« Ken Clarke is a deadly weapon that David Cameron should not use | Main | Cameron: We won't treat the richest any differently from the poorest »


Why does it cost £11,000 to send people home?

So deport the illegal aliens. Amnesties have failed in the USA and Spain. Prostitution is illegal. Giving an amnesty is a totally unacceptable idea and will lose you our votes. We need a Ministry (not a "Department" as we are not quite a REpublic yet) of Deportation. Period. Deal with it.

Malcolm Dunn, the same question occurred to me, though on reflection anything done by the government involves relays of civil servants and acres of paper/terrabytes of computer space, so eleven grand is possibly less than it costs to process a dog licence. Question still must be asked, though.
"It is a very persuasive read," writes Tim Montgomerie.I wonder if it explains the background to "..we rely heavily on forcible return, which is both very costly and time-consuming, and engages only a small proportion of those whose claims are refused. This system gives refused asylum seekers good reason to abscond and little reason to engage with officialdom.." - ? It seems to me that it was always a lunatic, bravura piece of bleeding-heart posturing to open our borders to "asylum seekers" of all persuasions in the first place; second, that the Welfare State acts as a magnet to economic migrants (aka parasites); third, that our attitude to those of our friends & neighbours (?) such as France who positively encourage the flow of Third World migrants with their establishment of e.g. the Sangatte transit camp is weak-kneed in the extreme. I have always been baffled by the British State's supine approach to immigration: I am further baffled, and not for the first time, by utterances from the CJS...

I cannot see any sense at all in banning people from working. All this can possibly achieve is an increase in crime, so I firmly believe that anyone legally allowed into this country should be able to work legally. After all we're constantly told immigrants contribute to our economy...

That said, it makes absolutely no sense to allow illegals who are known about to remain here.

IDS seems to accept the presumption that failed asylum seekers can remain here - why?

Surely the right thing to do with ANY illegals or failed asylum seekers is to send them right back to wherever they came from immediately??? £11,000 is a load of tosh, why should it have to be "voluntary"? I suspect the real issue is our warped sense of "justice" and the perverse interpretation of the "human rights act".

"In one of its most controversial reports the Centre for Social Justice will today call for failed asylum seekers to receive support or be allowed to work."

By "receive support" they mean "receive taxpayers' money". In these economic circumstances that is not going to go down well with the public.

More liberal handwringing from Blue Labour. Just send them back, quickly.

So the Conservatives party's transition to the blue Labour party gathers pace, one moment we have the Conservative Mayor of London calling for an amnesty for illegals, next we have senior Conservative back benchers wanting us to give failed asylum seekers state benefits.

What party should I give my vote to that will deal with these problems? Clearly there isn't one in Westminster for all the political parties represented there are in the lobby of the lefties, some have joined the lobby of lefties by deceit, so I suppose I will have to look further afield.

"Why does it cost £11,000 to send people home?"

Malcolm Dunn, if it does, then we should tax the carriers who brought them here to recoup the money!

".....the Centre for Social Justice will today call for failed asylum seekers to receive support or be allowed to work."


No! All failed asylum seekers should be returned either to their country of origin or to the country from which they entered the UK. ALL treaties and legislation which impede this should be revoked or repealed, including EU directives.

Furthermore we have an obligation only to accept those asylum seekers which flee, in danger of life or limb, DIRECTLY to this country or to a British ship or aircraft without first passing through a safe territory. If this rule were applied it would cut the number of "asylum seekers" within the EU to a few hundred per year. In addition to these we might choose to allow in some particularly deserving cases who apply from overseas.

There is absolutely no need to accept more than about 1,000 asylum seekers a year, including dependents.

If it costs so much to send failed asylum seekers home then they should just be put on the ferry back to the country from which they entered the UK which would cost maybe £100. This would have the added advantage of encouraging the authorities in France and Belgium to do something about the problem at their end and so on back down the line.

Ah, Dear Reader, I hear you murmur: “That would be against EU agreements and directives”. Well yes, but are we a sovereign nation or are we not?

"There is absolutely no need to accept more than about 1,000 asylum seekers a year, including dependents."

I think we should face the facts that the asylum system is unworkable, its a blank cheque that was written by a past generation, in a different time, that we have no hope of honouring, and at best we try to run the system in such a way as to dissuade all the people who would have a right to claim asylum here from coming here. Essentially the asylum system is cruel, for we dangle a carrot in front of desperate people but try to ensure they can never get hold of it just so the chattering classes can feel good with their generosity.

