Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

SarahBell

Refugee Costs

Recommended Posts

There's some nasty graphic going round that AS get £26 a day to spend at tescos.
Which made me have a look at some details...

The Home Office has estimated that section 4 support cost around £28 million in 2014-15.25
(That's the bugger off we'd like to throw you ou but can't at the moment)

Other costs:
Asylum support - Parliament

www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/SN01909.pdf

From August 2015, weekly asylum support will be £36.95 per person (adult or child)

They do get 'no choice' housing.
Asylum seekers are eligible for free NHS healthcare and may be eligible for free prescriptions, free dental care, free eyesight tests and vouchers for glasses.
Asylum seeker children have the same entitlement to state education as other children and may be eligible for free school meals.

If you're at section 4: Section 4 support is not given in cash. Instead, accommodation and an ‘Azure’ payment card is provided. The card is credited with £35.39 per person per week and can be used in specified retail outlets to buy food and essential toiletries. In some cases, full-board accommodation and essential toiletries may be provided instead of an Azure card




As of 28 May the number of people who have been in receipt of asylum support can be found in the table below:
Years in receipt of Support - Number of people
Between 1 and 5 years - 3,330
Between 5 and 10 years - 295
More than 10 Years - 0


Refused asylum seeker households that include children (under 18 years old) who were born before a final decision was made on the asylum claim generally continue to receive asylum support under section 95 of the 1999 Act (i.e. the same as they received whilst waiting for a decision on the claim) until the youngest child turns 18 or the family is removed from the UK.27 The Government has recently estimated that, as of 31 March 2015, 2,900 families (around 10,100 people) were in receipt of section 95 support on this bases. Such support is estimated to have cost the Government £45 million in 2014-15.28


Home Office figures quoted in the consultation document indicate that, as at 31 March 2015, an estimated 15,000 refused asylum seekers and their dependants were in receipt of asylum support. The Home Office has also estimated that this cost an estimated £73 million in 2014-15.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe all of those in support of letting these people in should register this with HMRC and pay additional tax specifically to fund them.

No need for legislation, HMRC accepts gifts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not clear from the OP if the Asylum support costs are £73m pa or £146m pa.

Lets assume £146m, for a country of about 65-70m people.

So Asylum support costs the average British citizen £2 a year, or about 0.6p a day.

I can think of several arguments against asylum and immigration. The cost of Asylum support isn't one of them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe all of those in support of letting these people in should register this with HMRC and pay additional tax specifically to fund them.

No need for legislation, HMRC accepts gifts.

Perhaps they'd end up receiving tax rebates instead, in recognition of the contribution many refugees end up making (if you go back far enough we are all descended from refugees)

https://cityofsanctuary.org/resources/raising-awareness/faqs/

About 1,200 medically qualified refugees are recorded on the British Medical Association’s database. (BMA/Refugee Council refugee doctor database – March 2010). It is estimated that it costs around £25,000 to support a refugee doctor to practise in the UK. Training a new doctor is estimated to cost over £250,000.

There are other issues to immigration control, and I can understand many concerns. But the economic argument really doesn't stand up. Unless someone here can argue that cities like London and New York (that draw in migrants) are poor cities, and cities like Liverpool (that lose people) are rich cities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The figures in the OP are slightly misleading as they only cover the period while individuals are in the process of claiming asylum or those whose claims are rejected. Asylum seekers formally granted the right of asylum in the UK (i.e indefinite leave to stay) actually qualify for the same benefits as the rest of the population but most of the articles on the cost of asylum seekers fail to highlight that rather significant fact. As a consequence most of the costs of supporting asylum seekers is actually hidden in the overall benefits budget

http://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/SN01909

It would, however, probably be true to say that asylum seekers are only a minority of the immigrants legal and illegal that the UK receives each year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(if you go back far enough we are all descended from refugees)

What utter nonsense. The British Isles were populated and depopulated through the ice ages from the hunter gatherer community of North West Europe. Hardly refugees.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What utter nonsense. The British Isles were populated and depopulated through the ice ages from the hunter gatherer community of North West Europe. Hardly refugees.

Learn a bit as to why the Angles and Saxons ended up on these shores.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Learn a bit as to why the Angles and Saxons ended up on these shores.

I know all about that thank you.

Edit: I don't usually wave qualifications but I have a first degree and a research degree in archaeology with particular focus upon the second half of the first millennium AD in England.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know all about that thank you.

Edit: I don't usually wave qualifications but I have a first degree and a research degree in archaeology with particular focus upon the second half of the first millennium AD in England.

So tell us educated one - were the Angles and saxons fleeing worsening conditions at home, or perhaps they were enticed by the climate or economic benefits of Britain at that time?

In either case the term "migrants" would cover them, even if you argue over the term "refugee".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So tell us educated one - were the Angles and saxons fleeing worsening conditions at home, or perhaps they were enticed by the climate or economic benefits of Britain at that time?

In either case the term "migrants" would cover them, even if you argue over the term "refugee".

Precisely - it was your use of the word refugee that was wrong.

