2. “OK, so irregular migrants are in the country, can t we just deport them all?â€? The Home Office immigration enforcement strategy Enforcing the Rules (2007) and 2008/2009 business plan Enforcing the Deal (2008) prioritise the removal or deportation of irregular migrants who do not leave the UK voluntarily 46. For those irregular migrants who aren t a removal priority , the current strategy aims to make life in the UK so uncomfortable that they choose to leave. Research indicates that this enforcement strategy carries significant economic and social costs. In 2005 the National Audit Office (NAO) estimated that forcibly removing a refused asylum seeker costs, on average, ÂŁ11,00047. In 2008 a more detailed estimate based exclusively on asylum seekers found that it would now only cost ÂŁ11,000 for the “cheapestâ€? case (a single man in a fast track process in a detention centre) Direct costs to remove a family can exceed ÂŁ28,00048. On the 2007 estimate of 725,000 irregular migrants in the UK including families, this implies a cost of well over ÂŁ8 billion to remove all irregular migrants. It would also take a long time, about 30 years at current deportation rates 49. The NAO judged in 2005 that the Home Office did not then have the capacity to return the failed asylum seekers who had already been identified as irregular50. In 2006, the then Home Secretary announced that “the immigration enforcement budget would be doubled to ÂŁ280m a year by 201051â€?, a fraction of the ÂŁ8 billion estimated to be necessary to identify and remove those irregular migrants who continue to remain in the UK undetected. Government immigration statistics indicate the failure of the enforcement drive to find and remove irregular migrants living in the UK. In 2007 just under 28,000 people – fewer than 4% of the total estimated 725,000 irregular migrants – were removed or voluntarily left the UK following enforcement action within the country (as distinct from being turned away at ports of entry)52. Moreover this figure does not take into account the fact that, during 2007, more people will have become irregular as a result of falling outside the system. Overall, in-country enforcement measures barely make a dent in the number of irregular migrants living in the UK. Research indicates that, in addition to economic costs, tougher in-country enforcement processes levy significant social costs, likely to become increasingly apparent in the medium and long term. Enforcing the Deal outlines the Home Office s intention to
/1 )-,,2*% ! $ # ! " ! " ###&! & & "&! ( ( ! ( ! ( $( $& '" #5 $ )-,,3* $ ! " % ! %& ###&! & & "&! ( ( ! ( ! ( ! ,3+ ,4( ! ,3+,4& '" #5 $ /2 ! )-,,0*% ! # ! $ # ! ! # '&&(& 48 Accenture (2008) Final Report: Costing Work stream – NAO Asylum Study, NAO /4 ! # " % ! ! .,%,,, $ % " " ! $ ! ) ! .,%,,, ! * -,,2% ! " 1,,%,,, ! & 50 National Audit Office (2005), Returning failed asylum seekers: a report by the Controller and Auditor General Ju ly 2005. 51 The Guardian 25th July 2006 Reid tight-lipped on cost of biometric visas http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2006/jul/25/immigrationpolicy.immigration 0- )-,,3* -,,2
16