The question of whether asylum seekers in the UK should be granted the right to work after six months is sparking debate across the country. Under current laws, individuals who apply for asylum must wait a minimum of twelve months before they can request permission to work—provided the delay in processing their claim isn’t their fault. Even then, the jobs they can take are strictly limited to roles like care work, bricklaying, shipbuilding, and certain other skilled professions. Advocates for reducing the waiting period argue this restriction places unnecessary strain on both asylum seekers and public resources.
There is growing support for the idea that allowing asylum seekers to work after six months could significantly ease the financial pressure on the UK government. Recent data reveals that the cost of accommodating and supporting the asylum population skyrocketed to £5.4 billion in 2023–24—a dramatic increase from the £940 million spent in 2019–20. Supporters of early access to work believe that enabling asylum seekers to earn a living not only fosters independence but also alleviates the heavy financial burden currently shouldered by taxpayers. Additionally, this approach could lead to quicker integration, giving individuals a chance to contribute to the economy rather than remain dependent on state aid.
Beyond the economic argument, proponents say employment offers a path to societal inclusion. By interacting with colleagues and engaging in daily routines, asylum seekers can form social bonds and gain a sense of purpose—two factors that may help break down barriers and reduce social divisions. Encouraging them to participate in the workforce could promote cohesion and lessen the stigma that sometimes surrounds those seeking refuge. For many, employment is about more than money; it’s a matter of dignity, identity, and hope for a better future.
However, critics warn that reducing the waiting time could inadvertently fuel illegal crossings. The concern is that granting work rights too early might act as an incentive—or “pull factor”—for others contemplating the hazardous journey across the English Channel. These critics worry it could complicate efforts to manage borders and deter irregular migration. Furthermore, once an asylum seeker has integrated into the job market, deporting them in cases where their claim is ultimately denied may prove more difficult, adding a legal and ethical layer to the challenge.
Meanwhile, the UK government appears to be exploring additional strategies to tackle the broader issue of migration. Recent reports indicate that officials have engaged in discussions with France over a possible agreement that would see migrants transferred between the two countries on a one-for-one basis. While specific details remain scarce, a government spokesperson confirmed intensified cooperation with European partners. As discussions continue and more migrants cross the Channel—over 8,000 this year alone—the debate over the right to work highlights the broader challenges the UK faces in balancing humanitarian responsibilities with practical immigration policies.