Interesting piece. The choice of colours for "Supported asylum population and Afghan resettlement" graph could be better but I think I worked it out from the order in the legend/key.
Is there a breakdown of UC claimants showing how many are from the Homes For Ukraine scheme or similar? I found reference to 260,000 Ukrainians having come to UK as of 2025, and a suggested figure of 66% of adult refugees claiming UC in late 2024.
Not sure what % of the 260,000 would be adults, but perhaps half so maybe in the ballpark of 70-90k Ukrainian UC claimants? Given the timescale of that UC graph that might suggest they account for ~70% of the increase in UC claims on that graph?
The net lifetime cost of asylum seekers being £400k per capita sounds (and is!) massive, but this figure isn't some iron law of the universe; it's a consequence of other policy decisions.
Surely there are interventions that could help asylum seekers pay their own way in society and therefore stop them being a burden on the exchequer? I'm talking basic pro-integration ideas like English lessons. Sounds like a win-win to me.
We’ve tried that in the States. It’s great in terms of public finance. On the other hand, issuing automatic work permits to anyone with a pending asylum claim makes migration more attractive. That great if you, say, install HVAC systems. Less so if you work as an installer.
Of course, where my house is in Brooklyn most migrants are Latin American, and assimilation is a comparative walk in the park. So any lessons are limited.
It’s an iron law of the universe and your integrationalist fantasies ignore decades of evidence to the contrary. Mind you the financial cost of asylum seekers is the least bad externality. Far worse, is the social cost; the dilution of the indigenous culture in order to be endlessly accommodative, the fragmentation of the demos into factions and the power this fragmentation (sorry diversity) gives to the progressive left to liquidate Britain as itself.
A lot of natives in the UK are net fiscal costs too. This is partly a function of our welfare decisions more generally. For instance, social housing is in many places a very large subsidy it is difficult to compensate for with a high paid job
So sweeping dust under the carpet does not work???
Interesting piece. The choice of colours for "Supported asylum population and Afghan resettlement" graph could be better but I think I worked it out from the order in the legend/key.
Is there a breakdown of UC claimants showing how many are from the Homes For Ukraine scheme or similar? I found reference to 260,000 Ukrainians having come to UK as of 2025, and a suggested figure of 66% of adult refugees claiming UC in late 2024.
Not sure what % of the 260,000 would be adults, but perhaps half so maybe in the ballpark of 70-90k Ukrainian UC claimants? Given the timescale of that UC graph that might suggest they account for ~70% of the increase in UC claims on that graph?
The net lifetime cost of asylum seekers being £400k per capita sounds (and is!) massive, but this figure isn't some iron law of the universe; it's a consequence of other policy decisions.
Surely there are interventions that could help asylum seekers pay their own way in society and therefore stop them being a burden on the exchequer? I'm talking basic pro-integration ideas like English lessons. Sounds like a win-win to me.
We’ve tried that in the States. It’s great in terms of public finance. On the other hand, issuing automatic work permits to anyone with a pending asylum claim makes migration more attractive. That great if you, say, install HVAC systems. Less so if you work as an installer.
Of course, where my house is in Brooklyn most migrants are Latin American, and assimilation is a comparative walk in the park. So any lessons are limited.
It’s an iron law of the universe and your integrationalist fantasies ignore decades of evidence to the contrary. Mind you the financial cost of asylum seekers is the least bad externality. Far worse, is the social cost; the dilution of the indigenous culture in order to be endlessly accommodative, the fragmentation of the demos into factions and the power this fragmentation (sorry diversity) gives to the progressive left to liquidate Britain as itself.
A lot of natives in the UK are net fiscal costs too. This is partly a function of our welfare decisions more generally. For instance, social housing is in many places a very large subsidy it is difficult to compensate for with a high paid job