ASYLUM - A moral policy and an efficient policy
SUMMARY
CURRENT POLICY
The current policy of the British government on asylum has been to set up an elaborate administrative and legal machine to examine the claims of asylum seekers, rejecting those who have no reason to be here (but not removing them effectively) and, during this process, supporting them with welfare and legal payment. This policy broadly has the support of the churches, the political parties, NGO’s and the majority of the media.
The government is applying the 1951 UN General Convention on Refugees in vastly different circumstances than existed when the Convention was signed.
Many of those who initiated and support the policy are well motivated but the outcome of their ‘moral’ policy is grossly unfair and inefficient.
The remainder of the world’s refugees, who do not manage to claim asylum in the UK, are virtually ignored.
It is necessary to examine whether this policy is either moral or efficient, when the funds used for the asylum process could, in fact, support all the world’s refugees if applied in a different manner.
THE FACTS ABOUT REFUGEES
The UK spent (2003/4) via DFID (Department for International Development) £3,965 million a year on overseas aid, of which £1,972 million was bilateral and £1,805 million was given to other parties, nearly all to the European Union and the World Bank. A further £187 million was spent on administration.
Out of this enormous sum, a mere US$ 46,863,250 (roughly £25 million) was given to the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (2003).
The total number of refugees in the world, according to the UN in 2004, was 9.7 million plus 985,000 identified as asylum seekers (roundly 10 million), so it can be established that the British government spends just £25 million on the UNHCR which is £2.50 per refugee.
THE FACTS ABOUT ASYLUM SEEKERS
In 2003 the British government spent about £2 billion per annum on the asylum system (£1.8 billion cost plus £176 million on legal aid). Since then the figure has risen a lot further.
Of course, not all the cost of supporting asylum seekers in the UK is included in this and there are indirect costs, such as a poorer health and education system, for British residents as well as the strain on national identity. Nor does much of the spending actually reach asylum seekers since it goes to landlords, tribunals, lawyers, bureaucracy and other parties.
In 2003, 50,000 people claimed asylum in the UK and it is thought that about 33% should be added to these figures to cover dependants, so we are looking at around 67,000 people.
The rate of success for asylum claimants between 1997 and 2002 was about 21%. A further 16% were granted ‘exceptional leave to remain’ or allowed to remain on other grounds.
So, if we divide the £2 billion annual expenditure by the number of successful asylum seekers, which are 21% of 67,000, or around 14,000, it costs the British taxpayer £2 billion divided by 14,000 per successful asylum seeker. That equates to £143,000 per refugee who is successful. If we include rejected asylum seekers, who are nearly another 53,000, the amount spent drops to £30,000 per head.
So, the government’s policy which has been supported by all parties, and the political class, including the Refugee Council, the Churches Commission for Racial Justice, and, amazingly, the UN High Commissioners’ Refugees’ office itself, is that, once a refugee reaches British shores, it is right and proper that – on average - £143,000 of British taxpayers’ money should be spent on him, while it is also right and proper that, simultaneously, the British government, or taxpayer, should spent £2.50 (or fifty thousand times less) on each of the ten million (less 14,000) refugees in the rest of the world.
IS THIS MORAL OR EFFICIENT?
None of this is necessary. Consider if all asylum seeking in the UK was stopped and the £2 billion-a-year asylum spend by the Home Office was given to the UN High Commissioner for Refugees. Let us spread this among the ten million refugees and we get £200 each. The GDP for Pakistan was 429 US Dollars in 2002 which is about £240. So, in effect, the British taxpayer could equip every refugee in the world with the average (not minimum) median income of a Pakistani – a more than adequate income if you are in a Third World country. This is the possible resources of the British government only and ignores all present contributions by other governments. If they also abolished their asylum systems and put the money direct to refugees the world’s refugees would be extremely well looked after.
What stands in the way of replacing an immoral, corrupt and inefficient policy, which spends £143,000 on a refugee in Britain and £2.50 on a refugee not in Britain?
While the current misguided policy has evolved from historical circumstances, and from those who are generally idealistic, there are, of course, huge beneficiaries of the asylum system. These include:
The most obnoxious supporter of the current damaging and wasteful system is the UN High Commissioner for Refugees itself which has constantly denounced any attempt to think laterally and morally.
Nor have the churches, who have often got excellent access to co-religionists working hard in the area where refugees originate, challenged the current orthodoxy.
A moral policy would be, therefore, to withdraw from the UN Convention, refuse all asylum seekers and close down the asylum system. This would release sufficient funds in Britain alone to properly support the 10 million refugees in the world.
FUTURUS, 14 September 2006
- The British government spends £143,000 per annum on every new asylum seeker every year in Britain.
- It spends £2.50 on every refugee elsewhere in the world.
- If the money was redistributed, all refugees in the world could enjoy an adequate standard of living.
- The current policy is immoral and inefficient but is beneficial to those in the asylum system.
