NotKindle.com ( No Worries ) . 100% FREE

migration. The question should therefore be: **What is the money actually achieving?** If Britain spends money overseas, there should be a clear objective. If the objective is development, measure development. If the objective is reducing irregular migration, measure that. And if a programme is not achieving its purpose, change it. ## Development and migration There is an interesting paradox here. As countries become wealthier, more people can sometimes afford to travel. A person living in extreme poverty may not have enough money to pay a smuggler. A person whose circumstances improve may suddenly have the resources to make the journey. That means development does not automatically produce less migration in the short term. It can sometimes produce more mobility. This is another reason why there are no simple answers. ## The countries in between Britain also needs to work with countries along the migration routes. If somebody travels through several safe countries before reaching Britain, there is a legitimate policy question: **Where should that person's asylum claim be considered?** The answer is not always straightforward. Different countries have different laws. Some people have family connections in particular countries. Some countries may not be safe for particular individuals. And international agreements matter. But Britain should nevertheless examine the whole journey rather than concentrating only on the final few miles across the Channel. ## The long-term objective The long-term objective should be to reduce the number of people who believe that paying a smuggler is their best option. That requires several things working together. Better information. Action against smugglers. Faster asylum decisions. Effective returns where legally possible. International cooperation. And sensible development policies. None of these measures will eliminate migration. That is not realistic. People have always moved between countries. The objective is more specific: **Reduce dangerous irregular migration and bring it under effective control.** That is something a government can reasonably aim for. And it brings us to another important question. If Britain is going to control immigration effectively, **what should the British public actually be told about the numbers and the cost?** # Chapter Eleven ## What Does It Really Cost? Ask an ordinary person what immigration costs Britain and you will hear very different answers. Some will say it costs billions. Some will say immigrants contribute more than they take out. Some will say the whole system is out of control. Others will say the figures are exaggerated. The problem is that people are often arguing about different numbers. So if this book is going to ask what Britain should do, we first need to ask a simpler question: **What does the system actually cost?** ## Start with the facts There are several different costs involved in immigration and asylum. There is the cost of processing applications. There is accommodation for people who would otherwise be destitute while their asylum claims are considered. There are staff. There are transport costs. There are legal costs. There are detention and removal costs. There are policing and border-security costs. And there are the costs associated with people who remain in the system for long periods. These costs should be published clearly. Not buried inside complicated government accounts. Not presented in a way that makes comparison difficult. The public should be able to see where the money goes. ## Hotels became the symbol For many people, hotels became the symbol of the whole immigration debate. They saw pictures of hotels being used to accommodate asylum seekers. They saw people being brought into towns and villages. And they compared this with their own experience of struggling to find somewhere to live. That created anger.