Immigration hotel costs
Comments
-
What do you think is the difference @Wibbles ?
1 -
Good grief. Talk about sitting on the fence. There is no 'however' about it. So what exactly did the Home Office respond to you with? Or did you leave it/unanswered?
We only surrender our 'moral compass' when we sit in the middle with prevarication. We need to be clear, without ambivalence. Too much 'politics speak' for my liking tbh - are you a lawyer or something?? @wibbles - your question - very interested in your view.
1 -
Well said!
0 -
Mention immigration and it's racist/ right wing … mention the atrocities in Gaza and it's anti semitic
Where have the days gone when people could have an opinion without being labelled ?
Whatever the bill is, I can't help but feel for the homeless who have their tents confiscated when they're already at rock bottom. Or can't help wonder what is the difference between genocide in the 1940's and then the 2020's whilst the world watches on
Label me whatever, but I still cry when I see pictures of starving children who's only crime is where they were born
5 -
Do one crime and you should be deported no if's or buts…
3 -
… but I was born here…. !
and my crime ?
….."Caring"
1 -
There is nothing “middle” about opposing hostility to refugees and demanding that £5.7 million a day be spent properly. The Home Office did reply to me and confirmed it terminated SBHL for serious failings, yet some contracts cannot be ended until 2026 without penalty. That is precisely the problem I feel is unacceptable, for tax payers and people still in their accommodation.
It is entirely possible and necessary to oppose hostility and demand fiscal accountability at the same time. That is not contradiction. That is clarity.
Every person granted leave to remain will need housing, healthcare, schooling and access to work. That is not a political opinion, it is a logistical reality. But with housing under strain and job vacancies falling to 727,000, the lowest since April 2021 according to the Office for National Statistics, the infrastructure is not keeping pace.
If compassion alone could cover the cost, there would be no crisis. But it cannot. Taxpayers deserve an honest, detailed plan showing exactly how these essential services will be funded. We cannot keep siphoning money from the welfare bill. Every pound must be transparent, justified and accountable.
If nuance looks like prevarication, the problem is not the position, it is the lens through which it is viewed. If the only defence of a failing system is to accuse its critics of cruelty, then the system has no defence. And if that is the attitude, it will not bring people together.
2 -
It is a naive position to assume that any detailed plan of funding/costs, plans for services etc is forthcoming anytime soon or 'now'. It isn't. Nor is clarity to assauge people's fears in our communities especially about a lack of services.
Compassion, tolerance and having humanity at the heart of our actions is not dependent, nor should it be, on everything being well in our 'corner of the world' first. Being tolerant to this being integral to all discussions should not be divisive - nor so easily dismissed "Compassion doesn't pay for etc etc". It's only divisive if folk are content to watch the horrors inflicted on others as if because it's not a part of the UK, it's therefore not our problem/responsibility. I'd assert it very much is. Maybe that's why we have a conscience.
1 -
Public duty to refugees does not end at the border. It begins there. Welcoming refugees is not the whole task. It is the threshold. Beyond it lies the harder work, ensuring safety, dignity, and access to services that actually function, along with a decent job and a home to live in. That demands planning, funding, and structural honesty.
Calling for clarity is not divisive. It is how we honour the public’s investment and protect those most affected. When systems fail, the damage is not abstract. It is lived, and it is borne by those already displaced.
Rejecting scrutiny in the name of compassion is not humane. It is neglect dressed as virtue. And if we are serious about welcome, we must be serious about delivery. Compassion is not what we say. It is what we build.
2 -
Western countries fuel conflicts in other nations and turn them into war zones, through military interventions, arms sales, economic policies, and political support for specific factions or dictators, etc., and then wonder why people are fleeing their countries in search of safety!
For instance, prior to the unjustified and unlawful armed intervention of the West in Libya, Libyans didn't know what water and electricity bills were, as most of utilities were free in Libya, and now they're struggling to afford food.
I wonder how many of you ever saw any Libyan, Iraqi, Syrian, or Afghani in the UK before the West had turned their nations into conflict-ridden and war zones under stupid pretexts!
Who is selling arms around and destabilising regions and profiting from wars? Who has been looting the massive mineral resources of the DRC - Congo - for the past few decades and telling the rest of the world that the country is just cursed by its natural wealth?
4 -
My apologies@MW123 – I asked yesterday if you were ‘a lawyer or something’ – I’ll respectfully assume it’s the ‘or something’ as there’s an awful lot of opinion on here but a scarcity of facts and figures or ideas, as Wibbles original post pondered. I’d already posted here yesterday sharing the link to Safe Routes.
So I’ll add two ideas (‘Safe and Legal Routes’ and ‘Lift the Ban’ - asylum seekers being permitted to work – along with some facts however, change, of course, requires political will.
For anyone with an interest to read more you can locate references easily enough yourself, noted near the end.
I’ll answer @wibbles first though. No Wibbles, the 1951 Refugee Convention does not require a person to claim asylum in the first safe country they reach. People crossing the Channel can legitimately claim asylum in the UK if they reach it.
