> almost never

Just to ground this discussion in some actual data, here are the figures from a 2019 news article[0]:

"It shows how, of the 80,813 applications that were refused or withdrawn between 2010 and 2016, only 29,659 individuals were removed, leaving 51,154 failed asylum seekers in the country from that seven-year period."

So it would be better to say that "only 37% of failed asylum seekers are deported". Also, I don't think that 51,154 people in seven years entering a country of 69 million really represents "unlimited migration".

[0] https://news.sky.com/story/fewer-than-half-of-failed-asylum-...

What does it mean for an application to be "withdrawn"? If an asylum seeker gets a marriage/family/work visa and stops a now-unnecessary asylum process, is that a withdrawn application?

I suspect that "withdrawn" normally means the UK government has paid them to cancel their asylum request and leave the country (after which, admittedly, they might try again) but I don't have the figures to know how common that is.

And you're arguing for zero, which is frankly ridiculous.

No one is arguing for zero immigration. That's a fiction you've invented. I'm arguing for controlled legal immigration: i.e, the UK gets to decide who comes to live here. I was entirely supportive of the recent scheme for Ukrainians and the earlier BNO visa scheme for Hong Kong residents.

There's a responsibility under refugee conventions to take on people needing asylum. The conflation of them with illegal immigration is quite ridiculous. The UK is a rich country (~6th highest in the world), we should shoulder some of the (small) burden that we're asked to - many other, poorer, countries take on much higher refugee burdens.

On what basis have you earned the right to reside in the U.K.?

Don’t say “I was born here” - you didn’t earn that. How would you fare on the points based visa scheme? Would you support an initiative to strip undesirable people (i.e. all those who have inadequate points) of their citizenship, so “better” people with more points can replace them?

Yes — a society should preference it’s own children over outsiders.

That’s essential to its continued existence. You’re simply arguing that you have a right to loot UK families, destroying their society in the process, to give their money to people you feel are “more deserving”.

I think that’s borderline genocidal.

Funnily enough, that describes UK’s policy towards others for the past few hundred years.

As in not feasible or ridiculous as a matter of principle? Would it be ridiculous for any other country or is the UK specially situated?