Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Home office new pilote scheme- wtf?

36 replies

TheBlueKoala · 05/03/2026 17:35

Am I missing something; Families of failed asylum seekers have been offered up to £40,000 to leave Britain voluntarily in a new pilot scheme.

Failed asylum seekers! I will tell my friends from the US and Europe to come on holidays and then seek asylum- that will obviously fail since their countries are not deemed "dangerous" (even though the US doesn't feel particularly safe right now) and they can then be paid to return home 10 k per family member, 4 family members max. So 40 k.

Does this sound reasonable to you?

AIBU - Ofcourse it's reasonable- you're just jealous.
AINBU- Completely bonkers- wtf are they doing?

OP posts:
Xenia · 05/03/2026 20:04

Presumablky they leave, get a fake passport the next month, come back, leave with a 2nd £40k and on it goes. Could get about 12 x £40k a year I suppose.

24kPalamino · 05/03/2026 20:16

I’m intending on applying myself, (for my family and I).
I should think I will fail asylum as I already live here.
Alternatively I’m happy to leave the UK for £40,000. More than happy.

Clavinova · 05/03/2026 21:16

Tomikka · 05/03/2026 18:54

Wrong

”First safe country” refers to the EUs Dublin agreement which permitted EU members to send an asylum seeker to the first country of entry in the EU

There can be many reasons why an asylum seeker intends to go to a particular country, including existing family ties or historic ties such as former empires

EU regulations also allowed for asylum seekers to be distributed across the EU instead of concentrating on the external facing EU countries

The Brexit negotiations could have included agreements to remain in schemes such as the Dublin agreement (and Europol networks etc) but it was struck off

”First safe country” refers to the EUs Dublin agreement which permitted EU members to send an asylum seeker to the first country of entry in the EU

The Dublin III Regulation enabled the UK to return some asylum seekers to the first country of entry without considering their asylum claims.

Under the regulation, family connections and unaccompanied minors receive a higher criteria rating than 'first safe country'.

The UK's success rate with transfers was low:

Between 2015 - 2018 the UK made 18,953 outgoing requests to transfer people to other member states under the Dublin regulation, from which 1,395 people were transferred - this amounts to around 7% of outgoing requests by the UK resulting in a transfer.

During the same time period, 7,365 incoming requests were made to transfer people into the UK under the Dublin regulation, from which 2,365 people were transferred - this means that the UK accepted around 33% of requests.

EU regulations also allowed for asylum seekers to be distributed across the EU instead of concentrating on the external facing EU countries

Angela Merkel famously accepted over a million asylum seekers 2015/2016. The EU's new solidarity pact comes into force fully this year.

The Brexit negotiations could have included agreements to remain in schemes such as the Dublin agreement (and Europol networks etc) but it was struck off

Remaining with a view to what? Reducing the number of asylum seekers we process overall or numbers similar to what we have now? By way of comparison, France received over 150,000 applications last year.

Brainworm · 05/03/2026 21:45

Surely this is one of those policies where very little critical reasoning is required to acknowledge that both sides have reasonable arguments. From the perspective of the public purse, the proposal is likely to save substantial amounts and our economy needs all the help it can get. Also, it is not unreasonable to objected to giving up to £40k to families who have not been granted asylum and have run out of appeals. Many families who have lived in the UK all their lives are choosing between eating and heating, it’s unreasonable to expect them to think that giving those seeking to stay here illegally £40k is ‘right’.

NoSoupForU · 05/03/2026 22:20

OhWhatABeautifulDay · 05/03/2026 17:50

That is not asylum, though. With asylum, you are supposed to request it in the first safe country you get to.

What you are talking about is illegal immigration.

No you aren't supposed to request it in the first safe country. International law allows for people to seek asylum in any country. The reality is that most people seek asylum in neighbouring countries, because of practicalities and logistics.

suburburban · 05/03/2026 22:26

I think it is ridiculous

suburburban · 05/03/2026 22:28

Xenia · 05/03/2026 20:04

Presumablky they leave, get a fake passport the next month, come back, leave with a 2nd £40k and on it goes. Could get about 12 x £40k a year I suppose.

Yes exactly

why do we owe them anything, we didn’t ask for them to come here

ShakeNCake · 05/03/2026 22:31

I saw that a similar programme was started in Sweden and had really low uptake. People simply preferred to stay in Sweden than travel back to potentially dangerous areas. So they have just increased the amount in 2025. It doesn't seem like it's working there, I can't find any stats for take up after the financial increase, so I'm not sure how it would work here either.

NoSoupForU · 05/03/2026 22:36

You know they don't get their spot on the boats for free, yeah? It isn't a pull when it's likely costing more to get here in the first place.

And the terms will be similar, if not the same, as for the voluntary scheme already in place so no, people can't just hop back over for another go.

All of this is smoke and mirrors to detract from the actual issues which are that removing housing from people will result in more people sleeping rough, and that pushing forward with redefining refugee status as temporary, meaning people who've lived here for many years would be at risk of being deported.

Asosbabe · 07/03/2026 09:34

TheFilliesWillRiseAgain · 05/03/2026 17:55

The point of the Rwanda scheme was that it would DETER people from coming to the UK.

Offering them £40,000 to leave even though they're illegally here and have been told to leave sounds like it will ATTRACT more people.

This

Fluffyholeysocks · 07/03/2026 09:47

It just demonstrates to me that 'smash the gangs' was never going to work. Instead of actually formulating a policy to deter people with unfounded claims coming here, we have given up and are bribing them to leave. Can I ask if France do this? If not I wonder why?

New posts on this thread. Refresh page
Swipe left for the next trending thread