SAFE AND LEGAL ROUTES – REFUGEE RESETTLEMENT PROGRAMME
If we want to stop the dangerous journeys across the Channel then the Refugee Resettlement Programme needs to be restored - these have been very successful in the past I posted a link to facts on Safe Movement yesterday. There were more tragedies in the Channel in 2024 than any other year. That’s because our government’s policies leave people with no choice but to come to the UK through irregular routes, risking their lives.
The UK does not resettle large numbers of refugees through its settlement schemes with the number decreasing enormously over the last few years. Only 1,492 people were resettled between June 2023 and June 2024 under the schemes. This makes the likelihood of someone being resettled in the UK very unlikely and people being forced to travel to the UK through unsafe routes like on small boats.
A few facts.
People seeking asylum can apply for support which is 7.02GBP per day for most people. Barely enough for a return bus journey or a nutritious meal. Whilst waiting to hear about their claim they are not permitted to work. Some have been in the asylum system for years leaving people in a cycle of poverty. The accommodation is often in single hotel rooms or unsuitable housing infested with mould and rodents. Unsuitable housing leaves people sick and struggling with their mental health and they face homelessness once granted refugee status, with a 30 day eviction notice.
The hostile environment and racist rhetoric whipped up by the media and politicians threatens the safety of people seeking safety which were clear to see in the riots in July and August last year.
Most asylum seekers are not routinely provided with mobile phones as part of their standard support package. Some charities (like ‘Migrant Help) do provide mobile phones to new arrivals and other charities may provide them with donated phones. During Covid 19 there were c 14,000 phones reportedly distributed as a temporary measure due to restrictions on in-person interviews. Charities are working to reduce digital exclusion among asylum seekers providing access to phones and the internet as it is important for accessing support and services.
Banned from working, people seeking asylum are forced to live below the poverty line with people being forced to wait months or years for a decision on their claim.
The horrific journey many have faced does not sadly end, once they reach the UK with many experiencing horrific violence, attacks and racial abuse. Isolation through a lack of access to English Language lessons leaving many unable to integrate. Many people seeking safety are in housing that is damp, crowded and unsafe.
At the end of 2024:
According to UNHCR statistics, only half a per cent (0.54%) of the UK’s total population is a refugee or asylum seeker.
38,079 asylum seekers (34%) were living in hotels despite pre-election pledges to phase them out.
124,802 people were waiting for an initial asylum decision, with 73,866 waiting over six months, blocking them from finding employment.
If half of those waiting over six months were allowed to work, the UK economy would benefit from 280million GBP from tax and national insurance contributions.
Out of 20 most common nationalities of people applying for asylum in the UK, 64% come from countries with colonial links to Britain or those historically affected by UK driven resource extraction and conflict.
All 20 most common countries of origin for asylum seekers in the UK are impacted by climate change, with 9 out of the top 10 severely affected.
LIFT THE BAN
People seeking Refugee status in the UK are banned from working while they wait months, and often years, for a decision on their asylum claim. Left to live on 7.00GBP a day and struggling to support themselves and their families whilst the government wastes the talents and skills of thousands of people. ‘Refugee Action’ think that is wrong and that people who have risked everything to find safety should have the best chance of contributing to our society and integrating into our communities. This means giving people seeking asylum the right to work so that they can use their skills and live in dignity.
In 2022, 81% of the public signed a petition to LIFT THE BAN which stops asylum seeking work in the UK. The ban on working is harmful taking the toughest toll on those seeking asylum, but the UK economy also misses out on tax revenue. The charity ‘Refugee Action’ is part of a coalition of over 300 charities, trade unions, businesses, faith groups and think-tanks. Together, they believe that ensuring people seeking safety in the UK have the right to work.
THE FOLLOWING IS LIFTED FROM THE ‘LIFT THE BAN’ COALITION REPORT (‘REFUGEE ACTION’)
The proportion of people waiting six months or more for an asylum decision has risen sharply over the last decade, from one in four at the end of 2014 (25%) to six in ten (59%) at the end 2024.
• Tens of thousands of people are currently banned from working while awaiting an asylum decision and are made forcibly dependent on state support for (often inadequate and overpriced) accommodation and subsistence in the meantime – with £8 million per day being spent on hotel accommodation alone by 2023.
• Allowing people to apply for work sooner would not only improve their lives, but also enable them to contribute to the economy, reduce public spending on the asylum system, and bolster community cohesion. And lifting the ban to allow people to work from six months is supported by 81% of the voting public, with high levels of cross-party support.
• Contrary to the “pull factor” myth, all the available evidence shows that working rights play little or no role in destination choices for people seeking asylum. The real drivers of destination choice are deeper connections like social networks, shared history and languages.
• Lifting the ban on work would bring the UK in line with other OECD member states. In countries like France, Spain, Italy and Germany, people seeking asylum gain the right to work much earlier – after six months, three months and, in some countries, even less.
