Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Politics |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The government has set out plans to end the use of hotels to hold asylum seekers by 2029. Rachel Reeves says it will save £1bn a year. She has also pledged £200m (tax payers money) to "cut the asylum backlog, hear more appeal cases and return people who have no right to be here’. Presumed part of Labour's plan to recruit 1000 extra home office caseworkers. Serco and Clearsprings websites asking for private sector rentals. Clearsprings Ready Homes has two ten year contracts with the government to operate accommodation for asylum seekers in Wales and the South of England until 2029, at a total cost of over £1 billion. Clearsprings profits £180million over past three years. In the 12 months to April 2025, UK private rents increased by 7.4%, reaching an average of £1,335 per month. Is this just moving the deckchairs and putting more pressure on demand for private and social rented homes, which will drive up rents? " yep, they are currently trying to build some lovely new houses for them instead…..until the incentives go, they will keep on coming. And before any of the lefties say “oh, they are escaping war”….. they are leaving France. There is no war in France. They are only coming to the UK because they don’t have to live in poor rented accommodation in the UK and will get put up in hotels/housing and ultimately allowed to stay. The UK is a soft touch. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What kind of fighting age men leave their families behind if they are fleeing war? " Men going to war do not take their families, men fleeing war take their families. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What kind of fighting age men leave their families behind if they are fleeing war? Men going to war do not take their families, men fleeing war take their families." If only our government could see what we can see. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"And before any of the lefties say “oh, they are escaping war”…" They are not escaping war, or claiming to be. Escaping war is not acceptable grounds for an asylum claim. They have to be fleeing a "justifiable fear of persecution". | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"This whole problem would go away if we: a) gave people routes to asylum (could be through something set up on the mainland continent), rather than causing them to use risky routes." At the moment some people are not willing to take the risk of a channel crossing, so they don't come. If we gave them safe routes, that risk is gone, so there would be more applicants. Safe routes solve the problem of people dying in the channel, they don't solve the problem of people arriving here and needing to be housed. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"This whole problem would go away if we: a) gave people routes to asylum (could be through something set up on the mainland continent), rather than causing them to use risky routes. At the moment some people are not willing to take the risk of a channel crossing, so they don't come. If we gave them safe routes, that risk is gone, so there would be more applicants. Safe routes solve the problem of people dying in the channel, they don't solve the problem of people arriving here and needing to be housed." Why should they be housed. If a marriage brakes up and there are children then the guy is all but homeless there is no support for people allredy living in the UK. To be fair if I was to split aged 30 and end up homeless it might be worth going to France and getting a small boat back for a hotel room and food. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"This whole problem would go away if we: a) gave people routes to asylum (could be through something set up on the mainland continent), rather than causing them to use risky routes. At the moment some people are not willing to take the risk of a channel crossing, so they don't come. If we gave them safe routes, that risk is gone, so there would be more applicants. Safe routes solve the problem of people dying in the channel, they don't solve the problem of people arriving here and needing to be housed. Why should they be housed. If a marriage brakes up and there are children then the guy is all but homeless there is no support for people allredy living in the UK. To be fair if I was to split aged 30 and end up homeless it might be worth going to France and getting a small boat back for a hotel room and food. " A person fleeing persecution and threat of death is hardly comparable to a married (or unmarried) couple separating, whether or not there are children involved. In a lot of cases, the person leaving the family home will have options of where they can stay as they will know people who could allow them to live with them - that is far less likely to be the case for an asylum seeker. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"This whole problem would go away if we: a) gave people routes to asylum (could be through something set up on the mainland continent), rather than causing them to use risky routes." "At the moment some people are not willing to take the risk of a channel crossing, so they don't come. If we gave them safe routes, that risk is gone, so there would be more applicants. Safe routes solve the problem of people dying in the channel, they don't solve the problem of people arriving here and needing to be housed." "Why should they be housed." Because we've signed an international agreement that we'll protect all refugees. That means that if someone arrives and claims asylum, we have to look after them. We have not signed any such agreement to protect our own citizens in that way. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Labour Minister on Question Time last night claimed most asylum seekers are women and children.🤦" Another 452 this week | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Labour Minister on Question Time last night claimed most asylum seekers are women and children.🤦 Another 452 this week " All children with beards perhaps? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I was all for housing them in military barracks. So what the buildings have asbestos in them, if the hotel was built before 2000 it will have it in that. Military barracks will have a medical area to treat issues, offices to help process people. Ok, not the best places to sleep, but it is good enough for enlisted men, it is good enough.for them." The ministry of defence has 10,000 long term empty houses that cost the taxpayer £25M annually to maintain. Another scandal when veterans can’t get social housing. Why there’s weren’t used instead of hotels ? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I was all for housing them in military barracks. So what the buildings have asbestos in them, if the hotel was built before 2000 it will have it in that. Military barracks will have a medical area to treat issues, offices to help process people. Ok, not the best places to sleep, but it is good enough for enlisted men, it is good enough.for them. The ministry of defence has 10,000 long term empty houses that cost the taxpayer £25M annually to maintain. Another scandal when veterans can’t get social housing. Why there’s weren’t used instead of hotels ? " Probably they were riddled with asbestos, just like the barracks | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I’d love to hear some anecdotes about how any of you have been personally and specifically affected by asylum seekers." Is that how it works, you can't have an opinion about something unless you've been personally affected? So I can't have an opinion about burglary because I've never had my house broken into, and you can't have an opinion on obesity because you've never been fat? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I’d love to hear some anecdotes about how any of you have been personally and specifically affected by asylum seekers. Is that how it works, you can't have an opinion about something unless you've been personally affected? So I can't have an opinion about burglary because I've never had my house broken into, and you can't have an opinion on obesity because you've never been fat?" I think you might be projecting again. I didn’t say any of those things. Take your victim fetish elsewhere. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Well my daughter used to walk my dog in the woods behind a local hotel before it was filled with young men we know nothing about,she feels scared and intimidated by groups of them hanging around on the footpath so she stopped going there with my dog. A friend of mine had a small cafe next to the hotel which guests used to frequent but he's now at to close down because there's no footfall from the hotel and the local residents steer clear of the area also because of the groups of young men hanging around. " I can imagine that’s difficult. I lived near one in Stockport and (although there was never any actual trouble) at night it was eerily foreboding. Lots of groups of young men kinda just looking at you blankly. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I’d love to hear some anecdotes about how any of you have been personally and specifically affected by asylum seekers. " I have worked with unaccompanied children and families seeking asylum. The children had horrific experiences, some had witnessed their parents being killed, others had been trafficked. The families were learning about a British law, how to fit in, what was expected of them. Their occupations ranged from chefs to police officers to doctors and teachers. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Not only are the hotels a cost to the taxpayer a burden but the local businesses who rely on the hotel guests cafes,restaurants,taxi firms,wedding organisers etc are all missing out on potential trade. Add the safety issue of groups of young men hanging about and it's just insane this is been allowed to happen. " Down here in Plymouth the councils have used hotels and holiday lets for asylum and homeless. The owners grateful of the income as tourism has been wankered since Covid/ cost of living Now the government are instructing councils to move them into private rentals or holiday let’s rebadged as private rentals. At above market rents. The schemes administered by likes of Serco, a few housing assns who add a hundred pounds a week to the rent for their ‘administration’ services. Tax payer coughing up for all of this. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The BBC are reporting that asylum sites are to be expanded to ease the pressure on hotels. However they point out that this is opposite to what SKS pledged in the run up to the GE for one of the sites at least. From the bbc: Sir Keir Starmer pledged to close the Wethersfield asylum facility during last year's election campaign, but the BBC understands that site and another in Huddersfield are among those under consideration for extensions. " Nearly 1400 more arrivals this last week. That’s at least one new facility needed | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The BBC are reporting that asylum sites are to be expanded to ease the pressure on hotels. However they point out that this is opposite to what SKS pledged in the run up to the GE for one of the sites at least. From the bbc: Sir Keir Starmer pledged to close the Wethersfield asylum facility during last year's election campaign, but the BBC understands that site and another in Huddersfield are among those under consideration for extensions. Nearly 1400 more arrivals this last week. That’s at least one new facility needed " Wow that is a lot so can see the urgent need. Seems SKS is prepared to break his pre election pledge on this. Seem to recall he also pledged to smash the gangs too. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The plan has been announced as looking to buy existing empty tower blocks and old student halls that are out of use to remove the need for private rentals and small hotels being used. Many of the so called '5* hotels' are actually empty buildings that have been dormant since going bust during covid. Housing associations do not give accommodation to asylum seekers. They're not eligible until leave to remain has been granted and even then they have to join the same queues as locals. The whole situation regarding serco is yet another example of tory cronyism reminiscent of track and trace. The contracts were given out en masses predominantly to companies with links to tory donors and supporters. Follow the money and you'll discover why applications were so slow to be dealt with. The longer they stay, the more the likes of serco are paid. The funding to build more houses will go to councils and social housing providers to meet the existing backlog of locals, many of whom have been waiting years for long term housing solutions. It's got nothing to do with creating homes for asylum seekers, despite what the media portray. 🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️" I think whichever party is in power, they look after their “buddies” when awarding contracts etc. it’s just human nature | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I’d love to hear some anecdotes about how any of you have been personally and specifically affected by asylum seekers. Is that how it works, you can't have an opinion about something unless you've been personally affected? So I can't have an opinion about burglary because I've never had my house broken into, and you can't have an opinion on obesity because you've never been fat?" Can someone have an opinion about burglary, if they are a Burglar?? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Over 40% increase in those crossing compared to this time last year. Smashing the gangs seems to have turned into its smashing for the gangs." Still down on the peak numbers from when the last government was in....and they said the same thing. 🤷♂️ | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Over 40% increase in those crossing compared to this time last year. Smashing the gangs seems to have turned into its smashing for the gangs. Still down on the peak numbers from when the last government was in....and they said the same thing. 🤷♂️" 2025 is on track to be higher than 2022 when the conservatives had their highest recorded numbers. 2 things are playing into this right now, the great weather and the new tactic of people simply entering the water to be picked up, they are calling it a taxi service. The French police will not enter the water to stop them, another loophole found and exploited. Every method authorities are deploying to stop the boats leaving France seems to be failing. This would have happened whatever the party in power. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Over 40% increase in those crossing compared to this time last year. Smashing the gangs seems to have turned into its smashing for the gangs. Still down on the peak numbers from when the last government was in....and they said the same thing. 🤷♂️ 2025 is on track to be higher than 2022 when the conservatives had their highest recorded numbers. 2 things are playing into this right now, the great weather and the new tactic of people simply entering the water to be picked up, they are calling it a taxi service. The French police will not enter the water to stop them, another loophole found and exploited. Every method authorities are deploying to stop the boats leaving France seems to be failing. This would have happened whatever the party in power. " Yep! The French won't stop them leaving and the British Navy can't due to International law (despite what Farage proposes in the Reform manifesto). Nor can we (as we could pre brexit under the Dublin Agreement) return anyone in them that's come from an EU country back to that country. Again....thanks Boris and Farage. But of course...it's all Labours fault. 🤦♂️🤦♂️ | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Over 40% increase in those crossing compared to this time last year. Smashing the gangs seems to have turned into its smashing for the gangs. Still down on the peak numbers from when the last government was in....and they said the same thing. 🤷♂️" The BBC report reads as though this is on course for a record breaking year of crossings. Sks tactic and promise was to smash the gangs. His first full year could well see record breaking numbers crossing, so not smashed as far as I see. The previous bunch of clowns, as far as I recall did not use the smash the gangs tactic. They tried a deterrent tactic but that, as many said, got bogged down in legal stuff. It was this that SKS said he had a better solution to, and one that would work. To date the figures are going in the wrong direction and at a fast pace | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Over 40% increase in those crossing compared to this time last year. Smashing the gangs seems to have turned into its smashing for the gangs. Still down on the peak numbers from when the last government was in....and they said the same thing. 🤷♂️ The BBC report reads as though this is on course for a record breaking year of crossings. Sks tactic and promise was to smash the gangs. His first full year could well see record breaking numbers crossing, so not smashed as far as I see. The previous bunch of clowns, as far as I recall did not use the smash the gangs tactic. They tried a deterrent tactic but that, as many said, got bogged down in legal stuff. It was this that SKS said he had a better solution to, and one that would work. To date the figures are going in the wrong direction and at a fast pace" That quote was made last November when he'd signed new agreements with Balkan countries re better cooperation. It will take time. The main issue is that most gangs are located overseas so rely on international cooperation. Although a guy was sentenced to 25 years in May and 7 others just jailed 3 days ago. 🤷♂️ | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Poland has the right idea on illegal crossings" Polands policy is related to groups of men allegedly being sent to cross the border by the Russian and Belarus governments deliberatly. It doesn't affect migrants from elsewhere and doesn't stop people applying for asylum there. Not really a reasonable comparison. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I’d love to hear some anecdotes about how any of you have been personally and specifically affected by asylum seekers." "Is that how it works, you can't have an opinion about something unless you've been personally affected? So I can't have an opinion about burglary because I've never had my house broken into, and you can't have an opinion on obesity because you've never been fat?" "Can someone have an opinion about burglary, if they are a Burglar??" I think anyone can have an opinion on any topic even if they aren't directly affected. You'll have to ask the other guy what he thinks. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Nor can we (as we could pre brexit under the Dublin Agreement) return anyone in them that's come from an EU country back to that country. Again....thanks Boris and Farage." The Dublin Agreements allowed us to return asylum seekers to the EU if they had previously made a claim, and had failed, in another EU country. It wasn't a general right of return. At its peak it covered no more than 2,500 people in a year (about 5% of arrivals). In every year that it operated, the UK had to accept more returns from the EU than we sent back there. But it was ended by Brexit. You got that bit right. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"They will just start putting more of them into public housing. Less homes for Brits who can’t afford to buy. Typical Lyebour!" An article in the news recently, there are now 1 million households with at least one immigrant and it costs us £1 billion a month in universal credit.I don't know if that is the total benefits bill for these people or housing, family credit,bills, council tax etc go on top of that.Add in the £6 billion a year for hotels. Then the cost of health, education, social services etc and we are well over £20 billion for people who have never contributed a penny.That is every year and only going to rise. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"They will just start putting more of them into public housing. Less homes for Brits who can’t afford to buy. Typical Lyebour! An article in the news recently, there are now 1 million households with at least one immigrant and it costs us £1 billion a month in universal credit.I don't know if that is the total benefits bill for these people or housing, family credit,bills, council tax etc go on top of that.Add in the £6 billion a year for hotels. Then the cost of health, education, social services etc and we are well over £20 billion for people who have never contributed a penny.That is every year and only going to rise." That is relatively conservative numbers, some calculate it to be £40 billion | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"They will just start putting more of them into public housing. Less homes for Brits who can’t afford to buy. Typical Lyebour! An article in the news recently, there are now 1 million households with at least one immigrant and it costs us £1 billion a month in universal credit.I don't know if that is the total benefits bill for these people or housing, family credit,bills, council tax etc go on top of that.Add in the £6 billion a year for hotels. Then the cost of health, education, social services etc and we are well over £20 billion for people who have never contributed a penny.That is every year and only going to rise. That is relatively conservative numbers, some calculate it to be £40 billion " Not only have they not contributed I guess they can now bring family to join them. And posably never will work and pay in to a system. Let's face it why would you if you have a roof over your head and food. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"They will just start putting more of them into public housing. Less homes for Brits who can’t afford to buy. Typical Lyebour! An article in the news recently, there are now 1 million households with at least one immigrant and it costs us £1 billion a month in universal credit.I don't know if that is the total benefits bill for these people or housing, family credit,bills, council tax etc go on top of that.Add in the £6 billion a year for hotels. Then the cost of health, education, social services etc and we are well over £20 billion for people who have never contributed a penny.That is every year and only going to rise. That is relatively conservative numbers, some calculate it to be £40 billion " At 40 billion that's roughly £571 for every man woman and child. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"They will just start putting more of them into public housing. Less homes for Brits who can’t afford to buy. Typical Lyebour! An article in the news recently, there are now 1 million households with at least one immigrant and it costs us £1 billion a month in universal credit.I don't know if that is the total benefits bill for these people or housing, family credit,bills, council tax etc go on top of that.Add in the £6 billion a year for hotels. Then the cost of health, education, social services etc and we are well over £20 billion for people who have never contributed a penny.That is every year and only going to rise. That is relatively conservative numbers, some calculate it to be £40 billion At 40 billion that's roughly £571 for every man woman and child." Nearer £1200 per tax payer. £100 a month supporting immigrants. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"They will just start putting more of them into public housing. Less homes for Brits who can’t afford to buy. Typical Lyebour! An article in the news recently, there are now 1 million households with at least one immigrant and it costs us £1 billion a month in universal credit.I don't know if that is the total benefits bill for these people or housing, family credit,bills, council tax etc go on top of that.Add in the £6 billion a year for hotels. Then the cost of health, education, social services etc and we are well over £20 billion for people who have never contributed a penny.That is every year and only going to rise." It's strange then that people are always claiming it's working age men coming over. If that were true and assuming they were granted asylum, they'd then have to follow the rules re benefits the same as everyone else. Which means they wouldn't be eligible for most elements UC being single and would be expected to seek work. So is the common narrative about them all being men in fact incorrect? Is it the same as the old trope about them coming to take our jobs AND benefits at the same time? 🤔 The only two sources I can find online for those figures (actually quoted as £7.5bn so not £1bn per month) are the Torygraph and GB News, which arent exactly the most unbiased sources out there. Universal credit is an in work benefit of course. The total bill is £90bn a year out of a total welfare bill of £300bn a year, the majority of which is pensions and pensioner benefits. There's actually plenty of UK residents claiming that have never paid into the system either. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" It's strange then that people are always claiming it's working age men coming over. If that were true and assuming they were granted asylum, they'd then have to follow the rules re benefits the same as everyone else. Which means they wouldn't be eligible for most elements UC being single and would be expected to seek work. So is the common narrative about them all being men in fact incorrect? Is it the same as the old trope about them coming to take our jobs AND benefits at the same time? 🤔 The only two sources I can find online for those figures (actually quoted as £7.5bn so not £1bn per month) are the Torygraph and GB News, which arent exactly the most unbiased sources out there. Universal credit is an in work benefit of course. The total bill is £90bn a year out of a total welfare bill of £300bn a year, the majority of which is pensions and pensioner benefits. There's actually plenty of UK residents claiming that have never paid into the system either. " Nor does there seem to be much mention of the successful asylum applicants who then become refugees and can (and do) work, paying income tax and national insurance. One of the articles I mentioned above explains that the men seek asylum first, and then the wives and children follow, suggesting that the social media portrayal of the influx of 'fighting age men' isn't that accurate. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" It's strange then that people are always claiming it's working age men coming over. If that were true and assuming they were granted asylum, they'd then have to follow the rules re benefits the same as everyone else. Which means they wouldn't be eligible for most elements UC being single and would be expected to seek work. So is the common narrative about them all being men in fact incorrect? Is it the same as the old trope about them coming to take our jobs AND benefits at the same time? 