Nana Akua has been left furious as she questioned why British citizens have been footing the bill for "repeated appeals for people who shouldn't be here".
This comes as a Sunday Express investigation has revealed that taxpayers have shelled out a staggering £6.6 billion on asylum seeker and refugee support schemes over the past five years.
The expenditure includes controversial items such as trips to the zoo, tennis lessons and friendship services.
The massive cost was racked up across 200 government and local council-funded schemes aimed at helping migrants "integrate" into British life.
Dr. Krish Kandiah, the founder of the Sanctuary Foundation, told GB News: "A lot of people who apply for asylum aren't given the support to actually apply properly.
"So, most people on appeal do so because they weren't given the help they needed in the first place."
LATEST DEVELOPMENTS
Nana said: "Give them more help at the taxpayer's expense? Even more money spent? "
He defended: "It would actually save money, though, because there would be less time wasted. If you have to appeal, it doubles the cost, doesn't it? If you're not given help in the first place to present your case properly, and then you have to wait another couple of years for the appeal, that's a lot of money wasted.
"So, I think there are humanitarian ways to address this."
Nana fumed: "Well, we could save the same amount of money if, after the appeal failed, they had to pay for it themselves. In this country, we don't get that kind of privilege.
"We don’t get the privilege where our legal costs are covered if we disagree with something. You have to meet certain income criteria, and even then, it doesn’t really cover many people at all.
"So why on earth should someone who comes here illegally be given access to repeated appeals? It’s ridiculous.
"If they want to appeal the decision to leave, they should pay for it themselves. Why not? That would send a lot of people back if they can't do it within a certain period of time."
The Home Office faces scrutiny over spending £664,000 on research projects to "better understand needs and support" of asylum seekers.
This includes £229,920 paid to communications company M&C Saatchi and £225,090 for research into the "lived experiences" of refugees.
Rupert Lowe MP condemned the expenditure as "lunacy" in comments to the Sunday Express.
"If someone landed from out of space, they'd say we've gone bonkers," he said.
Find Out More...
This comes as a Sunday Express investigation has revealed that taxpayers have shelled out a staggering £6.6 billion on asylum seeker and refugee support schemes over the past five years.
The expenditure includes controversial items such as trips to the zoo, tennis lessons and friendship services.
The massive cost was racked up across 200 government and local council-funded schemes aimed at helping migrants "integrate" into British life.
Dr. Krish Kandiah, the founder of the Sanctuary Foundation, told GB News: "A lot of people who apply for asylum aren't given the support to actually apply properly.
"So, most people on appeal do so because they weren't given the help they needed in the first place."
LATEST DEVELOPMENTS
- The biggest threat to this country is not fighting foreign wars it’s protecting our borders
- 'We need effective control!' Badenoch vows to ban migrants from using ECHR to fight deportation
- Migrant crisis costs Britons £220 each to fund asylum support schemes
Nana said: "Give them more help at the taxpayer's expense? Even more money spent? "
He defended: "It would actually save money, though, because there would be less time wasted. If you have to appeal, it doubles the cost, doesn't it? If you're not given help in the first place to present your case properly, and then you have to wait another couple of years for the appeal, that's a lot of money wasted.
"So, I think there are humanitarian ways to address this."
Nana fumed: "Well, we could save the same amount of money if, after the appeal failed, they had to pay for it themselves. In this country, we don't get that kind of privilege.
"We don’t get the privilege where our legal costs are covered if we disagree with something. You have to meet certain income criteria, and even then, it doesn’t really cover many people at all.
"So why on earth should someone who comes here illegally be given access to repeated appeals? It’s ridiculous.
"If they want to appeal the decision to leave, they should pay for it themselves. Why not? That would send a lot of people back if they can't do it within a certain period of time."
The Home Office faces scrutiny over spending £664,000 on research projects to "better understand needs and support" of asylum seekers.
This includes £229,920 paid to communications company M&C Saatchi and £225,090 for research into the "lived experiences" of refugees.
Rupert Lowe MP condemned the expenditure as "lunacy" in comments to the Sunday Express.
"If someone landed from out of space, they'd say we've gone bonkers," he said.
Find Out More...