Fair Treatment of Asylum Seekers in the UK: Debunking Misconceptions

Do you have strong views about refugees seeking asylum in the UK? A major television broadcaster is looking for opinionated UK citizens to take part in an unforgettable immersive experience. If you would like to have your views heard and be in with a chance to be involved in the hottest debate in the UK right now, please get in touch ASAP!

Email for more info and to apply: thejourneyapply@

The Big Picture: Processing of Asylum Claims

The biggest problem lies in the way asylum claims are processed. As of June 2023, the total ‘work in progress’ asylum caseload consisted of 215,500 cases. Of these, 138,000 cases were awaiting an initial decision, 5,100 were awaiting the outcome of an appeal, and approximately 41,200 cases were subject to removal action.

With 138,000 cases and more people who haven’t yet received an initial decision, it certainly does not appear fair. However, when comparing the number of asylum seekers per 100,000 population, the UK ranks 19th among the EU27 countries plus the UK on this metric. This highlights a contextual understanding of the immigration burden.

Legal Framework and Case Processing

International law states that an asylum seeker must seek refuge in the first safe country they come to. As Britain is surrounded by safe countries, there should be no asylum seekers in the UK unless they arrived by planewhich is indeed a rare occurrence.

It is crucial to distinguish between migrants and refugees. If you fail to understand this distinction, you might believe that asylum seekers are not treated fairly. In reality, asylum seekers are provided with substantial support, which includes a room in a 4-star hotel, three good meals a day, fresh sheets and towels, and an ASPEN credit card currently worth ￡180 per month. At ￡180 per month, this is funded by British taxpayers. Approximately 51,000 migrants are currently housed in British hotels at a cost of over ￡6 million a day and over ￡2 billion a year to the taxpayer.

Criticism and Controversies

Public opinion is mixed, with many questioning the use of commercial hotels. Some speculate that these hotels are mainly owned by corporate chains that happen to be owned by government supporters.

I believe that ldquo;immigrantsrdquo; should be received and treated with respect and courtesy, but ldquo;illegalrdquo; immigrantsless so. Being held in custody awaiting our ldquo;processingrdquo; should be humane but not ldquo;pleasantrdquo; and they should not have the freedom to roam. We need to find a way to deter people from using the illegal smuggling ringsthe idea of sending them to Rwanda or some such is not a bad idea.

The support for these migrants also comes with substantial financial implications. Approximately ￡28 is the cost for a flight from Albania to the UK. If instead, potential refugees opt for a dangerous channel crossing, costing ￡4,500-￡6,000, we can consider them criminals.

Personal Accounts and Perspectives

I have read the earlier responses with interest. One common question is whether commercial hotels are mainly owned by corporate chains that are connected to government supporters. Another perspective is that we should receive immigrants with respect and courtesy but illegal immigrants should not be treated the same. Custody should be humane but not pleasant, and the freedom to roam should be limited.

I have been on a plane with an illegal immigrant who was being transported to an African destination, and it was VERY unpleasant for all concerned. But to put them in hotels that few of us could afford to stay in for long periods of time but are forced to pay for seems wrongvery wrong.

Conclusion

The debate on the treatment of asylum seekers in the UK is complex, involving legal obligations, financial burdens, and public sentiment. Understanding the distinction between migrants and refugees, recognizing the financial implications, and considering humane yet deterrent measures are crucial.

Email for more info and to apply: thejourneyapply@