🤔 The only two sources I can find online for those figures (actually quoted as £7.5bn so not £1bn per month) are the Torygraph and GB News, which arent exactly the most unbiased sources out there. Universal credit is an in work benefit of course. The total bill is £90bn a year out of a total welfare bill of £300bn a year, the majority of which is pensions and pensioner benefits. There's actually plenty of UK residents claiming that have never paid into the system either. Nor does there seem to be much mention of the successful asylum applicants who then become refugees and can (and do) work, paying income tax and national insurance. One of the articles I mentioned above explains that the men seek asylum first, and then the wives and children follow, suggesting that the social media portrayal of the influx of 'fighting age men' isn't that accurate. " It is initially, then they bring the whole family over not a nice tasty universal credit and pip claim | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" It's strange then that people are always claiming it's working age men coming over. If that were true and assuming they were granted asylum, they'd then have to follow the rules re benefits the same as everyone else. Which means they wouldn't be eligible for most elements UC being single and would be expected to seek work. So is the common narrative about them all being men in fact incorrect? Is it the same as the old trope about them coming to take our jobs AND benefits at the same time? 🤔 The only two sources I can find online for those figures (actually quoted as £7.5bn so not £1bn per month) are the Torygraph and GB News, which arent exactly the most unbiased sources out there. Universal credit is an in work benefit of course. The total bill is £90bn a year out of a total welfare bill of £300bn a year, the majority of which is pensions and pensioner benefits. There's actually plenty of UK residents claiming that have never paid into the system either. Nor does there seem to be much mention of the successful asylum applicants who then become refugees and can (and do) work, paying income tax and national insurance. One of the articles I mentioned above explains that the men seek asylum first, and then the wives and children follow, suggesting that the social media portrayal of the influx of 'fighting age men' isn't that accurate. It is initially, then they bring the whole family over not a nice tasty universal credit and pip claim " If you read the articles...... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"They will just start putting more of them into public housing. Less homes for Brits who can’t afford to buy. Typical Lyebour! An article in the news recently, there are now 1 million households with at least one immigrant and it costs us £1 billion a month in universal credit.I don't know if that is the total benefits bill for these people or housing, family credit,bills, council tax etc go on top of that.Add in the £6 billion a year for hotels. Then the cost of health, education, social services etc and we are well over £20 billion for people who have never contributed a penny.That is every year and only going to rise. That is relatively conservative numbers, some calculate it to be £40 billion Not only have they not contributed I guess they can now bring family to join them. And posably never will work and pay in to a system. Let's face it why would you if you have a roof over your head and food. " From Full Facts As we’ve previously stated, the Department for Work and Pensions does not hold figures showing the number of immigrants receiving benefits or pension payments. However, analysis by the Migration Observatory found that in 2022, migrants were less likely to claim unemployment benefits than people born in the UK. Misleading claims about the amount immigrants receive in state support regularly circulate on social media, and we’ve written about several such posts previously. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"They will just start putting more of them into public housing. Less homes for Brits who can’t afford to buy. Typical Lyebour!" Shame it was the Tories who fucked it up, by giving us Brexit. As part of Brexit, we can't send them back. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"They will just start putting more of them into public housing. Less homes for Brits who can’t afford to buy. Typical Lyebour!" A number of politicians have claimed that migrants are being prioritised for council housing, or that British families are being de-prioritised in favour of migrants. These claims have been made following the government’s decision not to proceed with the Conservatives’ plans to introduce the “UK connection test” described above. But this doesn’t mean that migrants are being prioritised ahead of those born in the UK as a matter of course....... Asylum seekers who require accommodation are provided it by the government. Some asylum seekers are housed in hotels, while others are housed in accommodation provided by companies contracted by the Home Office, most of which is privately owned. Some critics of government policy have argued that the increased need for housing for asylum seekers reduces the availability of housing for others, but it’s important to be clear that the housing provided for asylum seekers is not the same as social housing—a government spokesperson told Full Fact: “social housing stock is not used to accommodate supported asylum seekers”. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"They will just start putting more of them into public housing. Less homes for Brits who can’t afford to buy. Typical Lyebour! A number of politicians have claimed that migrants are being prioritised for council housing, or that British families are being de-prioritised in favour of migrants. These claims have been made following the government’s decision not to proceed with the Conservatives’ plans to introduce the “UK connection test” described above. But this doesn’t mean that migrants are being prioritised ahead of those born in the UK as a matter of course....... Asylum seekers who require accommodation are provided it by the government. Some asylum seekers are housed in hotels, while others are housed in accommodation provided by companies contracted by the Home Office, most of which is privately owned. Some critics of government policy have argued that the increased need for housing for asylum seekers reduces the availability of housing for others, but it’s important to be clear that the housing provided for asylum seekers is not the same as social housing—a government spokesperson told Full Fact: “social housing stock is not used to accommodate supported asylum seekers”." Never the less, housing that ‘could’ be used for accommodating others , is used for accommodating asylum seekers. There is a finite amount of housing available in the country, the housing of asylum seekers in that housing will mean it is no longer available for others. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Shame it was the Tories who fucked it up, by giving us Brexit. As part of Brexit, we can't send them back." That's just not true. Search for "Dublin" in this thread. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"France gives them literally nothing in the way of support, maybe we should too. Stamer the harmer should have said "you want our fish, you take back your illegal immigrants" " They're not French asylum seekers! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"France gives them literally nothing in the way of support, maybe we should too. Stamer the harmer should have said "you want our fish, you take back your illegal immigrants" " It takes seconds to find out that's incorrect. Aside from the money listed below they get accommodation, access to healthcare and eduction for children. "In France, asylum seekers receive a daily allowance called Allocation pour Demandeur d'Asile (ADA), which varies depending on their family situation. For a single adult, the daily allowance is €6.80 (approximately €204 per month), while a couple with two children may receive up to €17 per day (around €510 per month). Additionally, some asylum seekers may receive extra financial aid, particularly if they haven't been placed in a reception center. " | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There seems to be a misconception around 'illegal immigrants', asylum seekers and refugees. Illegal immigrants according to the IRC website - Using the term 'illegal' to describe people who have entered the UK through irregular routes is problematic for several reasons. First, no person should be defined as illegal simply for a journey they took to seek asylum. Describing people who have fled war and persecution as 'illegal' is dehumanising and portrays them as criminals and threats, encouraging punishment rather than humane policies. Asylum seekers use irregular means to reach the country of asylum. They are not illegal. Then, if their asylum application is successful, they are granted leave to remain, can apply for jobs and claim benefits, if needed. Most do not claim benefits (see earlier links) and therefore contribute to the economy. If asylum seekers were processed in a timely fashion, then those successful who become refugees would be contributing to the economy for longer. From NEISR This mixed-methods NIESR discussion paper estimates the economic and social impacts of lifting the right-to-work restriction on people seeking asylum in the UK. This is the first paper to simulate the effect of lifting this restriction with the use of a state-of-the-art macroeconomic model which allows us to estimate this outcome in a more holistic manner. We find that the annual impact from allowing people seeking asylum the right to work would be: Increased Tax Revenue by £1.3 billion Reduced Government Expenditure by £6.7 billion Increased GDP by £1.6 billion " Shhhhh.