• Extending the right to work to those who have been waiting six months for an asylum decision is a common-sense policy change that is popular with voters, businesses and local authorities, and is fairer to people seeking asylum themselves.
I’d highly recommend seeking out the Report’ six organisations have offered research-informed expert recommendations on the need to lift the ban on work. They include The National Institute for Economic and Social Research (NIESR) this suggested a 1.3 billion GBP tax revenue and reduce government expenditure by 6.7 billion GBP and increase GDP by 1.6 billion GBP; The All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) on Poverty and the APPG on Migration, which jointly found the ban on work to be a component of ‘destitution by design’ in the UK’s asylum system’ the Scottish Government which proposed a pilot scheme to lift the ban; The Institute for Government which found that restrictions on the right to work rest on ‘ill-founded assumptions’ and leave people seeking asylum in need of state support and accommodation as well as more likely to experience poverty and destitution and ‘Focus on Labour Exploitation (FLEX) which found that the work ban is putting asylum seekers at ‘significant risk of exploitation’ through informal employment;.
**********************************
For what it’s worth, that’s my contribution. Facts as opposed to the inevitable claptrap and rumour. I would urge members to remember that just because comments are put in bold does not make them true (apart from my headings 😁). Seek your own answers, use discernment to get facts and do not rely on others’ scaremongering that form no basis of truth. There are many changes that can be made that enable these (very brave and resilient imo) asylum seekers to not only integrate well into the UK but to contribute in many positive ways to our society, including to the economy, as many have done so well before them.
As I’m more than comfortable with the facts that I’ve contributed I shall now happily leave you to it. Places to go, people to see ha ha. Any verification on information I’ve provided can be found at gov.uk; Asylum Action and The Migration Observatory.
3 -
Removed as repeated!
0 -
Removed as repeated.
0 -
Interesting post Santosha. You have quoted a substantial number of figures and claims, many of which I’d be keen to verify. Given how much material exists across sites like gov.uk, Migration Observatory and Refugee Action, it would be helpful if you could provide direct links to the specific reports you are referencing.
If that is not possible, the publication dates, names of the documents and page numbers you referenced in your post would be appreciated.
There is a lot of detail in your post, but without sources it is hard to assess how these figures were selected or interpreted by the different organisations.
Just to confirm, I’m British, so no, I could not possibly be an American lawyer.
1 -
Do you have the figures for the numbers of immigrants who disappear without trace in to the country onve here?
3 -
All available at Refugee Action it'll making interesting learning for you seeking them. American lawyer??
1 -
🙄😅. You can take that as a no, not Wibbles' secretary 🫠
1 -
While I hold the Refugee Action Charity in high regard and appreciate its valuable sector insight and dedication to centering lived experience, it is important to rely on primary government data for evidence-based discussions.
To clarify, the figures I referenced come directly from the Home Office, not Refugee Action:
The 1,492 figure refers specifically to arrivals under the UK Resettlement Scheme, excluding Afghan resettlement schemes, family reunion cases, and other humanitarian routes.
A more complete overview for June 2023 to June 2024 includes:
20,592 family reunion visas
93,342 arrivals via humanitarian routes
45,084 successful asylum grants
This totals a further 159,018 people on top of your stated figure who were actually granted protection and entitled to housing and mainstream UK benefits.
Santosha, I understand your preference for factual accuracy, which is why I took the time to double-check the source. Your statement that “only 1,492 people were resettled between June 2023 and June 2024 under the schemes” is correct, but it was presented without the broader context that helps fully understand the large scale of protection that was actually granted.
With the full figures in view, it’s even clearer why infrastructure planning is so crucial. When protection is granted at this scale, ensuring access to housing, healthcare, and schools helps communities welcome new arrivals effectively without undue strain.
3 -
I will rely on the information and sources that I see fit. Can you post on here without referencing me directly.
1 -
Noted. For consistency, it’s helpful if requests to avoid direct reference are matched by the same courtesy in replies. Happy to keep the focus on the substance.
3
Categories
- All Categories
- 15.5K Start here and say hello!
- 7.3K Coffee lounge
- 90 Games den
- 1.7K People power
- 122 Announcements and information
- 24.1K Talk about life
- 5.8K Everyday life
- 426 Current affairs
- 2.4K Families and carers
- 873 Education and skills
- 1.9K Work
- 533 Money and bills
- 3.6K Housing and independent living
- 1.1K Transport and travel
- 627 Relationships
- 1.5K Mental health and wellbeing
- 2.5K Talk about your impairment
- 867 Rare, invisible, and undiagnosed conditions
- 923 Neurological impairments and pain
- 2.1K Cerebral Palsy Network
- 1.2K Autism and neurodiversity
- 39.9K Talk about your benefits
- 6K Employment and Support Allowance (ESA)
- 19.7K PIP, DLA, ADP and AA
- 8.5K Universal Credit (UC)
- 5.8K Benefits and income