It would be better if we got out of this cruel circus, admitted that the asylum system is unworkable, and better in the long run if the people who might have a claim to asylum to fight for their rights in their own countries, after all that’s how we got our rights, and if we help despots empty their countries of the people opposed to them through the asylum system, nothing will ever change in these countries!

I could have cheerfully kissed IDS this morning when I heard him on Radio 4. More power to him.At last a prominent politician who has the good sense to look beyond the hype and the headlines.

People should stand back and look at the practicalities of a policy of forced destitution. Of course people disappear! What would you do when housing, support and permission to work is removed. That's why it costs 11k to remove someone because you have find the costs of police and home office processing time, housing in detention, travel documentation, liaison with the other country and finally flights, sometimes on specially chartered aircraft.

We need to look hard at the way our Asylum System works: many companies and individuals make vast sums of money out of Asylum Seekers, from the contracted private landlords who house them, to the agencies like Sodexho who administer the support tokens, Sixt who provide the caged vans to transport people to detention centres and airports, Group 4 Security who staff the detention centres, the airlines who charge for their services and finally the IOM who arrange for people's return. A lot of these organisations are multinational and we should be aware of this end of the process. We pay for it.

The UNHCR estimates that there were 30 million people at risk worldwide in 2007. At least 80% went to the adjacent country which is why you get 2 million Zimbabweans in South Africa, or 1.5 milion Iraqis in Jordan and Syria. What should Britain's response be - for certain we have to find ways of dealing with those people already here and the right to work, an end to making them destitute and a better Asylum process, will all go towards dealing with the backlog of 450,000 people who have built up over the last 20 years.

Remember - if you can't find people, you can't send them back.

Ewan Roberts, Liverpool

"Remember - if you can't find people, you can't send them back."

Well that makes the case for holding camps , to hold the asylum seekers until their case is made for asylum, is it not?

Why should they be in the UK in the first place? I am perplexed: if I were to turn up at the border of most other countries demanding to be let in and claiming asylum, very likely without any paperwork to show, and not speaking their language properly (or at all) I would receive short shrift. If someone desires to live here instead of somewhere else let him write a letter of application, perhaps arguing that his qualifications in engineering, open-heart surgery, kitchen fitting or whatever might make him a useful addition; that he wishes fully and sincerely to embrace our way of life, our values; and that he is fluent in English. Just like a job application. Seems perfectly straightforward to me.

Superb performance by IDS on Today.
Made me proud to be a Conservative.

At long last some sense on Immigration from a well respected Tory.In discussions on the UK Borders Bill there was little compassion, Even last week in the Lords Lord Waddington was an extreme hard-liner. "Send them back" Where to ? Darfur? Zimbabwe? the Congo ?
They are people just like us, their children are just like ours - except that they are under pressures and in circumstances that we have never experienced. Thank you IDS.

The point is that detention is very, very, very expensive. Say you just take out the humanitarian or moral aspects of the Asylum System, and you just want something cheap and efficiant. Nothing currently in place helps towards this.

With trouble in the Congo, Zimbabwe, Sudan, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, North Korea and several dozen other places, people will continue to try and reach, what still is a place of democracy and fairness - the UK. Believe it or not, that's what many people out there think.

Don't confuse migrants with refugees.

"Where to ? Darfur? Zimbabwe? the Congo ?"

Yes because otherwise we will have to accept millions upon millions of people into this country until it is overwhelmed, swamped and suffers total collapse.

Just as we are not able to be the policeman of the world so are we unable to provide a safe haven for the hundreds of millions (or probably billions) of people in the world living in unpleasant and dangerous societies.

"Darfur? Zimbabwe? the Congo ?

Don't worry the rate things are deteriorating here you will be soon able to 'experience' any and all of the worlds strife’s on our very own door step.

Ok if it costs £11,000 each then it costs £11,000 each.

What is the total bill going to be, and when will the job be finished?

Get cracking.

This is a commonplace, and pretty sententious to boot. It's also a description that fits a few hundred million people at least. So are they all qualified as potential migrants to the UK, in your scheme of things? If the Conservatives are following in their slightly more Left colleagues' footsteps and turning this place into a soup kitchen for the world's poor and the merely parasitic, even more of us are going to be leaving than already plan to, so that will free up a bit of space...

