The Asylum Backlog Hit 87,450. The Terror Watchdog Warned of a Security Risk
87,450 people are in the asylum appeals backlog. That is roughly the population of Carlisle. Imagine every man, woman and child in that city, waiting in a queue that grows by the day, more than double the number of new asylum claims made in the same year.
The numbers published this week should stop a government in its tracks. The backlog is up 71.5 percent in a single year. 70 percent of rejected claimants now appeal. 40 percent of those rejected remain in Britain regardless. Of the more than 200,000 people who have crossed the Channel illegally since 2018, only around 4 percent have ever been removed. The system is not failing to cope with the numbers. The system is the numbers.
The Home Office describes this as progress, pointing to a 72 percent fall in the initial decision backlog since 2023. What it does not say is where those decisions went. They went into the appeals system, where the backlog has more than doubled. Speeding up the front door while leaving the back door unchanged relocates the queue and multiplies it, because every rejected claimant who appeals is entitled to taxpayer-funded accommodation while they wait. The National Audit Office puts the total cost at £4.9 billion for 2024-25, with £2.1 billion spent on hotels alone.
Shabana Mahmood's response is to legislate again, restricting Article 8 family life claims to immediate family, requiring judges to prioritise public safety, and setting a 28-week limit on appeals. That legislation implicitly admits the current framework has allowed dubious family connections to block removal, that judges have not been prioritising public safety, and that appeals have run indefinitely. These are not new problems Mahmood has discovered. They have been documented for years by anyone willing to look, while those who raised them were told they were exaggerating or that no evidence existed.
Then there is Jonathan Hall. Not a commentator. Not an activist. The government's own Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, a King's Counsel appointed specifically to provide neutral expert assessment of the law. This week, in the aftermath of the Belfast stabbing and the riots that followed, Hall said publicly that immigration must be assessed in national security terms, that certain nationalities present elevated risk profiles for serious violence, and that trauma among asylum seekers from conflict zones may compound that risk further. Foreign nationals accounted for one in seven sexual offence convictions in 2024. Hall is not speculating. He is the most senior independent legal authority on terrorism law in the country, and he has said the system as it stands is a security risk.
The government's response to Hall's intervention was silence. He raised it through proper channels. Nobody answered.
So here is where Britain stands. An appeals backlog larger than the population of an entire English city, growing at 71.5 percent a year. A removal rate of 4 percent for illegal arrivals. A National Audit Office report confirming the cost is disproportionately high and driven by delay. A Home Secretary legislating to fix problems that amount to an admission the system has been broken in exactly the ways critics described. And a terror watchdog, appointed by the government itself, warning that the entire framework constitutes a national security risk, met with silence from the department responsible for it.
This is not a system under strain. It is a system working exactly as designed. Faster removals, restricted appeals, leaving the ECHR, every lever has been available for years and none pulled with urgency. The backlog will keep growing. The removal rate will stay near zero. Somewhere in that queue of 87,450, the next Belfast is already waiting its turn.
"In the aftermath of the Belfast stabbing and the riots that followed, Hall said publicly that immigration must be assessed in national security terms"
87,450 people are in the asylum appeals backlog. That is roughly the population of Carlisle. Imagine every man, woman and child in that city, waiting in a queue that grows by the day, more than double the number of new asylum claims made in the same year.
The numbers published this week should stop a government in its tracks. The backlog is up 71.5 percent in a single year. 70 percent of rejected claimants now appeal. 40 percent of those rejected remain in Britain regardless. Of the more than 200,000 people who have crossed the Channel illegally since 2018, only around 4 percent have ever been removed. The system is not failing to cope with the numbers. The system is the numbers.
The Home Office describes this as progress, pointing to a 72 percent fall in the initial decision backlog since 2023. What it does not say is where those decisions went. They went into the appeals system, where the backlog has more than doubled. Speeding up the front door while leaving the back door unchanged relocates the queue and multiplies it, because every rejected claimant who appeals is entitled to taxpayer-funded accommodation while they wait. The National Audit Office puts the total cost at £4.9 billion for 2024-25, with £2.1 billion spent on hotels alone.
Shabana Mahmood's response is to legislate again, restricting Article 8 family life claims to immediate family, requiring judges to prioritise public safety, and setting a 28-week limit on appeals. That legislation implicitly admits the current framework has allowed dubious family connections to block removal, that judges have not been prioritising public safety, and that appeals have run indefinitely. These are not new problems Mahmood has discovered. They have been documented for years by anyone willing to look, while those who raised them were told they were exaggerating or that no evidence existed.
Then there is Jonathan Hall. Not a commentator. Not an activist. The government's own Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, a King's Counsel appointed specifically to provide neutral expert assessment of the law. This week, in the aftermath of the Belfast stabbing and the riots that followed, Hall said publicly that immigration must be assessed in national security terms, that certain nationalities present elevated risk profiles for serious violence, and that trauma among asylum seekers from conflict zones may compound that risk further. Foreign nationals accounted for one in seven sexual offence convictions in 2024. Hall is not speculating. He is the most senior independent legal authority on terrorism law in the country, and he has said the system as it stands is a security risk.
The government's response to Hall's intervention was silence. He raised it through proper channels. Nobody answered.
So here is where Britain stands. An appeals backlog larger than the population of an entire English city, growing at 71.5 percent a year. A removal rate of 4 percent for illegal arrivals. A National Audit Office report confirming the cost is disproportionately high and driven by delay. A Home Secretary legislating to fix problems that amount to an admission the system has been broken in exactly the ways critics described. And a terror watchdog, appointed by the government itself, warning that the entire framework constitutes a national security risk, met with silence from the department responsible for it.
This is not a system under strain. It is a system working exactly as designed. Faster removals, restricted appeals, leaving the ECHR, every lever has been available for years and none pulled with urgency. The backlog will keep growing. The removal rate will stay near zero. Somewhere in that queue of 87,450, the next Belfast is already waiting its turn.
"In the aftermath of the Belfast stabbing and the riots that followed, Hall said publicly that immigration must be assessed in national security terms"
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
