UK will finally off shore illegal asylum seekers crossing the channel

When we have established mutually acceptable terms of the debate, we can proceed in good faith.

Sonar, that wasn't your claim. Your claims were:

So, can I have your sources for the claims that:

1. A scheme that has so far cost Australia $9 billion has "saved untold millions of dollars"
2. Australia didn't process the claims of the deported asylum seekers
3. The scheme solves the problem of deporting unsuccessful applicants
4. The claims of the deported asylum seekers were "dodgy" (how can you possibly think you know this, if you also think the claims have not been processed?)
5. The people traffickers have been put out of business.

I've already pointed out that none of these claims are true. I think you now have the choice of (a) withdrawing the claims; (b) quoting your sources (in which event I will quote mine); or (c) maintaining your claims but refusing to back them up with sources (in which event I think we can all draw our own conclusions about the credibility of your claims).

None of your claims are sustained by the massive reduction in boat arrivals, except arguably your fifth claim - and then only if you make the very silly assumption that if people aren't being trafficked to Australia then they aren't being trafficked anywhere.

The migrants to the UK are invariably not "illegal". Most apparently get rid of identifying documentation in order to make an asylum claim.

Migrants are no more illegal than a driver parking on double yellow's is illegal. The term was conjured up to excite the hard of thinking.

The UK's problems are many, you are right there. One of the main one's being xenophobia which was used as a lever to allow racism to top the agenda for the

It seems for the most part we are in agreement then, except that to call someone "illegal" is quite simply disgusting. A person cannot be an "illegal", a criminal maybe, but what would an "illegal" person be?

Illegal is the term used for things like drugs or flick knives, frankly I find it offensive to have the term applied to members of my own species.

Xenophobia was used as a tool by UKIP and then the Tories to get Brexit through. Maybe you don't visit the UK too often, but I was born there and worked there up to the point where Brexit convinced me that a future in the EU was a better plan.

The Tories have been into the blame game for a long time. The lack of housing was "foreigners", the swathes of poorly paid jobs were "foreigners" undercutting Brits, even the NHS was crippled by all these young fit asylum seekers enjoying all kinds of treatment at the taxpayers expense.

The trouble is that the lesser able were easy to convince, but what disgusted me and took me onto the ferry for the last trip out from Holyhead was that the racism that was used to fuel Brexit has gone out of control. God knows what the poor dears are going to do when they start importing even darker foreigners than those from the EU.

Sent back where exactly?

To the country the flight they came in from originated from and that country can then organise final destination if different. Ideally the airlines should take a scan of all passengers passports, they can then deport anyone committing fraud back to these countries.

It doesn’t work like that unfortunately, they land and immediately claim asylum, they are then in a process that is slow and allows multiple appeals. It’s not the same as me turning up and getting refused entry with a visa because they believe that I’m going to work there illegally, in that case I’m on the next flight out.

How about people who don’t destroy their IDs, and grown men who pretend to be children. No doubt they all count as genuine applicants. The process needs to be tightened up, people in the uk are fed up of this.

When the UK launches a scheme that applies to people who destroy their ID and grown men claiming to be children, we can consider its merits. Here in the real world, that is not the scheme you are expressing support for.

Sonar's claim wasn't that the Australian policy had eliminated trafficking to Australia; it was that it had eliminated trafficking, full stop.

And, if your objection to trafficking is the human misery it causes, a policy which simply diverts trafficking away does nothing to reduce human misery. So, if someone is going to welcome this policy, it needs to be for reasons other than a desire to reduce death and suffering. They should have some respect for yourselves and be honest about what those reasons are.

Again what does any of that have to do with you dodging questions? Seeing as you are "happy to engage"and all.

It's patently clear what he meant, you're just deliberately and transparently misinterpreting his language.

Australia can only control their own border, not the borders of other countries.

The only policy that can be implemented at a national level that doesn't divert trafficking is, effectively, an open border.

By objecting to the Australian policy, that's what you are supporting, de facto.

You ask for honesty from others, but aren't don't provide it yourself.