Editorial: UK vs. France—Whose Asylum Support System Bears the Heavier Burden?

The issue of asylum seekers and irregular migrants crossing the English Channel has thrust the UK and France into a heated debate over who provides more generous support, fueling tensions among taxpayers in both nations. While both countries are bound by the 1951 UN Refugee Convention to offer protection to those fleeing persecution, their approaches to supporting asylum seekers—and handling irregular migrants—differ significantly in scope, generosity, and outcomes. The UK’s higher asylum grant rate and extensive support system make it a magnet for those crossing from France, where lower approval rates and stricter conditions create a less appealing destination. For taxpayers, this raises a critical question: why does the UK shoulder a heavier burden, and is it sustainable?

In the UK, asylum seekers are provided with a robust, if strained, support system. Those who apply for asylum and face destitution receive Section 95 support, including free accommodation—often in hotels, costing £8 million daily in 2023-24—and a weekly allowance of £49.18 per person for essentials like food and clothing. This equates to roughly £7 per day, a modest sum but enough to cover basic needs. Asylum seekers are barred from working, a policy that, while criticized by groups like Refugee Action, ensures reliance on state support. Healthcare is accessible via the NHS, with free GP and emergency care, and children of asylum seekers receive free education. In 2024, 106,771 asylum seekers were supported, with 32,345 housed in hotels, a costly measure driven by a backlog of 224,700 cases. The UK’s asylum grant rate is notably high—77% at initial decision in 2022, compared to 33% in 2016—making it one of Europe’s most permissive systems. This generosity, coupled with a lack of ID cards and large diaspora communities, draws migrants, particularly from Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Iran, who made up a quarter of the 108,130 asylum claims in 2024.

France, by contrast, offers a leaner support system with stricter conditions. Asylum seekers registered with the French Office for Immigration and Integration (OFII) are entitled to the Allowance for Asylum Seekers (ADA), which varies based on family size and housing status—roughly €6.80 daily for a single person without accommodation, less if housed. Housing is a major bottleneck; while asylum seekers have a legal right to accommodation, the National Reception Scheme (DNA) has far fewer places than applicants, leaving many homeless or in makeshift camps like Calais’ “Jungle.” Healthcare is accessible through France’s universal insurance for low-income applicants, and children receive free education, similar to the UK. France’s asylum grant rate, however, is far lower—25% in 2021, down from 33% in 2016—making it less attractive for those seeking long-term protection. France processes more claims (162,390 in 2024 vs. the UK’s 99,790), but its 90-day window for applications and accelerated procedures for “unfounded” cases expedite rejections and deportations, deterring some migrants. X posts, like @chilternbear11’s, claim France spends £5,000 per migrant compared to the UK’s £50,000, though these figures lack verification.

For irregular migrants—those without legal status or rejected asylum claims—the contrast is starker. In the UK, “illegal immigrants” are ineligible for mainstream benefits but can access emergency support if destitute, though they face detention and deportation. Between 2018 and 2024, only 4,995 of 157,000 small-boat arrivals were returned, a mere 3%, reflecting enforcement challenges. France, however, is more efficient at removals, leveraging the EU’s Dublin Regulation to transfer asylum seekers to the first EU country of entry. In 2021, 75% of France’s 4,157 Dublin transfers were outbound, compared to the UK’s net inbound transfers pre-Brexit. France’s tougher stance, including police interventions to prevent Channel crossings, aligns with its lower tolerance for irregular migration.

Why, then, do migrants risk deadly Channel crossings to reach the UK? X users like @MisterRee321 argue it’s the UK’s 75% grant rate versus France’s 25%, alongside perceptions of better support. Family ties, English proficiency, and colonial links—especially for Pakistanis and Eritreans—also pull migrants to the UK’s large diaspora communities. France’s squalid camps and lower approval rates push those rejected or deterred to seek better prospects across the Channel, often after failed asylum bids. The UK’s post-Brexit exit from the Dublin system further complicates returns, leaving it to absorb more arrivals.

Taxpayers in both nations bear significant costs, but the UK’s system appears more generous and less efficient. The UK spends over £2 billion annually on asylum support, including hotel accommodations, while France’s lower grant rate and faster deportations reduce long-term expenses. The UK’s high approval rate and backlog incentivize crossings, straining public resources and fueling resentment, as seen in X posts claiming migrants prefer the UK’s “soft touch.” France’s stricter approach, while not flawless, better balances humanitarian obligations with fiscal responsibility.

The UK must reform its asylum system to deter irregular migration without abandoning its legal duties. Reintroducing work rights for asylum seekers, as Refugee Action advocates, could reduce dependency on state support. Negotiating a post-Brexit returns agreement with the EU, as suggested by some analysts, could ease pressure. France, meanwhile, should address its housing shortages to uphold ECHR standards, as its camp conditions violate dignity. Both nations must cooperate to dismantle smuggling networks, as Labour’s 2024 Border Security Bill aims to do, rather than shifting blame.

The UK’s generous support and high grant rate make it a beacon for asylum seekers, but at a cost to taxpayers and system sustainability. France’s tougher stance may deter some, but its failures in housing and integration push migrants onward. Neither system is perfect, but the UK’s burden feels heavier—and without reform, it risks breaking under the weight.