So for balance (and these are made up numbers so don't quote facts to me), let's say net migration is 1m per year but 100,000 are illegal immigrants if those were stopped, which I think is pretty much the message Rishi was retrying to say, but net immigration remained the same, would people be happier and more accepting? I think they would. It's the illegal word that stokes the fires. In addition a ridiculously high percentage of those are young single males, not families, not women. Is that the crux of the problem? If it is then what answers do we have to tackle that if we all agree that normal migration is good for the country?
Here's where I struggle with this 'balance' (and I hadn't even seen you'd used the word until I'd bashed this out, so not particularly targeted at you specifically). I think nobody, but nobody would be averse to people who are in the country illegally being removed. Actually, I can think of one person I knew who would, but they're very much on the margins of the debate.
So, lets take this middle ground as nobody wants people who are in this country illegally, to remain in the country illegally.
The problem is, who it takes out in collatoral damage, the same as suggesting people are benefit cheats, the rich elite are all tax dodgers etc... how about those who *need* benefits? You cannot demonise them or stop their support because some try to circumvent the system as, in any walk of life, there will be people who try to do that. I reckon through my work / research over time I've met more asylum seekers than many, and their stories of their experiences can make you physically sick. What they are, almost to a (wo)man, is grateful to this country for its sanctuary, grateful for its acceptance of them, and patriotic in that they are delighted for the chance to make a life for themselves away from those horrors. That is also why they come and seek asylum here, not because we're a soft touch but because we're seen as fair-minded and having a sense of justice... although I couldn't say how it is now as my contact is substantially less - the limited I do have suggests since Brexit people feel more under threat.
In terms of being asked to have a reasonable debate, I get laughed at and mocked when I point out the stats, I get laughed at and mocked when I point out it just isn't possible to be an illegal asylum seeker - that sense of fairness surely allows everyone to have their case judged doesn't it? And people do mix the numbers substantially together. Economic migrants tend to actually contribute more than they take out so, actually, remove them and we have less to spend in a country. Asylum seekers to my mind have the absolute right to claim safety and sanctuary from torture and torment.
So that leaves people who melt away into the shadows, either straight away (in which case they won't be on the numbers anyway) or after their claim has been refused... or if they overstay their visa.
I don't think anybody has an issue with those people being found and deported.
So the focus needs to shift in *how* you process people to begin with, how quickly you process people, and what you do with them once a decision is reached! As with so many things that tends to come down to resources and manpower - and if instead of slogans coined to stir up a sentiment of hatred and anger, and money pointlessly funnelled off to an impractical and immoral policy in Rwanda, then it would have been far better spent on the resources needed to speed up claims (which would also help indeed areas like Allesley. Grendel is quite right, the hotel there has caused no end of problems but isn't it better to process those who have a valid claim and let them make their way in the world... along with processing those we want rid of ASAP so they don't get the chance to wreak havoc?), and find those who are here without recourse to be. *That* is the middle ground, remove those who should not be here... but don't take down innocent people with it. That applies across society and is why generalisations are dangerous - people mix and match different areas to form a case for preconceptions.
Now Brighton Sky Blue had it spot on when he said we need to train people for jobs economic migrants currently do. That takes time however, so won't fix instantly. It also means expense, so we have to accept we will be worse off for a while to be better off overall.
