Because you can. You're welcome to prove Article 25, UNCLOS doesn't give the coastal state the right to take the necessary steps to prevent vessels up to no good from entering its waters.
one year's cost housing illegals. Drip in the channel.
Tell us why it was not been done by the Tories?
good luck finding out who I am, how old I am and where I am from, when I claim to be a 17 year old homosexual from Iran, have no paperwork and look mid 30s with a full grown beard.Process 'em then
Harry just because you are sayings thing you want to believe, doesn't make them true
From your link:
In an impact assessment of the policy, the Home Office itself acknowledged the academic consensus that there is “little to no evidence” that restrictive policies discourage people from migrating.
Just 12% relied on the internet for information on how to migrate, with most relying instead on family, friends and smugglers. And researchers are sceptical that government campaigns are effective in reducing this information gap.
Estimates have emerged on the incredibly high costs of the Rwanda scheme to taxpayers, with the Home Office revealing that removing each asylum seeker to Rwanda will cost £63,000 more than keeping them in the UK.
The nature and timing of the Rwanda plan demonstrate that, ultimately, its core objective is political: improving the Conservative party’s standing in the upcoming local and national elections.
The right wing gammons want to pretend it isn't a problem and we should just stick our head in the sand and let other countries deal with it. In realty they support no migration and the unfortunate must stay in their country of birth, no matter how ill treated they are.
Incomparable. The UK is geographically unique.
No one (including biking from the boatyard) seriously gave the Rwanda idiocy any credence.
In an impact assessment of the policy, the Home Office itself acknowledged the academic consensus that there is “little to no evidence” that restrictive policies discourage people from migrating.
Just 12% relied on the internet for information on how to migrate, with most relying instead on family, friends and smugglers. And researchers are sceptical that government campaigns are effective in reducing this information gap.
Estimates have emerged on the incredibly high costs of the Rwanda scheme to taxpayers, with the Home Office revealing that removing each asylum seeker to Rwanda will cost £63,000 more than keeping them in the UK.
The nature and timing of the Rwanda plan demonstrate that, ultimately, its core objective is political: improving the Conservative party’s standing in the upcoming local and national elections.
