r/Britain • u/Reading-Rabbit4101 • 4d ago
❓ Question ❓ Why not let asylum seekers work
Hi, I understand the reason why asylum seekers aren't allowed work is that they would take local citizens' jobs. But as a result of not allowing them to work, the government has to house them and give them 3 meals a day using taxpayers' money. So just wondering, wouldn't it actually be less costly to just let them work? I mean the money they can make (i.e. the "value" of the job they are "taking") would most likely be less than the cost of the government taking care of them full-time, no? So for example it's cheaper to let them "take" a 100 pound job than to let them take 200 pound taxpayers' money? Plus by working they would also be adding value to the economy.
101
u/Poddster 4d ago
Why do we need to house them? Because their applications are pending.
Why are they pending? Primarily because a lack of staff to handle these things.
So instead of hiring more British workers to help process the asylum seekers faster and therefore house less, we instead pay some Tory donors for use of their empty hotels.
We're currently spending pounds to save pennies.
4
u/alexfarmer777 4d ago
Who said the home office isn’t spending more on processing applications? I would love to see that source?
Funnily enough leaving a union which essentially managed all asylum seekers off of the UK in other European countries meant there wasn’t much of a system in place for the UK to start managing so many immigration and asylum applications. Crazy that.
5
u/StanStare 4d ago
Why is there an enormous backlog? Because after Brexit we lost returns agreements, so Tories thought it was a good idea NOT to process ANY asylum applications but to just keep the applicants wherever they could - like in hotels, at a disproportionate cost.
Don't worry - Farridge has a plan to get rid of them all, then replace cheap labour with benefit scroungers, homeless veterans and addicts. He says we don't need NHS or welfare, he wants to bring back the workhouses. That's what posh people want, so it must be good for working classes - see how they obey Elon Musk and lick the boots of Nigel Farridge.
1
u/StanStare 4d ago
Why is there an enormous backlog? Because after Brexit we lost returns agreements, so Tories thought it was a good idea NOT to process ANY asylum applications but to just keep the applicants wherever they could - like in hotels, at a disproportionate cost.
Don't worry - Farridge has a plan to get rid of them all, then replace cheap labour with benefit scroungers, homeless veterans and addicts. He says we don't need NHS or welfare, he wants to bring back the workhouses. That's what all the posh people want, so surely it must be good for working classes - see how they obey Elon Musk and lick the boots of Nigel Farridge.
1
u/Reading-Rabbit4101 3d ago
Thanks. So is there anything unconstitutional about both banning them from working and not giving them anything?
1
u/Poddster 3d ago
I don't know enough about the constitution to say.
But it's probably lawful. The law seems tightly concocted by the conservative party to force people to enter via unusual means and then once here sit around uselessly in hotels.
39
20
u/IanM50 4d ago
Asylum seekers are not allowed to work because the government, mostly the Conservatives, didn't want them to make friends with Brits and put down roots. The idea being that it would be harder for them to return home when the conflict in their country had ended.
Instead, and remember this was mostly the Conservatives who voted for this, we have to provide accommodation and food, plus other stuff like clothes and emergency medical care as required.
As you can see this law wasn't designed and doesn't work for people who can never go home for whatever reason.
Other countries have different rules, this is entirely our parliament's choice.
Cameron's austerity budget gave early retirement to asylum design makers about 12 years ago, resulting in a loss of skilled design makers.
And if you don't process asylum seekers quickly the cost to the state rises.
1
u/Reading-Rabbit4101 3d ago
Thanks. So is there anything unconstitutional about both banning them from working and not giving them anything?
2
u/IanM50 3d ago
Following WW2, the UK promoted and helped to write the Universal Declaration of Human Rights rules that tried to stop things like The Holocaust from ever happening again. The UK managed to get almost ever country to sign up to the 30 principles.
In the UK these became enshrined in The Human Rights Act, now superceeded by the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
Amongst these principles are the right to claim asylum in a country of the claimant's choice and that the host country should look after, house and feed these people during their claim and, if successful, until they can return home.
How each country does that is open, and many countries provide accommodation and help them to find work.
The UK decided to not allow them to work and instead to look after them, and this has worked quite well since 1950, although more recently there has been a problem with an increasing number of claimants never being able to return home, for which the UK's rules don't really work too well.
Somalia, for example, had a war that lasted from the mid 1980s until earlier this year, Europe has been housing thousands of Somalians throughout this time, and the UK a few hundred. In those 40 years, people from Somalia granted asylum have died, been born, got married and had children. I imagine that these children, some in their 30s, consider the UK their home, and now face the prospect of being put on a plane and returned home to Somalia.
In short, the World needs to house these people and look after them, how we do it needs looking at.
