Under Monday’s changes, adults and accompanied children claiming asylum will receive a 30-month period of protection if it is granted.
At a 30-month review refugees with a continuing need of sanctuary will have their protection renewed, while those whose countries are now deemed safe will be expected to return home.
The new rules will not apply retrospectively to anyone who has applied before Monday.
Under the previous system refugees were granted five years of protection and allowed to bring their families, followed by possible permanent settlement.
Just over 100,000 people claimed asylum in 2025, 4% less than the previous year. Half of asylum seekers arrived through unauthorised entry routes, such as small boats.
The change follows Mahmood’s visit last week to Denmark, which introduced a similar approach in recent years.
The Danish government has reduced asylum claims by more than 90% in a decade, but has been accused of breaching the human rights of refugees.
Possible to argue it’s too much, not enough and all that. But the general idea, that refuge lasts until you don;t need refuge seems fair enough. As should be true of council housing of course – sure, you get help when you need it. But why in buggery should you gain a below market tenancy for life just because you did need help for a bit?
This could all be done somewhere convenient, such as South Georgia.
My preference would be Western Sahara or Mauritania: cheap land, not too far away and the locals would welcome the foreign currency for building and managing the facilities (but not the asylum process obv).
Marius, that’s more or less what Oz did. Nauru and PNG in our case. Easier for us of course, more sea to cross. Whereupon the economic migrants got told you can look for another country to take you (some did succeed in that), go home, or stay here for life, but you’re never going to Australia and you have no access to the legal system.
Nauru in particular was quite happy with the arrangement, as you say lots of foreign cash.
My preference is we do a deal.
We recognise Somaliland- in return we get a sovereign base with a runway & sheds- ( staffing by local subcontracted military)
Because is still technically UK that takes grigting lawyers out of the equation.
Because Somaliland is still looking for recognition it gives us more of a Donald deal & for bonus points sticks a finger in the eye of a lot of the not especially friendly adjoining countries.
All appeals to be dealt with on site. Tented accommodation for lawyers to be provided, but no food, bring your own.
No, no; provide the lawyers with food. The stuff the locals eat. Preferably crickets. Ban them from bringing in any food from outside because of the risk of environmental contamination.
Lawyers get to eat the local delicacy. They chose to be there, they can fend for themselves.
“Asylum seekers” should be taken care of.
Three square meals a day.
Full English – bacon, sausage, black pudding, all grilled to perfection, a handful of cold congealed beans and a rubbery egg
Lunch – ham sandwich
Dinner – Roast pork, roast potatoes basted in pork fat and veg all doused in pork stock gravy.
If they don’t like it, they can fuck off and look in a different country.
I will reserve applause until they can confirm the first 100,000 illegals sent back to whence they came. And until we stop pretending that “coming from a shithole’ justifies an asylum claim.
Well, the latter part is the problem.
The refugee convention was 1951. And a large part of why it wasn’t a big problem in Europe for decades was the cost of transport. Travel was much more expensive. You got a small number of asylum seekers from Shitholistan, mostly the former government, or wealthy people. Which is really about the only people you want.
Travel got cheaper and so everyone is trying it on. Asylum seekers learn what gets civil servants to tick boxes. The bureaucracy is not full of people who particularly want to deny claims. They’re just bureaucrats.
At some point the nettle has to be grasped, and we have to scrap this and roughly speaking, go with only named persons and groups coming in.
Wealthy, maybe. Former government, probably not so much if they’ve just been overthrown and are planning on fomenting resistance to the new government.
Nah… I’d guess that “former government” members from a shitholistan-type country will have plenty of funds squirrelled-away in Switzerland before they get overthrown.
“They’re just bureaucrats.”
Bureaucrats who have a cultural sympathy with some immigrants and a shared understanding of how things work in Shitholistan when you want a favour from a guy in charge of granting something.
Regarding that shared culture:
“UK Home Office officer Imran Mulla jailed for bribery after approving asylum claims”
He took around £1500 per case.
Gosh, really? Who’d have thought it?