I see some didn't read the blog...


This is about 'failed' asylum seekers - as I said, £11,000 each sounds reasonable - get cracking.

"I see some didn't read the blog...

call for failed asylum seekers to receive support or be allowed to work.."
Who gives a damn whether it's about "failed" or bleedin' successful "asylum seekers"? The entire system is crackpot in the extreme, a farrago of incompetence, vainglorious, sanctimonious grandstanding, unacceptable pressure on our community and its institutions, and enormous expense to the public. If eleven grand is "reasonable" then the politicos who brought about the situation, plus those people who believe it to be "reasonable" won't mind footing the bill, will they...

We should show great compassion to those who are genuinely in need of asylum. We should show great compassion to those whose claims have not yet been assessed (and part of that compassion must be to assess all claims speedily, properly and effectively). Those who are found not to be in need - failed claimants - are by definition not people we have any obligation to. If they can satisfy other criteria for immigration then fine, but otherwise they must be deported as quickly as possible regardless of cost. Surely that is the only way to ensure that the system is not abused and that we have the resources to provide full care to those in genuine need.

We certainly have to stop the judicary setting the qualifying criteria for asylum claims.

The courts should only be deciding (when asked) if the critera in a specific instance have been met - the public (via parliament) should set the criteria.

In the mean time - we should be enforcing what we have in place.

Oh dear, yes my old party is now the Blue Labour Party and I won't be able to vote Conservative in the future.

Britain is already too full of people, so illegal immigrants and failed asylum seekers should be IMMEDIATELY sent back to France on a cheap ferry or back to from whence they came.

Enough is enough.

"We should show great compassion to those who are genuinely in need of asylum."

I am very sorry but this is not practicable because there are hundreds of millions of such people, possibly a billion or two. How many of these are you willing to welcome to the UK?

The Great Asylum and Immigration Debate mirrors that of the Great Green Debate. It is easy to demonstrate that, for both, the figures just do not add up but no-one in authority seems to be capable of simple arithmetic.

We are on a twin track to catastrophe.


Angelo Basu trouble is pretty much anybody in the third world can make a reasonable claim for asylum. But if all the people who are campaigning for change and getting abused for doing that can claim asylum , who is left to campaign for the rights that future generations can benefit from?

It seems to me the asylum system is a despots charter, for it enables them to get rid of the awkward squad who oppose them!


Unlike us they haven't paid taxes so why should they receive state benefits? If everyone who was in danger came here and signed on we'd be bankrupted within days.

Not many people on this thread are actually engaging with what the Centre for Social Justice is recommending. IDS doesn't want a "soft" policy that endangers the interests of the taxpayer. He is making the perfectly sensible point that the current punitive approach forces people underground and means the authorities lose contact with them.

He also recommends more investment at the start of the process of testing an asylum seeker's case so that, if necessary, they can be fairly returned home much more quickly if their case is without merit.

It looks perfectly sensible and compassionate to me.


Try though I do, I cannot find the actual report on the Centre for Social Justice Website. Can you point us to it?

The compassion is just dripping from this thread, isn't it?

Christ. We are talking about people being forced into prostitution, and everyone is wibBling on about "SENDING THE BLIGHTERS BACK WHERE THEY CAME FROM, WHAT?"

It doesn't appear to be there yet David. I'll add a link as soon as that changes.

Tim Montgomerie:
”Not many people on this thread are actually engaging with what the Centre for Social Justice is recommending.”
Maybe this is because not many people sympathise with recommendations that merely tinker with the present system and make it a fraction less Kafkaesque. Maybe a great many people – including Tory voters actual, potential or alienated – are increasingly impatient with the prolongation of an entire system calculated, seemingly, to encourage the arrival here of scarily large numbers of people who are at best economic migrants, and at worst are parasites who will suck at the teat of the public milch-cow while their unassimilable children knife wander the streets in gangs. Many people might even share my impatience with the pronouncements of the CSJ.
”It looks perfectly sensible and compassionate to me.”
“Sensible & compassionate” are emotions that in terms of other individuals’ suffering elesewhere in the world belong with the private individual, not in a State concerning itself with the State’s primary function of defending our national security, plus our way of life and our citizens’ hard-earned money. The State cannot even manage basic book-keeping, so I’m damned if I trust it to monkey around with anything as subtle or complex as “compassion”…
David talks about ”people being forced into prostitution” but these are people who shouldn’t be here in the first place. Again, compassion begins at home… Uzbekhistan for the Uzbeks, I say.

