Forum Topic

Huge expenditure on asylum shock

The cost of asylum is unacceptable, says nominal prime minister Sunak. Currently, the backlog is around 170,000, and the average case takes between one and three years to reach even an initial decision. But remind me, who actually runs this system, it surely isn't - it can't be, can it? - the country's actual government!

Richard Carter ● 950d14 Comments

"But if the migrants know that upon arrival they will immediately be sent to a (safe) third country thousands of miles away, they will have little motive to attempt the crossing."Be sent immediately? Really?"But those who condemn the plan need to  come up with a better one."No, they do not need to.

David Ainsworth ● 947d

"Options to return home or integrate in Rwanda are also available, although no refugees have yet engaged with these solutions."Yes oddly enough it is difficult to return people to Afghanistan, Libya, Syria etc. I wonder why?"Since 2011 it has directed close to €10 billion to assist refugees and host communities in Türkiye...an additional allocation of €3 billion for the period of 2021-23."I believe the UK's contributed to this deal as part of it's Brexit obligations. A more recent post-Brexit amount of £3M doesn't look like it will be enough.Who would have thought that such destruction would cost so many lives and result in ongoing economic costs for decades?But yes - let's get them back in power because they are so much better!https://neighbourhood-enlargement.ec.europa.eu/enlargement-policy/turkiye/eu-support-refugees-turkiye_en

Ed Robinson ● 947d

Fair enough, I was not paying enough attention to that bit. I think that I saw taking refugees from Libya, as a pre-emptive act before they even headed for their preferred destinations, and so I discounted it. It does appear to be quite successful.This part looked more like what the UK wants:-"Options to return home or integrate in Rwanda are also available, although no refugees have yet engaged with these solutions."

David Ainsworth ● 947d

The aim of sending illegal migrants to a third country such as Rwanda is not to make a dent in the number of asylum seekers currently in the UK but to deter migrants from making the crossing in the first place. At the moment traffickers can plausibly  tell migrants that once they across the Channel, there is very little chance of being sent back even if their claim for asylum is rejected. But if the migrants know that upon arrival they will immediately be sent to a (safe) third country thousands of miles away, they will have little motive to attempt the crossing. It remains to be seen whether this plan will work. But those who condemn the plan need to  come up with a better one.

Steven Rose ● 947d

From your link David seems:"The EU does provide funding for a scheme that takes vulnerable asylum seekers from Libya to Rwanda, but this does not operate inside the EU itself."From UNHCR:"Between September 2019 and March 2023, 1,600 refugees and asylum seekers were evacuated from  Libya to the ETM in Rwanda through 13 evacuation flights....As of March 2023, 932 refugees from the ETM centre have been resettled to Canada, Sweden, Norway, Finland, France, Belgium, the Netherlands and USA."https://www.unhcr.org/rw/who-we-help/evacuees-from-libya-emergency-transit-mechanism-centre

Ed Robinson ● 947d

"So such hotels must exist."I'm sure that they do. However, so far such schemes seem to have failed to work quite as planned, including the Israeli one. https://fullfact.org/news/sir-jake-berry-asylum-seekers-rwanda/

David Ainsworth ● 948d

According to Hospitality Net, there are 10,776 accommodation rooms in Rwanda and an unspecified number in Niger, but I rather doubt the total, if we knew it, would put much of a dent in the current number of 175,000 people waiting for the Home Office to get round to deciding on their fate.

Richard Carter ● 948d

Mr Ainsworth'There is apparently no such thing as a one-way ticket to Rwanda'.But surely these people could be housed in some hotel as happens in the UK.I went to watch FFC vs Arsenal at the Emirates and the whole  organisation seems to be funded by the Rwanda Tourist board saying 'Visit Rwanda' !So such hotels must exist.

John Hawkes ● 948d

There is apparently no such thing as a one-way ticket to Rwanda.https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-61882542https://www.context.news/socioeconomic-inclusion/besides-britain-which-nations-send-asylum-seekers-overseasAnd Niger may have been destabilised by a migrant deal, which hit too many people in their pockets.https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/aug/23/niger-observers-link-coup-to-president-mohamed-bazoum-support-of-eu-migration-policies-people-smuggling

David Ainsworth ● 949d

Mr Ainsworth'£4 billion p.a.? You could send about 24,000 migrants on a round trip to Rwanda each year for that'.Or 48,000 with a one way ticket !

John Hawkes ● 949d

Accordingly to some figures the Iraq and Afghanistan war cost the UK around £30 billion.Did the government at the time factored in the cost of additional refugees arriving at the UK and the associated costs? Did they put any money aside?Either way many of the MP that voted for such policies have some explaining to do.I'm sure such questions have been put to many of the MPs who are still sitting on the benches.No realistic plan exists for tackling this crisis. No matter how quick the process the numbers will increase as more people are forced to flee.It is a bit odd that no such concern seems to exist for someone born in the UK without relevant documentation, because of the rather odd belief that it would drive waves of pregnant women to the UK.There is simply no logic to the political discussion. Just the parroting of party soundbites.

Ed Robinson ● 950d

£4 billion p.a.? You could send about 24,000 migrants on a round trip to Rwanda each year for that.

David Ainsworth ● 950d

The backlog is a feature not a bug of the asylum system. If the government were to process them on a timely basis, the net immigration number would be even higher than the current record high. Most people coming into the country don't arrive as asylum system but are given working visas by this very government to tackle labour shortages. Basically it is chosing to cause people suffering for the management of headlines.

Peter Higgins ● 950d

Just a quick note before this thread is hijacked by the usual anti-immigrant crowd (start your own thread if you want to opine on that), to say that it's not about the merits or otherwise of asylum claims, but about the government's incompetent handling of the issue. Thank you.

Richard Carter ● 950d