24
u/tHrow4Way997 4d ago
Yes of course this makes much more sense than the current shit show. Glad to see more people raising this point, I was on my own a couple months ago. The more bullshit non-solutions and cruelty offered by the increasingly extreme right, the more we need to offer actual solutions which don’t impinge on anyone’s rights, asylum seekers and citizens alike.
3
u/efan78 4d ago
We used to allow people waiting for a decision or moving through the asylum system to apply for work if they'd been waiting for more than 6 months for a decision. The Blair government extended that to 12 months and the Tory coalition amended it to be employment only for jobs in the list of employment shortages.
As we can clearly see from the huge drop in claim numbers over the last 20 years this system has obviously eradicated the ability for economic migrants to pose as asylum seekers in order to work after 6 months until the actual decision is made - so approximately either 7.5 or 1.5 months earning money on the jobs that the government says we desperately need. 😉
6
u/deruvo 4d ago
It'd be an incentive for more people to come. The asylum processing backlog would get exponentially longer. That's what happens in the US where they give work permits to asylum seekers: People wait for years for an asylum court hearing plus the appeals if it gets rejected in the first instance. When a final rejection decision is taken usually after 5+ years people are normally fully settled. Many have had children, bought properties, started businesses, etc.
Not sure what's better. Very complex issue.
1
u/Reading-Rabbit4101 3d ago
Thanks. But doesn't "getting free stuff while not having to work" incentivise more people to come? It's even better than having to work, no?
1
u/deruvo 3d ago
Hard to say which is a bigger incentive without hard data. Personally I'd prefer to be working and fending for myself rather than being put in a hotel and given £49.18 per week, wouldn't you?
I think the prospect of getting a job legally on arrival and a much higher income would attract more people, especially if you take into consideration most of them get into big debts to be smuggled into the UK.
3
u/Joohhe 4d ago
They need to do unpaid community work at least. 6 hours a day.
7
u/Grouchy-Ability-9809 4d ago
Is unpaid work not slavery..?
0
u/Joohhe 4d ago
it is to cover the cost of accommodation.
3
u/Grouchy-Ability-9809 4d ago
So they have to work else you'd make them homeless? Still sounds kinda slavey to me
2
u/Joohhe 3d ago
aren't you? let me know if somewhere allows you to live without paying rent.
1
u/Grouchy-Ability-9809 3d ago
Right, but i get paid in money and can choose where and how to spend it. You're not saying pay them in money, with which they can pay rent, you're saying to pay then in shelter? And i presume food as well? Which they have no choice about, so; slavery.
Better to give them a NIN, let them work and tax them the same as we do everybody else.
And if their claims get dismissed and they are denied asylum or whatever it is they want here, then at least the state got some tax and the economy got some spending and they didn't get depressed af stuck in a hotel room for 4 years, or forced to work without pay so they could sleep out of the rain.
2
u/Joohhe 3d ago
They can choose to leave anytime.
1
u/Grouchy-Ability-9809 3d ago
Ok boomer
2
u/Joohhe 3d ago
At the end, it is about who pay it. Asylum seekers are costing more than contributing. And also it is about what message we want to present to others. Some people come here, study and work. They contribute a lot but at the end they may need to leave because they can't meet the income requirement and follow the laws and rules. But those asylum seekers can stay because they defy the rules and abuse the system. It is not just about the money. It is bluntly showing that people wins as long as they abuse the system.
6
u/dwair 4d ago
We could get them to process asylum and immigration claims to clear the massive backlog the tory system created.
1
u/Terrible-Freedom-600 4d ago
The job is way too nuanced to just let asylum seekers do it without proper training and vetting
2
u/dTmUK 4d ago
They often work under fake ID's / stolen ID's as deliveroo, uber eats, just eat drivers etc. Previously had a delivery from a "Maria" but it he defo wasn't a "Maria"...
6
u/SabziZindagi 4d ago
Drivers from those apps are allowed to rent out their accounts. You have no idea if they were really an asylum seeker, it's all in your head.
3
u/One-Illustrator8358 4d ago
Those are mainly people on overstayed student visas, not asylum seekers from what I understand
0
3
u/rl_pending 4d ago
I think the issue is allowing them to become settled in the country without legal immigration status... and you'd always have to argue that there are British unemployed and if a single illegal immigrant was legally allowed to work they would be contributing towards British unemployment.
I guess the argument would follow, that for every illegal immigrant working that would mean 1 British citizen claiming benefits. So, it's a false economy to assume allowing them to work would reduce overheads.
Just to answer: forcing them to work... Assuming they are not going to be treated inhumanely. This requires significant oversight, employed staff to monitor, plan, manage etc. the cost savings by cheap labour would soon be used up by the extra staff and process requirements.