Prostitution is not the end of the world. Scores of thousands of women in this country do it voluntarily all the time. It is less of an immorality than this country being taken over by the millions who want to come here to take advantage of the conditions (e.g peace, welfare, NHS) that we created for ourselves.

Concerning prostitution, I would like to point out that the majority of asylum seekers, failed or otherwise, are young men.

True, perhaps, that I have led a sheltered life and may not have quite caught up with these modern enlightened times but, even so, it seems unlikely that most have become prostitutes.

So I wonder just what they are doing.

I must say I am skeptical that many become prostitutes for this reason, and certainly its unlikely to be the main reason a person would turn to prostitution. However it is true that Labour has done a very good job of sweeping the beggars, buskers and street sellers off the streets and so I imagine they have given such people little choice but to turn to other illegal ways of making money. I suspect that the majority find employment in the black economy in one form or another. The majority of Grass farms found in my area have had Illegal immigrants as “gardeners”. I do not doubt that many will turn to illegal activities such as drug dealing rather than prostitution. Labour have a very poor track record in dealing humanly with everyone from the homeless to asylum seekers, it should be a matter of pride to us that we will endeavor to find better ways than simply trying in vain to starve illegal immigrants out. IDS as always is trying very hard to give our party a human face, and we should not underestimate the need to overturn our “nasty party” image, if we hope to win the votes of the many people who desire a free and fair society.
This Group, which we might term “people of good will, is spread across all social groups and every profession and vocation, and runs into the millions. It is therefore a very important group with which to engage.

Of course failed asylum seekers should be allowed to work. Some of thses people are highly skilled and could make a great contribution if only given the chance. If they are forced into crime they will probably end up costing the state money but if allowed to work they would be contributing to the state in the form of taxes and be helping to maintain themselves legally.

The vast majority of Asylum Seekers do not qualify for refuge here.
A genuine refugee has to have fled their homeland in fear for their lives and is expected to apply for Asylum in the FIRST SAFE country they reach.
Most of those reaching our shores have crossed multiple SAFE countries but then most have set out with UK as their goal. Our small islands are surrounded by SAFE, FIRST WORLD DEMOCRACIES.
Kill time in Calais watching these people skulking about.

Playing devil's advocate here, perhaps this is a good time for the announcement of IDS' opinion. We can thereby appeal to woolly-minded Observer readers, safe in the knowledge that the pending recession makes the UK a far less attractive option for future asylum-seekers.

While the 'bullingdon' attacks are on the front bench are pure nonsense - even I find it hard to listen to 'social' appeals from IDS...

Anyone richer than me, who wants to make me give my money to others for social reasons can get lost - at least until they have given away enough of their own money to render themselves poorer than me...

“Of course failed asylum seekers should be allowed to work. "

So, in your world, Jack Stone, if you come to the UK and claim to be an asylum seeker you should be allowed to work, cannot be sent home against your will and are eligible for UK taxpayer funded benefits. It all seems pretty good to me.

Or have I misunderstood something?


So they are either a burden to taxpayers or they deny work to the increasingly unemployed natives.

Send them home they ARE not refugees.

Is IDS aware that natives with more than £6k savings only get £60.50 per week and only for six months.IT IS TIME TO LOOK AFTER OUR OWN,or face the inevitable but dreadful consequences.

If we were to talk about "refugees" instead of "asylum seekers" it might stir a few consciences.

Clearly supposed refugees whose claims are undoubtedly bogus should be sent back - the same day if possible. But I suspect there are a great many who are genuine but unable to prove it. Should we not be more ready to give them the benefit of the doubt?

Our long-winded appeals system gives the bogus ones a chance to disappear, while those who try to co-operate with it are more likely to find themselves deported.


Isn't it exactly for the reason you give, that “redistribution” is done by taxation and legality. Regardless of our personal opinions of the worthiness of the recipients. “our” Party is just as into taking from Poor Peter to give often (it seems) to unworthy Paul.
I think we need to bring back the idea of the deserving and undeserving poor. We should of course help the truly sick person and the socially disadvantaged but in return we should rightly insist that they deserve the help, and are doing their bit, as far is possible. under their individual circumstances


I am fundamentally opposed to enforced 'redistribution'; I am also totaly comitted to a national 'saftey net' and to removing barriers to opportunity.

