Posted on August 30, 2011

Asylum Seekers Cost £2m a Day

Graeme Wilson, The Sun, August 24, 2011

Britain’s chaotic asylum system has cost taxpayers £2.3million a day in the last decade.

Around 77 per cent who claimed asylum between 1997 and 2010 are still here.

Hundreds of thousands have been allowed to stay even though their claims have been rejected, a damning new report shows.

Costs including housing, cash support and legal fees added up to £10billion–or £2.3million a day, Migration Watch found. Decisions have been reached on a total of 660,000 asylum cases between 1997-2010. Of these, 26 per cent were granted asylum and 14 per cent got some other form of protection or leave to remain. It means 60 per cent of cases–around 417,000–should have been sent home. But only a third of them–around 119,000–went.

Homing in on one five-year period between 2004 and 2009, a similar picture emerged.

Sixty-two per cent of asylum applications were rejected, but just over a third of these were booted out. And officials are still clearing a backlog of 400,000 cases found in a warehouse in 2006.

Migration Watch chairman Sir Andrew Green said: “The asylum system has proved to be a £10billion shambles.”

Immigration Minister Damian Green said: “The asylum system we inherited was hopelessly chaotic. Last year we reduced the total bill for asylum support by over £100million and it is falling further.

“We have nearly doubled the proportion of asylum seekers removed within one year of their application and 60 per cent of applicants now receive a decision in a month.”

9 responses to “Asylum Seekers Cost £2m a Day”

  1. Anonymous says:

    And what is it costing US tax[payers to do the same under the indulgent policies of Clinton, the Bushes and Obama? In 1996, I defended a case brought against the State of New York by an illegal alien – a Mexican – who was incarcerated in Attica having been convicted of 1st degree Assault (a very serious, violent felony). He sued the state corrections department for various violations of his civil rights, was given all the accoutrements of a free defense, including a well-respected, talented, experienced lawyer, who had to defend him for free, courtesy of the federal judge trying the the case. (I was at least on salary.) For awhile, I thought he was going to be deported, and that the trial would not occur. Yet he wasn’t, and the trial went on. Also, he found some dumb American woman to marry him, assumedly to delay or prevent deportation. We won the trial (case dismissed), but so what? He cost the system money, was still in the country, and I’ll bet he still is.

  2. ice says:

    “Asylum Seekers Cost £2m a Day.”

    Yes, and the multicults will insist on paying for them while the rest of the population starves, during the coming depression, just to maintain diversity.

  3. neanderthalDNA says:

    They can be deported. For the sake of white Britain, here’s hoping for more “youth” riots really soon. The real British are waking up and they’re aghast. Would you like to see Britannia rule again, my friend?

    Yes, say more and more real Britons…

  4. Anonymous says:

    Do-good political asylum has turned out to be yet another trillion dollar boondoggle fostering waves of semi-permanent economic migrant leeches endlessly bilking the system.

  5. rockman says:

    why the lack of effort to deport the rejects? Lack of backbone. India was conquered by the Brits but in the middle of the 19th century the native population of India noticed the sahibs had changed. A different caste of Sahib seemed to have taken over that lacked resolve and would not fight. So the Great Indian mutiny came about. The Bengal Army mutinied and started killing the Brits. It would seem that a different caste of Sahib has taken over both Britain and the US.

  6. Charles Martel says:

    Where, pray tell, are these asylum seekers coming from? Nigeria? Somalia? Sri Lanka? Where, precisely?

    I’ll guarantee one thing: they aren’t fleeing France, or Holland, Belgium, Spain, Iceland, Denmark, or Norway.

    Look at a map of the world. Find the United Kingdom. Is it even anywhere NEAR any of the countries these “refugees” are fleeing? Not even close. The typical “refugee” bypasses a dozen or more countries that are ethnically, religiously, linguistically, and culturally closer to their own than to the country they’re fleeing, the one they’re supposedly oppressed in.

    It’s time for this crap to end. The United Kindom is going broke. It’s borrowing about $200 billion a year just to pay it’s bills. It doesn’t need to spend ~US$1 billion on supposed asylum seekers from elsewhere while its own population is put in debt up to their ears.

  7. Barry says:

    I am a Briton and supporter/member of the BNP and too right we don’t need this crap. Unfortunately, too many of my fellow countrymen are still fast asleep and moan about this rubbish yet still vote for the globalist anti-British maniacs of the Lib/Lab/CON party.

    P.S This is an excellent website( one of the best and most level-headed American ones) but not level-headed enough for the local public library authority where I live (Essex near to London) who have banned it! That is the PC insanity I live under in the former Great Britain. I will be contacting my Essex County Council soon to have their ridiculous PC censorship of this fine site overturned.

  8. Charles Martel says:

    The point I was leading up to in post #6, but forgot to make, is that asylum seekers/refugees who are genuinely in fear for their lives will gladly live in a safe country near their own, irrespective of its welfare benefits or relative wealth. If they’re from, say, Somalia, then Kenya should be perfectly adequate. If they’re from Sri Lanka then India should be just fine. Most Sri Lankan refugees are ethnic Tamils, and there is an Indian state that is majority Tamil (over 60 million of them) less than 100 miles from Sri Lankan shores.

    When Western countries accept asylum seekers from distant countries, they are issuing an open invitation to fraud. Every aylum seeker in Great Britain is essentially a fraud, because there are a dozen or more closer countries they could easily live in.

  9. Barry says:

    You are totally correct, Charles Martel. Great Britain is a tiny island off the North-West coast of Europe so there are very few genuine ‘refugees’ in Britain. Britain should only allow asylum appplications from the one country we share a land border with ie the Republic of Ireland. In reality, 99% of so-called ‘asylum seekers’ in Britain are fraudulent economic migrants.