Member Info for Gray1

Yeah right. Nice try.

You even argued your own point about pensioners and admitted you submitted a lazy and misleading statement:)

Regarding the children analogy.

Yes we have you were wrong then and are wrong now:)

"The case is for strategic replenishment of the labour force—especially in sectors facing chronic shortages: healthcare, construction, education, logistics".

How is illegal migrants arriving in dinghy's selective? Unless of course we can cherry pick all the doctors and nurses out amongst them.

Is this the best you can come up with your not very good at critical thinking although your are very good at copy and paste I'll give you that.

There is no point discussing anything with you lsi you don't live in the real world.

Because they aren't asylum seekers but you keep pushing idiotic viewpoint

Why didn't they claim it in France?

Let’s raise the standard of this discussion. The idea that pensioners are a net drain without factoring in their tax contributions, inheritance tax, indirect consumption taxes, and unpaid labour—childcare, caregiving, volunteering—is intellectually lazy. Many pensioners still pay income tax, contribute to community cohesion, and offset public sector costs through informal support. To assess the true fiscal impact, you need to subtract those contributions from the gross pension spend. The £135bn figure often quoted is misleading without that context.

Your words.

"The UK pension system costs £135bn annually and is funded by current workers—not some savings pot from the past and its growing exponentially."

Now you are saying that you are being lazy and misleading.:)

Which is it?

So as far as you are concerned we need more migrants asi. Why not throw our doors wide open then and invite all of Palestine. the Sudan better still the whole of Africa and the middle east because according to you there isn't enough migration here. We would be the richest most multiculturally diverse country on the planet because you can never have enough migration. Can't wait what could possibly go wrong. Our pensioners would be the richest in the world. We would be falling over all the doctors, nurses, builders, teachers, plumbers, electricians. Come one come all.

That is the problem with idealistic fantasists like you lsi you have no idea just sound bites, no solutions just libertarianism mumbo jumbo. You really don't think these migrants know and are encouraged to play the system of course not they are all fleeing from war. Although many of them have been sat in France for months.

They committed it before claiming asylum nice get out of jail free card the refugee convention.

How do you know they are refugees and not economic migrants until they are processed?

How do you know they are fleeing a war until they are processed?

The primary legal framework in the UK governing entry is the Immigration Act 1971. Section 3(1) of this Act states that a person who is not a British citizen "shall not enter the United Kingdom unless given leave to do so in accordance with the provisions of, or made under, this Act."[6] Those crossing the Channel in small boats are generally assumed not to have obtained entry clearance, such as a visa or entry certificate, and are often seeking to land on undesignated beaches rather than at official ports. This makes them likely to be classified as "illegal entrants" as defined in Section 33(1) of the Act.[6]

A criminal offense under Section 24 of the Immigration Act 1971 is committed if a person "knowingly enters the UK… without leave."[6] The prosecution must prove that the individual knew they required leave to enter. This offense is only committed if the migrant actually enters the UK, meaning those intercepted by authorities before reaching land may not be subject to this specific charge.[6] Other related offenses can include traveling with false identity documents or gaining entry by deception.[6]

"If you truly support economically active migrants, then why dismiss asylum seekers arriving by boat—who, once processed, are no different from the children we invest in today to become the economically active contributors of tomorrow."

One day you will wake up and enter the real world.

You miss the point again once they step out onto our shore and claim asylum they are classed as asylum seekers they aren't they are illegal and have committed a criminal offence now back in your box

Who said anything about not letting economically active migrants contribute? No-one has said that. You are just making things up now.

It is the point you just can't or won't see it. You are just trolling now and spouting rubbish

I can get all that from ai asi you know exactly what I meant.

I am but have to reply to nonsense. We choose to have children we don't choose illegal migrants understand now why your statement is illogical

Sorry that is not my impression of you.