Anybody who moves is by definition a migrant.

There was the opportunity for new and richer lands made wealthy by four hundred years of Roman rule, combined with climatic deterioration that generally worsened living conditions where they were living.

And genetic evidence suggests that the high level of inwards migration was a disaster for the indigenous people, who sensibly recognized this and actively fought it rather than welcoming the new arrivals with open arms as Nick Clegg and presumably you would have us do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Precisely - it was your use of the word refugee that was wrong.

Anybody who moves is by definition a migrant.

There was the opportunity for new and richer lands made wealthy by four hundred years of Roman rule, combined with climatic deterioration that generally worsened living conditions where they were living.

And genetic evidence suggests that the high level of inwards migration was a disaster for the indigenous people, who sensibly recognized this and actively fought it rather than welcoming the new arrivals with open arms as Nick Clegg and presumably you would have us do.

Do you think richer cities like New York and London (which have both traditionally welcomed wave upon wave of migrants) should instead be emulating cities like Liverpool that are losing population?

I'm afraid I disagree with your idea that inwards migration is necessarily a disaster. Yes, there has to be a certain limit on total numbers, but at the moment the UK is taking a pitiful number of refugees from the Syrian mess-up. Given we've been interfering militarily in the Middle East for much of the last century we share responsibilty for what's happened there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Didn't the Vikings 'migrate' in the dark ages in the search of arable farming land? On account of Norway and Sweden being all ffordy and steep?

They brought their muscle as a warrior force and just decided to stay. That too can be added to the Anglo and Saxon mix........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know all about that thank you.

Edit: I don't usually wave qualifications but I have a first degree and a research degree in archaeology with particular focus upon the second half of the first millennium AD in England.

:) Nice Frank, real nice.

Does that mean you are one of those digging up a field when we see programmes like Time Team?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps they'd end up receiving tax rebates instead, in recognition of the contribution many refugees end up making (if you go back far enough we are all descended from refugees)

https://cityofsanctuary.org/resources/raising-awareness/faqs/

There are other issues to immigration control, and I can understand many concerns. But the economic argument really doesn't stand up. Unless someone here can argue that cities like London and New York (that draw in migrants) are poor cities, and cities like Liverpool (that lose people) are rich cities.

London has the highest rates of child poverty in the UK. Half of households with children in London are in receipt of tax credits. Yes, the rich love immigration when it fills up their BTL investments and drives down the cost of servants, but the idea that this benefits the average person is farcical.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Precisely - it was your use of the word refugee that was wrong.

Anybody who moves is by definition a migrant.

There was the opportunity for new and richer lands made wealthy by four hundred years of Roman rule, combined with climatic deterioration that generally worsened living conditions where they were living.

And genetic evidence suggests that the high level of inwards migration was a disaster for the indigenous people, who sensibly recognized this and actively fought it rather than welcoming the new arrivals with open arms as Nick Clegg and presumably you would have us do.

I often refer to history, and the angle saxon invasion when discussing with beardie friends who want open borders. They tend to have no knowledge of history, and point blank refuse to consider the lessons from previous mass migrations...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, the inward migration of the Angles and Saxons was a disaster for the indigenous population, as was the subsequent invasion by the Vikings, and later the subjugation of the indigenous population by the Normans. Is the immigration of Ethiopians, Somalis, Syrians, and the rest something we should welcome?

I don't really see why we bear responsibility for any military intervention in the middle east during the last century any more than Scandinavians should make reparations for earlier Viking invasions or even Italians for the conquests of the Roman Empire.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is estimated that it costs around £25,000 to support a refugee doctor to practise in the UK. Training a new doctor is estimated to cost over £250,000.

There are other issues to immigration control, and I can understand many concerns. But the economic argument really doesn't stand up. Unless someone here can argue that cities like London and New York (that draw in migrants) are poor cities, and cities like Liverpool (that lose people) are rich cities.

There are other issues to immigration control, and I can understand many concerns. But the economic argument really doesn't stand up. Unless someone here can argue that cities like London and New York (that draw in migrants) are poor cities, and cities like Liverpool (that lose people) are rich cities.

So let someone else pay for the training (assuming that it's to the same standard as you'd get here, which is questionable) then poach them for the good of our economy and screw the needs of the country they came from? No thanks. I'm not terribly keen on short-term slahsh-and-burn parasitic economic practices.

Your point about rich and poor cities is getting cause and effect backwards, or at least confusing correlation with causation (people going to wealthy places doesn't mean that that's why they're wealthy).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not clear from the OP if the Asylum support costs are £73m pa or £146m pa.

Lets assume £146m, for a country of about 65-70m people.

So Asylum support costs the average British citizen £2 a year, or about 0.6p a day.

I can think of several arguments against asylum and immigration. The cost of Asylum support isn't one of them.

add in the 3/400 other £2 per year insignificant costs, and it starts to look expensive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Next General Election   94 members have voted

    1. 1. When do you predict the next general election will be held?


      • 2019
      • 2020
      • 2021
      • 2022

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.