The saftey net I envisage is unlikely to include enough to pay for a car, satelite tv, cigarettes, commercially sourced alcohol, national lottery tickets etc... However it would include enough to cover food, shelter, heat, training/education and emotional security. And the sucess of 'removing barriers' would be measured by the reduction in intervention/regulation.

If all of the 'poor' are provided with enough to exist on (and the opportuniny to progress by their own effort), then I don't really understand what extra the 'deserving poor' are supposed to get (although considering some kind of refund of taxes paid in previous (more sucessful) years may have some merit).

This is a story that should be covered

Cameron of Forced Marriage

Labour, The Left, Multi-culturalits and Feminists have disgraced themselves in their their lack of support for this massively oppresed group.

There is dicussion to be had over who should and who should not be allowed to settle here - but once someone is accepted as a british citizen, they must be given full access to all of its benefits, and not be left to be opressed by alien cultural pracices.

(although, equally, I don't understand why the UK got involved in the case of a migrant worker being held by her own family in Bangladesh http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7782182.stm). I have my own pet projects and resent the government taking funds from my pet-projects to spend on their own.

PP. (I agree with your post)

Sometimes it is a matter of doing the right thing "I don't understand why the UK got involved in the case of a migrant worker being held by her own family in Bangladesh" Such action costs little but helps (in this case Labour) to make the party look humane.
These issues, and there are a number, should be very high on the list of topics for which outrage is expressed . In a purely cynical sense perhaps, it helps to over turn our "nasty party" image. Other issues we should be against on principle include female circumcision, and the exploitation of children by the sex industry. In reality we can do very little to help, other than making a song and dance about such issues and making sure that such things do not happen in the UK.The more people of goodwill we can gather to the party the better IMHO.

Its all very well saying asylum seekers should be allowed to stay, get work and benefits etc... but, look at whats happening in the third world countries even now.

How many people are going to try and escape the poverty and tyranny of their homelands? We can't take them all in, we just don't have the room, resources or money!

Even now Romania is set to take on refugees :


Once in Romania, how many of them are going to make their way to the UK? The only way to stop them entering is to make sure they are not promised jobs, benefits and aid.

We are and always have been the main destination for these people simply because they are better off in the UK than anywhere else. If life in any other EU country were just as comfortable as the UK, would they bother to then trek all the way to France to smuggle themselves over to us?

Coupled with the fact that figures released today show that 1.3 million jobs created under the banner "British jobs for British People" have gone to foreigners, when unemployment amongst British workers has risen by 62,000.

In times of genuine hardship for most families, we just cannot afford to take on anymore responsibilities.

As a third-generation descendant of refugees I have reason to be grateful for Britain's generous welcome to those fleeing oppression.

When my grandparents came here from Belgium in 1914 they were initially given shelter by a kind-hearted family and received financial support from a charitable foundation. There was no state aid as such, save for the overwhelming gift of a safe haven. My grandparents eventually settled here permanently, opening a branch of the family business as soon as the war ended, but of the quarter of a million or so of their compatriots who came here during WW1, well over two hundred thousand returned home as soon as it was safe to do so.

That, in my opinion, is the only way in which the asylum system can be justified: a temporary refuge given by the nearest safe country and supported by charity, not a form of economic migration bestowing an automatic permanent right of abode, funded by compulsory donations from an already hard-pressed indigenous population.

Is prostitution legal in England, or not?

Home office told – legal – it is law, they pay taxes.

Hypocrisy, like any government’s policy.
With united Europe, open borders and so on.

It is done purposely to keep people busy, like lawyers, home office and many people.

No benefits go to work and pay for everything 5, or 7 years.
End of story.

Asylum policy is corruption, and nothing else.
All asylum policy is wasting money, time and lives – in general, and we pay.

and finally

High Court orders review of work ban on failed asylum seekers -

Friday, 19 December 2008 07:22



The comments to this entry are closed.



ConHome on Twitter

    follow me on Twitter

    Conservative blogs

    Today's public spending saving

    New on other blogs

    • Receive our daily email
      Enter your details below:

    • Tracker 2
    • Extreme Tracker