young people who have been excluded from their family home for one reason or another.

We should do our share but we need to have some control over the number of migrants we can take and the amount we are realistically able to afford.

There is a third option. We change the law so that.

1. Landing on our shores, from sea or air or land (yes you can get through the tunnel if you try hard enough), without authorisation, becomes a new class of criminal act
2. Make the minimum punishment for this criminal act 5 years imprisonment, with option to increase it if the circumstances warrant it. This is a minimum term without remission. Even if they are granted asylum. This gives the judges no room to mitigate and "let them off", the statutory punishment will be 5 years unless the judge is feeling particularly grumpy.
3. Offer, as an alternative, transportation to Rwanda, fully paid, whilst they apply for asylum in the UK or in any other country they prefer.
4. Offer, as a second alternative, deportation to their home country
5. During their 5 years in prison, they can apply for asylum. If they succeed they can stay. If they fail, they get deported.

Then we wouldn't be sending them to Rwanda. We'd be letting them choose to go, or we would be sending them home. Their choice.

Everyone seems to think that there is some international obligation to allow anyone who makes it across our border to stay. This is not so. Also it is not so that we can't change our laws to make illegally entering our border a prison offence. This is categorically not true. We can.

We just don't want to. Which means we clearly want to pay the cost. Or do we???

This kind of thing is all nice and legal. It can be ramped up and applied going forward. Nobody can say we didn't meet international law, because nobody is ever required to come to the UK to escape war, tyranny or extreme prejudice to their beliefs or sexual orientation. Poverty I'm not interested in. Nobody has the right to just come to the UK because they are poor.

Whilst it might sound like we'd have to build hundreds of new jails to accommodate them, this is not true. Once they realise they're going to get put away for 5 years and then may still be deported; the flood will slow to a trickle. Nobody has to be forcibly sent to Rwanda.

Job done.

Suff wrote:
Also it is not so that we can't change our laws to make illegally entering our border a prison offence. This is categorically not true. We can.

We just don't want to. Which means we clearly want to pay the cost. Or do we???

The ordinary people do not want mass immigration, illegal or otherwise. But there is no political will to oppose it and a considerable number of lawyers and civil servants who are all for it.

The average prison population of the UK is 82,890 and each one costs £43,213 per year to keep.

There are 40,000 immigrants in hotels, about half the size of the prison population, so about 55 new prisons needed to lock them all up. At £43,213 each that is nearly £1.8 billion a year - not including the cost of building the prisons. And the number keeps rising.

We need other ideas.

Also it is not just lawyers and civil servants who are for immigration, don't forget businesses, politicians, religions and charities.

Following international laws to the letter might help, but only a bit.

Workingman wrote:We need other ideas.

The idea was that 40,000 people don't want to be in prison. So they stop coming or opt for one of the two other options.

That being said, these prisons don't have to be full scale UK secure environments. Ex military barracks with upgraded perimeter security would do. Jus so the status of the inmates is changed form "immigrants" to prisoners.

It is the change that matters. Plenty of other countries willing to take them if they don't want to be locked up for years. Especially if they are not selected and get deported anyway.