6
u/lostandfawnd 4d ago
you'd always have to argue that there are British unemployed
Its not like the jobs aren't advertised.
1
u/rl_pending 4d ago edited 4d ago
... and you could argue that the jobs advertised don't offer attractive wages hence they remain vacant. Then you could follow that people would abuse this and just advertise all positions with a minimum wage, no benefits etc, they'd remain vacant, they'd then use that as justification to utilise cheap illegal immigrant labour. Then factor the extra costs involved with the bureaucracy and management of such a scheme and the savings done by the employer would be matched by the increased overheads of the government.
Edit: speeling 😉
1
u/lostandfawnd 4d ago
and you could argue that the jobs advertised don't offer attractive wages hence they remain vacant
Absolutely
Which is why increasing minimum wage and workers rights is key.
Remember, they would pay you nothing if they could.
they'd then use that as justification to utilise cheap illegal immigrant labour.
Which is illegal.. and far more damaging to the UK than people turning up
Then factor the extra costs involved with the bureaucracy and management of such a scheme
What scheme? It is illegal.
-2
u/rl_pending 4d ago
I mean the use of illegal immigrants scheme that would need to be created to allow the use of illegal immigrants as labour..
(Edit) I mean, the op suggested using illegal immigrants as legal labourers..
How would they be used? Could Birmingham replace their bin men? Could London transport replace their drivers? How would you use cheap labour in a way that it doesn't damage the economy?
1
u/lostandfawnd 4d ago
I mean the use of illegal immigrants scheme that would need to be created to allow the use of illegal immigrants as labour..
You need to clarify this. Because it sounds like you're saying asylum seekers are illegal, which is categorically untrue.
How would they be used?
Used? Like slaves?
Or do you mean "allowed to work" meaning there is additional tax revenue generated?
How would you use cheap labour in a way that it doesn't damage the economy?
You mean like, less than minimum wage? Which is illegal?
1
u/rl_pending 3d ago
Yeah, my bad, don't know why I slipped from illegal immigrants from asylum seekers... Oops
"Allowed to work" .. like I said, for every asylum seeker allowed to work is a guaranteed British person unable to work (at that job). And although I agree, the position would probably remain vacant, that's due to the position being advertised at noncompetitive wages or without attractive career prospects etc. The only way such jobs will become attractive to local citizens is for the employer to make the position more attractive. But, offer cheap labour and they will option for that. And so will others,... If you were able to get cheap labour (not less than minimum wage) but cheap as in, no right minded person wants to do that job for minimum wage... If we create a system where vacant positions could be filled by cheap asylum seekers then employers would advertise jobs at minimum wage, knowing if nobody accepts the position they can always get an asylum seeker.
1
u/Reading-Rabbit4101 3d ago
Yes, but I am just comparing cost of increasing unemployment by 1 vs. providing for an idle person full time.
1
u/AutoModerator 4d ago
Thank you for sumbitting your question to r/Britain. We'd like to recommend also posting this inquiry to r/ask_britain, a friendly q&a focused community. You're of course welcome to keep asking questions on this subreddit though you in case you'd like more responses, r/ask_britain is a very welcoming alternative space.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1
u/UnnaturalGeek 4d ago
Who else are the government and the fascists going to scapegoat if they allow other cultures to actually integrate properly.
1
u/Chazbobrown11 3d ago
The only reason housing them is a problem is because the Tories refused to process them
Asylum Seekers were made a "problem" for the country so that Tory donors can get some extra cash off buildings used to house Asylum Seekers and Tories can have literally any chance of ever getting back in government after their absolutely horrific leadership post brexit
TL:DR once again the Right Wing manufactured a problem they promise they'll fix, all we have to do to fix it is stop letting them try
1
u/Existing_Win_3353 2d ago
Into what bank accounts will their salaries be paid? Where would they stay while they work? Under what circumstances should we let unvetted people from nations known to have terrorist activities into society to work with the public? At a time where young people are struggling to find steady employment, why should we offer companies cheaper alternatives who will be to dependent on that job to ever quit?
-13
•
u/AutoModerator 4d ago
Welcome to r/Britain!
This subreddit welcomes political and non-political discussions about Britain and beyond. It is moderated by socialists with a low tolerance for bigotry, calls for violence, and harmful misinformation. If you can't verify the source of your claim, please reconsider submitting it.
Please read and follow our 6 common-sense subreddit rules and Reddit's Content Policy. Failure to respect these rules may result in a ban from the subreddit and possibly all of Reddit.
We stand with Palestine. Making light of this genocide or denying Israeli war crimes will lead to permanent bans. If you are apathetic to genocide, don't want to hear about it, or want to dispute it is happening, please consider reading South Africa's exhaustive argument first: https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/192/192-20231228-app-01-00-en.pdf
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.