Only £1,500? That’s even more annoying that it’s so cheap. They’ll get more than that a week in benefits and subsidised housing once they’re in.
My experience of people in government is that they aren’t rabid leftists. Most of them are just far too indifferent to anything to care about getting Dave Spart into power. All they want is to not do much work and get paid. And if the APPROVED button takes less work than digging around for evidence, that’s what they’ll do. Their manager is happy because the official stats tells the minister how many cases they closed.
Like Soviet tractor managers may have been fully signed up to Marxist theories but most of them just wanted to keep their jobs. Why bust a gut making tractors more efficient when the measurement is weight of tractors, which just means you have to produce more tractors? Are you going to get paid more for better tractors? No.
“Asylum seekers learn what gets civil servants to tick boxes.”
Lawyers learn what gets them to tick boxes and set up an NGO to advise seekers what boxes to tick. Lawyers get money from the government to advise said claimants.
Claimants get successful applications (or enough to give them the head start needed to disappear). Lawyers get lots of money for not doing very much. Bureaucrats get lots of applications, needing more staff. Everyone wins.
Except the poor b*stards who have to live with the seekers.
Not just NGOs, charities. We don’t know how many or the amount of funding they get not just from government but by the back door from councils staffed by their mates.
Whence not to whence. “whence” == “to where”
Call me a cynic, but I’ll bet they under resource the system so those who get to thirty months get another few years before they are assessed, and by then it will be a breach if their human rights to remove them
.
Also, re: Social Housing: the Left obviously think that this is an ‘own’:
” Less than half (47.6%) of London’s social housing was occupied by people describing themselves as born outside of the UK in the 2021 Census”
https://www.reuters.com/fact-check/foreign-born-residents-live-less-than-50-london-social-housing-2025-02-06/
Even if it was ‘only’ 47.6% in 2021, given the huge increase in immigration since then, it’s bound to be over 50% now.
When will all those claiming asylum from Iran be shipped back, I wonder?
“ But why in buggery should you gain a below market tenancy for life just because you did need help for a bit?”
Because the alternative is that once you get one you have a massive incentive not to breach the criteria that mean you can keep it? Thus giving every council house tenant a massive incentive to never better themselves and (quite likely) stay on welfare for the rest of their lives? And pass on that attitude to the nth generation?
Which is worse – some council tenants are doing very well (and paying taxes) but keep their cheap houses, or every council tenant has a huge incentive to stay a net drain on the taxpayer for ever?
If Universal Credit was administered efficiently then housing subsidies could be allocated to those in need of them (instead of to houses) and council house rents could be somewhere near to a fair rent for those with adequate incomes while remaining dirt-cheap to those who are dirt-poor. They would still be a bit cheaper than private rents anywhere that has a housing shortage because a lot of people will choose to pay extra to avoid living in a council estate.
Labour decided to set council rents at half the market rate *despite the existence of Universal Credit* because it regards council tenants as a “client class”.
Yup. Charge market rent for council housing (and you’ll know it’s market rent when there isn’t a waiting list any more), and deal with the affordability through benefits.
Then you need to set a suitable tail-off of benefits to deal with Jim’s point.
Just make *the combination of marginal tax rate and benefit withdrawal* 49.5% or a bit less.
Marginal tax rates of 50% or >50% are a significant psychological deterrent to working overtime.
The “devout Muslim” is using all the techniques permitted in her holy book to deceive the infidel into thinking she’s on their side. Let’s see it work in practice. Talk is cheap…
Suggestion.
Rule 1
Apply the new rules for women and children (up to aged 18 when, if male, rule 2 kicks in).
Rule 2
Men will be given 3 months military training (South Georgia is an excellent suggestion) before being returned to liberate their homelands.
Rule 3
If they won’t admit where they came from they can fight for Ukraine.
UK has no duty to accept ANY refugees; it is all completely voluntary.
Fleeing from France? France is deemed a “safe” country.
“adults and accompanied children claiming asylum”
But aren’t 90% of those on the small boats bearded young men who claim to be children? Making this utterly pointless.
But I’m sure she knows that.