🤫🤫🤫 Facts don't come close to emotions and Facey memes when it comes to discussions on immigration. Nor laws, housing policies and rules, benefit entitlements and statistics. They don't sell papers or get 'likes and shares' on social media. 🤦♂️ | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There seems to be a misconception around 'illegal immigrants', asylum seekers and refugees. Illegal immigrants according to the IRC website - Using the term 'illegal' to describe people who have entered the UK through irregular routes is problematic for several reasons. First, no person should be defined as illegal simply for a journey they took to seek asylum. Describing people who have fled war and persecution as 'illegal' is dehumanising and portrays them as criminals and threats, encouraging punishment rather than humane policies. Asylum seekers use irregular means to reach the country of asylum. They are not illegal. Then, if their asylum application is successful, they are granted leave to remain, can apply for jobs and claim benefits, if needed. Most do not claim benefits (see earlier links) and therefore contribute to the economy. If asylum seekers were processed in a timely fashion, then those successful who become refugees would be contributing to the economy for longer. From NEISR This mixed-methods NIESR discussion paper estimates the economic and social impacts of lifting the right-to-work restriction on people seeking asylum in the UK. This is the first paper to simulate the effect of lifting this restriction with the use of a state-of-the-art macroeconomic model which allows us to estimate this outcome in a more holistic manner. We find that the annual impact from allowing people seeking asylum the right to work would be: Increased Tax Revenue by £1.3 billion Reduced Government Expenditure by £6.7 billion Increased GDP by £1.6 billion Shhhhh.🤫🤫🤫 Facts don't come close to emotions and Facey memes when it comes to discussions on immigration. Nor laws, housing policies and rules, benefit entitlements and statistics. They don't sell papers or get 'likes and shares' on social media. 🤦♂️" Oh, I know!!! Even more reason to get the facts out there, though. 🕵️ | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"France gives them literally nothing in the way of support, maybe we should too. Stamer the harmer should have said "you want our fish, you take back your illegal immigrants" " Just give them an area like in France to camp. Manston air port would make a good refugee camp. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Over 40% increase in those crossing compared to this time last year. Smashing the gangs seems to have turned into its smashing for the gangs. Still down on the peak numbers from when the last government was in....and they said the same thing. 🤷♂️ The BBC report reads as though this is on course for a record breaking year of crossings. Sks tactic and promise was to smash the gangs. His first full year could well see record breaking numbers crossing, so not smashed as far as I see. The previous bunch of clowns, as far as I recall did not use the smash the gangs tactic. They tried a deterrent tactic but that, as many said, got bogged down in legal stuff. It was this that SKS said he had a better solution to, and one that would work. To date the figures are going in the wrong direction and at a fast pace That quote was made last November when he'd signed new agreements with Balkan countries re better cooperation. It will take time. The main issue is that most gangs are located overseas so rely on international cooperation. Although a guy was sentenced to 25 years in May and 7 others just jailed 3 days ago. 🤷♂️" I was meaning the previous clowns did not use that a their main tag line that gets repeated every opportunity as opposed to saying it or something similar on the odd occasion. None of Which of course changes the fact that more and more are crossing using the gangs that are clearly not smashed | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The government has set out plans to end the use of hotels to hold asylum seekers by 2029. Rachel Reeves says it will save £1bn a year. She has also pledged £200m (tax payers money) to "cut the asylum backlog, hear more appeal cases and return people who have no right to be here’. Presumed part of Labour's plan to recruit 1000 extra home office caseworkers. Serco and Clearsprings websites asking for private sector rentals. Clearsprings Ready Homes has two ten year contracts with the government to operate accommodation for asylum seekers in Wales and the South of England until 2029, at a total cost of over £1 billion. Clearsprings profits £180million over past three years. In the 12 months to April 2025, UK private rents increased by 7.4%, reaching an average of £1,335 per month. Is this just moving the deckchairs and putting more pressure on demand for private and social rented homes, which will drive up rents? " Yes. And ‘clearing the asylum backlog’ just means, in 90% of cases, either granting asylum or some other sort of residence because they supposedly come from a country that they can’t be returned to (although most destroy their documents and lie about their country of origin for that very reason). This is how, since Labour came in, we’ve rapidly ended up with more than £1 billion a month (about 15% of the total paid out) in means tested benefits being paid to foreigners living in the uk. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The government has set out plans to end the use of hotels to hold asylum seekers by 2029. Rachel Reeves says it will save £1bn a year. She has also pledged £200m (tax payers money) to "cut the asylum backlog, hear more appeal cases and return people who have no right to be here’. Presumed part of Labour's plan to recruit 1000 extra home office caseworkers. Serco and Clearsprings websites asking for private sector rentals. Clearsprings Ready Homes has two ten year contracts with the government to operate accommodation for asylum seekers in Wales and the South of England until 2029, at a total cost of over £1 billion. Clearsprings profits £180million over past three years. In the 12 months to April 2025, UK private rents increased by 7.4%, reaching an average of £1,335 per month. Is this just moving the deckchairs and putting more pressure on demand for private and social rented homes, which will drive up rents? Yes. And ‘clearing the asylum backlog’ just means, in 90% of cases, either granting asylum or some other sort of residence because they supposedly come from a country that they can’t be returned to (although most destroy their documents and lie about their country of origin for that very reason). This is how, since Labour came in, we’ve rapidly ended up with more than £1 billion a month (about 15% of the total paid out) in means tested benefits being paid to foreigners living in the uk." How many times, asylum seekers can't claim any benefits!!!! Once their asylum claim has been approved,they become refugees and join the work force (in most cases) and pay taxes and rent and everything else that a 'non-foreigner' does. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The government has set out plans to end the use of hotels to hold asylum seekers by 2029. Rachel Reeves says it will save £1bn a year. She has also pledged £200m (tax payers money) to "cut the asylum backlog, hear more appeal cases and return people who have no right to be here’. Presumed part of Labour's plan to recruit 1000 extra home office caseworkers. Serco and Clearsprings websites asking for private sector rentals. Clearsprings Ready Homes has two ten year contracts with the government to operate accommodation for asylum seekers in Wales and the South of England until 2029, at a total cost of over £1 billion. Clearsprings profits £180million over past three years. In the 12 months to April 2025, UK private rents increased by 7.4%, reaching an average of £1,335 per month. Is this just moving the deckchairs and putting more pressure on demand for private and social rented homes, which will drive up rents? Yes. And ‘clearing the asylum backlog’ just means, in 90% of cases, either granting asylum or some other sort of residence because they supposedly come from a country that they can’t be returned to (although most destroy their documents and lie about their country of origin for that very reason). This is how, since Labour came in, we’ve rapidly ended up with more than £1 billion a month (about 15% of the total paid out) in means tested benefits being paid to foreigners living in the uk. How many times, asylum seekers can't claim any benefits!!!! Once their asylum claim has been approved,they become refugees and join the work force (in most cases) and pay taxes and rent and everything else that a 'non-foreigner' does. " Absolute rubbish. Once asylum has been granted they are no longer an ‘asylum seeker’. They can and do claim everything that anyone else does. That’s how we’ve ended up paying £1 billion a month (15% of the total) in means tested benefits to foreigners. People who come into the country by proper and legal means can’t do so without proving that they can support themselves. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The government has set out plans to end the use of hotels to hold asylum seekers by 2029. Rachel Reeves says it will save £1bn a year. She has also pledged £200m (tax payers money) to "cut the asylum backlog, hear more appeal cases and return people who have no right to be here’. Presumed part of Labour's plan to recruit 1000 extra home office caseworkers. Serco and Clearsprings websites asking for private sector rentals. Clearsprings Ready Homes has two ten year contracts with the government to operate accommodation for asylum seekers in Wales and the South of England until 2029, at a total cost of over £1 billion. Clearsprings profits £180million over past three years. In the 12 months to April 2025, UK private rents increased by 7.4%, reaching an average of £1,335 per month. Is this just moving the deckchairs and putting more pressure on demand for private and social rented homes, which will drive up rents? Yes. And ‘clearing the asylum backlog’ just means, in 90% of cases, either granting asylum or some other sort of residence because they supposedly come from a country that they can’t be returned to (although most destroy their documents and lie about their country of origin for that very reason). This is how, since Labour came in, we’ve rapidly ended up with more than £1 billion a month (about 15% of the total paid out) in means tested benefits being paid to foreigners living in the uk. How many times, asylum seekers can't claim any benefits!!!! Once their asylum claim has been approved,they become refugees and join the work force (in most cases) and pay taxes and rent and everything else that a 'non-foreigner' does. " They are given free housing, free food, free pocket money, free driving lessons, a free phone, free trips out, free transport… shall I go on? It may not be an actual “benefit” that has a name, but it’s free stuff from the government. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The government has set out plans to end the use of hotels to hold asylum seekers by 2029. Rachel Reeves says it will save £1bn a year. She has also pledged £200m (tax payers money) to "cut the asylum backlog, hear more appeal cases and return people who have no right to be here’. Presumed part of Labour's plan to recruit 1000 extra home office caseworkers. Serco and Clearsprings websites asking for private sector rentals. Clearsprings Ready Homes has two ten year contracts with the government to operate accommodation for asylum seekers in Wales and the South of England until 2029, at a total cost of over £1 billion. Clearsprings profits £180million over past three years. In the 12 months to April 2025, UK private rents increased by 7.4%, reaching an average of £1,335 per month. Is this just moving the deckchairs and putting more pressure on demand for private and social rented homes, which will drive up rents? Yes. And ‘clearing the asylum backlog’ just means, in 90% of cases, either granting asylum or some other sort of residence because they supposedly come from a country that they can’t be returned to (although most destroy their documents and lie about their country of origin for that very reason). This is how, since Labour came in, we’ve rapidly ended up with more than £1 billion a month (about 15% of the total paid out) in means tested benefits being paid to foreigners living in the uk. How many times, asylum seekers can't claim any benefits!!!! Once their asylum claim has been approved,they become refugees and join the work force (in most cases) and pay taxes and rent and everything else that a 'non-foreigner' does. Absolute rubbish. Once asylum has been granted they are no longer an ‘asylum seeker’. They can and do claim everything that anyone else does. That’s how we’ve ended up paying £1 billion a month (15% of the total) in means tested benefits to foreigners. People who come into the country by proper and legal means can’t do so without proving that they can support themselves." From IRC, again Myth: "Asylum seekers don’t want to work." Reality: We know that 94% of asylum seekers want to find employment but the current rules in the UK mean that most people seeking asylum are not entitled to work until their refugee status is granted. According to the most recent data, asylum applications took an average of around 21 months to receive an initial decision in the UK in 2022. This means they cannot provide for themselves and their families, trapping them in poverty. If the ban on employment for asylum seekers were lifted by the government, it is estimated that the UK economy could gain £333 million per year. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The government has set out plans to end the use of hotels to hold asylum seekers by 2029. Rachel Reeves says it will save £1bn a year. She has also pledged £200m (tax payers money) to "cut the asylum backlog, hear more appeal cases and return people who have no right to be here’. Presumed part of Labour's plan to recruit 1000 extra home office caseworkers. Serco and Clearsprings websites asking for private sector rentals. Clearsprings Ready Homes has two ten year contracts with the government to operate accommodation for asylum seekers in Wales and the South of England until 2029, at a total cost of over £1 billion. Clearsprings profits £180million over past three years. In the 12 months to April 2025, UK private rents increased by 7.4%, reaching an average of £1,335 per month. Is this just moving the deckchairs and putting more pressure on demand for private and social rented homes, which will drive up rents? Yes. And ‘clearing the asylum backlog’ just means, in 90% of cases, either granting asylum or some other sort of residence because they supposedly come from a country that they can’t be returned to (although most destroy their documents and lie about their country of origin for that very reason). This is how, since Labour came in, we’ve rapidly ended up with more than £1 billion a month (about 15% of the total paid out) in means tested benefits being paid to foreigners living in the uk. How many times, asylum seekers can't claim any benefits!!!! Once their asylum claim has been approved,they become refugees and join the work force (in most cases) and pay taxes and rent and everything else that a 'non-foreigner' does. Absolute rubbish. Once asylum has been granted they are no longer an ‘asylum seeker’. They can and do claim everything that anyone else does. That’s how we’ve ended up paying £1 billion a month (15% of the total) in means tested benefits to foreigners. People who come into the country by proper and legal means can’t do so without proving that they can support themselves. From IRC, again Myth: "Asylum seekers don’t want to work." Reality: We know that 94% of asylum seekers want to find employment but the current rules in the UK mean that most people seeking asylum are not entitled to work until their refugee status is granted. According to the most recent data, asylum applications took an average of around 21 months to receive an initial decision in the UK in 2022. This means they cannot provide for themselves and their families, trapping them in poverty. If the ban on employment for asylum seekers were lifted by the government, it is estimated that the UK economy could gain £333 million per year. " The vast majority of the economic migrant bums coming across the Channel (for that is what they nearly all are) do not speak English, are not well educated and have no useful skills. They may say they want to work, and that may in fact be true. Their potential to earn, however, is extremely limited. The best that most can do is to (badly and dangerously) ride a scooter for ‘Just Eats’ or similar. At that income level they’ll still be claiming Universal Credit and support for their housing. That’s in addition to using the NHS and so on. They’re still, collectively, a huge financial burden on the rest of the UK population. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The government has set out plans to end the use of hotels to hold asylum seekers by 2029. Rachel Reeves says it will save £1bn a year. She has also pledged £200m (tax payers money) to "cut the asylum backlog, hear more appeal cases and return people who have no right to be here’. Presumed part of Labour's plan to recruit 1000 extra home office caseworkers. Serco and Clearsprings websites asking for private sector rentals. Clearsprings Ready Homes has two ten year contracts with the government to operate accommodation for asylum seekers in Wales and the South of England until 2029, at a total cost of over £1 billion. Clearsprings profits £180million over past three years. In the 12 months to April 2025, UK private rents increased by 7.4%, reaching an average of £1,335 per month. Is this just moving the deckchairs and putting more pressure on demand for private and social rented homes, which will drive up rents? Yes. And ‘clearing the asylum backlog’ just means, in 90% of cases, either granting asylum or some other sort of residence because they supposedly come from a country that they can’t be returned to (although most destroy their documents and lie about their country of origin for that very reason). This is how, since Labour came in, we’ve rapidly ended up with more than £1 billion a month (about 15% of the total paid out) in means tested benefits being paid to foreigners living in the uk. How many times, asylum seekers can't claim any benefits!!!! Once their asylum claim has been approved,they become refugees and join the work force (in most cases) and pay taxes and rent and everything else that a 'non-foreigner' does. Absolute rubbish. Once asylum has been granted they are no longer an ‘asylum seeker’. They can and do claim everything that anyone else does. That’s how we’ve ended up paying £1 billion a month (15% of the total) in means tested benefits to foreigners. People who come into the country by proper and legal means can’t do so without proving that they can support themselves. From IRC, again Myth: "Asylum seekers don’t want to work." Reality: We know that 94% of asylum seekers want to find employment but the current rules in the UK mean that most people seeking asylum are not entitled to work until their refugee status is granted. According to the most recent data, asylum applications took an average of around 21 months to receive an initial decision in the UK in 2022. This means they cannot provide for themselves and their families, trapping them in poverty. If the ban on employment for asylum seekers were lifted by the government, it is estimated that the UK economy could gain £333 million per year. The vast majority of the economic migrant bums coming across the Channel (for that is what they nearly all are) do not speak English, are not well educated and have no useful skills. They may say they want to work, and that may in fact be true. Their potential to earn, however, is extremely limited. The best that most can do is to (badly and dangerously) ride a scooter for ‘Just Eats’ or similar. At that income level they’ll still be claiming Universal Credit and support for their housing. That’s in addition to using the NHS and so on. They’re still, collectively, a huge financial burden on the rest of the UK population." Myth: "Refugees are a burden on our economy." Reality: Refugees contribute significantly to their host communities. They start businesses, pay taxes, and enrich local economies. How we treat refugees reflects our values as a society. A report from the Commission on the Integration of Refugees found that the UK economy could receive net benefits of £1.2 billion in five years if employment support and English-language for refugees were quickly implemented. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The government has set out plans to end the use of hotels to hold asylum seekers by 2029. Rachel Reeves says it will save £1bn a year. She has also pledged £200m (tax payers money) to "cut the asylum backlog, hear more appeal cases and return people who have no right to be here’. Presumed part of Labour's plan to recruit 1000 extra home office caseworkers. Serco and Clearsprings websites asking for private sector rentals. Clearsprings Ready Homes has two ten year contracts with the government to operate accommodation for asylum seekers in Wales and the South of England until 2029, at a total cost of over £1 billion. Clearsprings profits £180million over past three years. In the 12 months to April 2025, UK private rents increased by 7.4%, reaching an average of £1,335 per month. Is this just moving the deckchairs and putting more pressure on demand for private and social rented homes, which will drive up rents? Yes. And ‘clearing the asylum backlog’ just means, in 90% of cases, either granting asylum or some other sort of residence because they supposedly come from a country that they can’t be returned to (although most destroy their documents and lie about their country of origin for that very reason). This is how, since Labour came in, we’ve rapidly ended up with more than £1 billion a month (about 15% of the total paid out) in means tested benefits being paid to foreigners living in the uk. How many times, asylum seekers can't claim any benefits!!!! Once their asylum claim has been approved,they become refugees and join the work force (in most cases) and pay taxes and rent and everything else that a 'non-foreigner' does. Absolute rubbish. Once asylum has been granted they are no longer an ‘asylum seeker’. They can and do claim everything that anyone else does. That’s how we’ve ended up paying £1 billion a month (15% of the total) in means tested benefits to foreigners. People who come into the country by proper and legal means can’t do so without proving that they can support themselves. From IRC, again Myth: "Asylum seekers don’t want to work." Reality: We know that 94% of asylum seekers want to find employment but the current rules in the UK mean that most people seeking asylum are not entitled to work until their refugee status is granted. According to the most recent data, asylum applications took an average of around 21 months to receive an initial decision in the UK in 2022. This means they cannot provide for themselves and their families, trapping them in poverty. If the ban on employment for asylum seekers were lifted by the government, it is estimated that the UK economy could gain £333 million per year. The vast majority of the economic migrant bums coming across the Channel (for that is what they nearly all are) do not speak English, are not well educated and have no useful skills. They may say they want to work, and that may in fact be true. Their potential to earn, however, is extremely limited. The best that most can do is to (badly and dangerously) ride a scooter for ‘Just Eats’ or similar. At that income level they’ll still be claiming Universal Credit and support for their housing. That’s in addition to using the NHS and so on. They’re still, collectively, a huge financial burden on the rest of the UK population. Myth: "Refugees are a burden on our economy." Reality: Refugees contribute significantly to their host communities. They start businesses, pay taxes, and enrich local economies. How we treat refugees reflects our values as a society. A report from the Commission on the Integration of Refugees found that the UK economy could receive net benefits of £1.2 billion in five years if employment support and English-language for refugees were quickly implemented. " Once again, you’re quoting unsubstantiated nonsense figures made up by a ridiculous left wing organisation that basically supports ‘free for all’ migration. It’s absolute rubbish. Selective migration for people with education and skills has, historically, been of benefit to our economy. The vast majority of the illegal migrants crossing the Channel do not fall into that category and will only ever be a burden. Worse still they mostly follow a particular religion, proponents of which have never wanted to and never will want to integrate with our largely secular liberal democracy. Their values are incompatible with our society. FGM, attitudes to LGBTQ, the treatment of women and girls in general are all major problems. They’ll continue to form in ever larger enclaves which are unrecognisable as the UK. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Ok, try these figures. Main stories there were 7.5 million people on Universal Credit in January 2025, up from 6.4 million people on Universal Credit in January 2024 of people on Universal Credit in January 2025, 76.2% were from the white ethnic group. The Asian/Asian British ethnicity group accounts for 10.4%. The Black/African/Caribbean/Black British ethnicity group accounts for 6.0%. The Mixed/Multiple Ethnic groups accounts for 2.9%, while the Other ethnic group accounts for 4.4% the proportion of people in the ‘no work requirements’ conditionality regime (42%) continues to increase there were, on average, 47,000 claims and 39,000 starts per week in January 2025, slightly lower than at the same point in January 2024 there were 6.2 million households on Universal Credit in November 2024, of which 5.6 million (91%) of these households had a Universal Credit payment. Universal Credit households with children accounted for over half (52%) of all households with a payment in November 2024 there were 177,000 households in Great Britain receiving the Universal Credit childcare element in November 2024 there were approximately 2.8 million Universal Credit households (45% of all Universal Credit households) that had one or more deductions taken from their Universal Credit entitlement in November 2024" Your point being what? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Ok, try these figures. Main stories there were 7.5 million people on Universal Credit in January 2025, up from 6.4 million people on Universal Credit in January 2024 of people on Universal Credit in January 2025, 76.2% were from the white ethnic group. The Asian/Asian British ethnicity group accounts for 10.4%. The Black/African/Caribbean/Black British ethnicity group accounts for 6.0%. The Mixed/Multiple Ethnic groups accounts for 2.9%, while the Other ethnic group accounts for 4.4% the proportion of people in the ‘no work requirements’ conditionality regime (42%) continues to increase there were, on average, 47,000 claims and 39,000 starts per week in January 2025, slightly lower than at the same point in January 2024 there were 6.2 million households on Universal Credit in November 2024, of which 5.6 million (91%) of these households had a Universal Credit payment. Universal Credit households with children accounted for over half (52%) of all households with a payment in November 2024 there were 177,000 households in Great Britain receiving the Universal Credit childcare element in November 2024 there were approximately 2.8 million Universal Credit households (45% of all Universal Credit households) that had one or more deductions taken from their Universal Credit entitlement in November 2024 Your point being what?" I actually think you’ve made a very powerful point against your own argument. Including the asylum seekers and others already granted leave to stay, we have a huge unproductive sector in society. We definitely can’t support any more. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Ok, try these figures. Main stories there were 7.5 million people on Universal Credit in January 2025, up from 6.4 million people on Universal Credit in January 2024 of people on Universal Credit in January 2025, 76.2% were from the white ethnic group. The Asian/Asian British ethnicity group accounts for 10.4%. The Black/African/Caribbean/Black British ethnicity group accounts for 6.0%. The Mixed/Multiple Ethnic groups accounts for 2.9%, while the Other ethnic group accounts for 4.4% the proportion of people in the ‘no work requirements’ conditionality regime (42%) continues to increase there were, on average, 47,000 claims and 39,000 starts per week in January 2025, slightly lower than at the same point in January 2024 there were 6.2 million households on Universal Credit in November 2024, of which 5.6 million (91%) of these households had a Universal Credit payment. Universal Credit households with children accounted for over half (52%) of all households with a payment in November 2024 there were 177,000 households in Great Britain receiving the Universal Credit childcare element in November 2024 there were approximately 2.8 million Universal Credit households (45% of all Universal Credit households) that had one or more deductions taken from their Universal Credit entitlement in November 2024 Your point being what? I actually think you’ve made a very powerful point against your own argument. Including the asylum seekers and others already granted leave to stay, we have a huge unproductive sector in society. We definitely can’t support any more." But nowhere does it differentiate between UK born or refugees. Because asylum seekers can't claim UC. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Ok, try these figures. Main stories there were 7.5 million people on Universal Credit in January 2025, up from 6.4 million people on Universal Credit in January 2024 of people on Universal Credit in January 2025, 76.2% were from the white ethnic group. The Asian/Asian British ethnicity group accounts for 10.4%. The Black/African/Caribbean/Black British ethnicity group accounts for 6.0%. The Mixed/Multiple Ethnic groups accounts for 2.9%, while the Other ethnic group accounts for 4.4% the proportion of people in the ‘no work requirements’ conditionality regime (42%) continues to increase there were, on average, 47,000 claims and 39,000 starts per week in January 2025, slightly lower than at the same point in January 2024 there were 6.2 million households on Universal Credit in November 2024, of which 5.6 million (91%) of these households had a Universal Credit payment. Universal Credit households with children accounted for over half (52%) of all households with a payment in November 2024 there were 177,000 households in Great Britain receiving the Universal Credit childcare element in November 2024 there were approximately 2.8 million Universal Credit households (45% of all Universal Credit households) that had one or more deductions taken from their Universal Credit entitlement in November 2024 Your point being what? I actually think you’ve made a very powerful point against your own argument. Including the asylum seekers and others already granted leave to stay, we have a huge unproductive sector in society. We definitely can’t support any more. But nowhere does it differentiate between UK born or refugees. Because asylum seekers can't claim UC. " Dear Lord. You really are bloody simple. An ‘asylum seeker’ is a person who, after usually entering the UK illegally makes a (normally fraudulent and dishonest) claim for asylum. ONLY WHILST THAT CLAIM IS BEING PROCESSED they remain as an ‘asylum seeker’ and can’t claim benefits. Here’s the important bit that you’re struggling with. Someone who starts out as an ‘asylum seeker’ is not an ‘asylum seeker’ for long. The lazy useless Civil Servants who process the asylum claims can do one of three things. 1) - In a small proportion of cases they manage to deport the bum. 2) - In a significant proportion of cases they grant asylum, based on little or no verifiable evidence. 3) - In a significant proportion of cases they deny asylum (when the person doesn’t follow the people smuggler’s script quite right) but the claimant is still saying that they came from a place deemed too dangerous to deport them to, such as Syria. Because it is invariably impossible to disprove this they can’t deport that person and they are thus given ‘indefinite leave to remain.’ anyway. The vast majority of asylum seekers under the current ridiculous system therefore transition into (categories 2 and 3 above) people who have leave to remain in the UK long term. Labour have dramatically accelerated the rate at which this happens. These individuals are then foreign nationals living in the UK who are able to claim benefits and included in the means tested benefits bill rather than separately as the ‘asylum seekers’ they originally were. About 90% of the illegal migrants crossing the channel eventually end up with the ability to claim benefits under category 2 or 3 above. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Dear Lord. You really are bloody simple. An ‘asylum seeker’ is a person who, after usually entering the UK illegally makes a (normally fraudulent and dishonest) claim for asylum. ONLY WHILST THAT CLAIM IS BEING PROCESSED they remain as an ‘asylum seeker’ and can’t claim benefits. Here’s the important bit that you’re struggling with. Someone who starts out as an ‘asylum seeker’ is not an ‘asylum seeker’ for long. The lazy useless Civil Servants who process the asylum claims can do one of three things. 1) - In a small proportion of cases they manage to deport the bum. 2) - In a significant proportion of cases they grant asylum, based on little or no verifiable evidence. 3) - In a significant proportion of cases they deny asylum (when the person doesn’t follow the people smuggler’s script quite right) but the claimant is still saying that they came from a place deemed too dangerous to deport them to, such as Syria. Because it is invariably impossible to disprove this they can’t deport that person and they are thus given ‘indefinite leave to remain.’ anyway. The vast majority of asylum seekers under the current ridiculous system therefore transition into (categories 2 and 3 above) people who have leave to remain in the UK long term. Labour have dramatically accelerated the rate at which this happens. These individuals are then foreign nationals living in the UK who are able to claim benefits and included in the means tested benefits bill rather than separately as the ‘asylum seekers’ they originally were. About 90% of the illegal migrants crossing the channel eventually end up with the ability to claim benefits under category 2 or 3 above." I am perfectly aware of the asylum process, but I don't use emotive language when I present information. You obviously have your very strong viewpoint, but do not resort to calling someone 'bloody simple' for not agreeing with you. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