CURRENT POLICY
The current policy of the British government on asylum has been to set up an elaborate administrative and legal machine to examine the claims of asylum seekers, rejecting those who have no reason to be here (but not removing them effectively) and, during this process, supporting them with welfare and legal payment. This policy broadly has the support of the churches, the political parties, NGO’s and the majority of the media.
The government is applying the 1951 UN General Convention on Refugees in vastly different circumstances than existed when the Convention was signed.
Many of those who initiated and support the policy are well motivated but the outcome of their ‘moral’ policy is grossly unfair and inefficient.
The remainder of the world’s refugees, who do not manage to claim asylum in the UK, are virtually ignored.
It is necessary to examine whether this policy is either moral or efficient, when the funds used for the asylum process could, in fact, support all the world’s refugees if applied in a different manner.
THE FACTS ABOUT REFUGEES
The UK spent (2003/4) via DFID (Department for International Development) £3,965 million a year on overseas aid, of which £1,972 million was bilateral and £1,805 million was given to other parties, nearly all to the European Union and the World Bank. A further £187 million was spent on administration.
Out of this enormous sum, a mere US$ 46,863,250 (roughly £25 million) was given to the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (2003).
The total number of refugees in the world, according to the UN in 2004, was 9.7 million plus 985,000 identified as asylum seekers (roundly 10 million), so it can be established that the British government spends just £25 million on the UNHCR which is £2.50 per refugee.
THE FACTS ABOUT ASYLUM SEEKERS
In 2003 the British government spent about £2 billion per annum on the asylum system (£1.8 billion cost plus £176 million on legal aid). Since then the figure has risen a lot further.
Of course, not all the cost of supporting asylum seekers in the UK is included in this and there are indirect costs, such as a poorer health and education system, for British residents as well as the strain on national identity. Nor does much of the spending actually reach asylum seekers since it goes to landlords, tribunals, lawyers, bureaucracy and other parties.
In 2003, 50,000 people claimed asylum in the UK and it is thought that about 33% should be added to these figures to cover dependants, so we are looking at around 67,000 people.
The rate of success for asylum claimants between 1997 and 2002 was about 21%. A further 16% were granted ‘exceptional leave to remain’ or allowed to remain on other grounds.
So, if we divide the £2 billion annual expenditure by the number of successful asylum seekers, which are 21% of 67,000, or around 14,000, it costs the British taxpayer £2 billion divided by 14,000 per successful asylum seeker. That equates to £143,000 per refugee who is successful. If we include rejected asylum seekers, who are nearly another 53,000, the amount spent drops to £30,000 per head.
So, the government’s policy which has been supported by all parties, and the political class, including the Refugee Council, the Churches Commission for Racial Justice, and, amazingly, the UN High Commissioners’ Refugees’ office itself, is that, once a refugee reaches British shores, it is right and proper that – on average - £143,000 of British taxpayers’ money should be spent on him, while it is also right and proper that, simultaneously, the British government, or taxpayer, should spent £2.50 (or fifty thousand times less) on each of the ten million (less 14,000) refugees in the rest of the world.
IS THIS MORAL OR EFFICIENT?
None of this is necessary. Consider if all asylum seeking in the UK was stopped and the £2 billion-a-year asylum spend by the Home Office was given to the UN High Commissioner for Refugees. Let us spread this among the ten million refugees and we get £200 each. The GDP for Pakistan was 429 US Dollars in 2002 which is about £240. So, in effect, the British taxpayer could equip every refugee in the world with the average (not minimum) median income of a Pakistani – a more than adequate income if you are in a Third World country. This is the possible resources of the British government only and ignores all present contributions by other governments. If they also abolished their asylum systems and put the money direct to refugees the world’s refugees would be extremely well looked after.
What stands in the way of replacing an immoral, corrupt and inefficient policy, which spends £143,000 on a refugee in Britain and £2.50 on a refugee not in Britain?
While the current misguided policy has evolved from historical circumstances, and from those who are generally idealistic, there are, of course, huge beneficiaries of the asylum system. These include:
- The judges who preside over the Human Rights Act and who are provided with the legal fodder of innumerable immigration cases;
- The lawyers;
- Those running ‘immigration groups’ often on government money;
- Church spokesmen and activists who make a living out of ‘supporting’ refugees (actually only the minute proportion who get to Britain and claim asylum);
- High priced landlords, and
- The ‘asylum bureaucracy’.
The most obnoxious supporter of the current damaging and wasteful system is the UN High Commissioner for Refugees itself which has constantly denounced any attempt to think laterally and morally.
Nor have the churches, who have often got excellent access to co-religionists working hard in the area where refugees originate, challenged the current orthodoxy.
A moral policy would be, therefore, to withdraw from the UN Convention, refuse all asylum seekers and close down the asylum system. This would release sufficient funds in Britain alone to properly support the 10 million refugees in the world.
FUTURUS, 14 September 2006