Immigration - wanting some stats

[ITSJUSTBRIDGET]

I’m so so sick of the immigration media headlines

the attached shows the immigration backlog since 1990. I’m wanting to add in the number or home office immigration staff into the graph

how did we go from a low of around 3000 in 2005 to this years figure of 91,000

ive googled home office staff in 2010 which had a total of 28,423 staff

2010, the Home Office had a total of 2811 payroll staff. This figure represents the total number of employees within Additionally, the wider Home Office group included other agencies like the Criminal Records Bureau with 668 staff, the Identity & Passport Service with 3944 staff, and the UK Border Agency with 21752 staff.

At the end of March 2024, the Home Office employed over 51,000 people in a wide range of roles, across the UK and overseas

So to summarise 2010 there were around 28k staff with a backlog of around 4000 migrants/asylum seekers

today - we have a backlog of 91000 applications with a total number of home office staff at 51000

can anyone help me out with this logic?

TO BE VERY CLEAR, I AM NOT A EXTREME RIGHT WING VOTER, I’M FOCUSED ON WHY OUR GOVERNMENT HAS NOT/IS NOT SEEMINGLY ABLE TO DEAL WITH THE BACKLOG WHICH IS NOT FAIR ON ANYONE

Anecdotally, at the tail end of the pandemic, I was in a restaurant earwigging a young man explaining to his father in law that the UK is just waving applications through to clear the backlog because our internal rules make it so difficult to say no. He worked in the civil service reviewing applications. He remarked that our approval rate is six times that of France.

Now obviously, I was eavesdropping on an unverified stranger. But, if there is any truth to it, we have made ourselves a soft option. This will only turn around if we sort out our administration, including laws.

We seem to have slightly higher acceptance at first decision than France, but not a huge difference. This doesn't take onto account how we deal with appeals though, which seem to be absolutely standard, and just used to string out the process. Not allowing appeals seems like it should be a political choice we could make, but the human rights lot would make a lot of noise!

Interestingly Denmark have similar initial acceptance at first decision to us - but are known to be really tight on what asylum means. No permanent right to adylum - it's reassessed periodically - and no right to bring in dependents. It's those restrictions which have made the difference to their numbers .

It seems that the 30k illegal arrivals a year who we decide don't have an asylum case - after all that work analysing their case, costing maybe £2billion for those failed applicants alone (£5.5 bn total for asylum seekers a year) we still can't get them out of our country.

That's what the biggest problem, and can't continue.

He was showing off to his FIL that he had insider information that was in fact… fiction

Completely agree. He was talking absolute rubbish.

You just found Rachel some savings.

Scary thing is… I wonder how many people that poster has told this story to, who have taken it as gospel

Probably about as many as bought the soundbite 'immigrants are good for the economy' without applying any critical thought or recognising that some immigrants are, some aren't, and it's not impossible to tell the difference when deciding on immigration strategy...

Don’t fret. You are the first, and better info has been on this thread. I don’t talk politics in real life.

Most are…. The vast majority are here legally, students, skilled workers etc. How on earth can they not be good for the economy?

Because they cost more than they put into the economy.
It's not just the student, its their children, and dependants, requiring schooling, healthcare, housing etc.

It's really not that hard to understand.

Students can’t bring their family on their student visa.

Yes they can and yes they do.

https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/MigObs-Briefing-Student-migration-to-the-UK-2024.pdf

It’s not just you though. I’m quite sure you’ve got the critical thinking skills to understand that what he said might not be entirely accurate, but how many other people has he said it to who’ll just assume that it must be true if he works for the HO? How many other people have over heard him saying it? And how many people has his FiL said ‘My SiL works for the HO and says…’ to, who will have taken it as gospel and will now firmly believe it?

I cannot express enough how untrue it is.

Yep. Wouldn’t believe that for a second.

This has been restricted following changes from Jan 2024. This is where the overseas student crisis that has fit university finances has come from. Sorry you’re right to say it’s possible but it’s not the route to live in the uk that it was previously.

That’s a relief

and presumably you know there’s no “truth to it? 🤞

Folks on this thread have provided, objective, verifiable evidence to the contrary. That’s good enough for me.

Let me guess… you are very much open to Reform?

So for years up until this thread…. You didn’t think it was nonsense?

It wasn’t exactly a burning issue for me. This thread did make me remember it.

It still leaves me with a lasting impression that the civil service is a bit self-serving and might not be as diligent and competent as we would like to think.

“might not be as diligent and competent as we would like to think.”

who ever thought this about the civil service 🙈😭

Why? Based on a chat you overheard years ago?

But built upon a chat this poster overheard in a restaurant of a chap clearly talking out of his arsehole to his FIL!

I think you are over focusing on a petty side anecdote. I wonder if it os because the main argument on this thread isn’t going to your liking?