Migrants should get free housing apparently

We’re also pleased the strategy acknowledges that some people, such as migrants, experience additional barriers to getting the support they need to prevent or solve their homelessness.

That’s what I think that means.

Ending rough sleeping means having a plan for every single person forced to sleep rough, so to see the funding commitments to support local areas working with non-UK nationals, and a rough sleeping support team to help resolve their immigration status is very encouraging.

Really, I think it does.

34 comments on “Migrants should get free housing apparently

  1. Illegal immigrants are one of the four main pillars of a suspected Corbinite coup consolidation, together with newly enfranchised voters aged 10 to 17, a massively expanded non- productive public sector and the unemployed. These people are going nowhere

  2. No wonder the Graun has arranged its affairs such that it never pays corporation tax.

    Saves them having to puke up at the thought of all the money their policies would piss down the drain.

  3. Not really, it means that *everyone* who gets thrown out for not paying the rent of for anti-social behaviour (e.g. drunkenly assaulting the landlord’s wife) should get free housing.

  4. When I economically migrated to Hong Kong in the 1990s I didn’t get free housing, I had to arrange accommodation beforehand and demonstrate its existance to the border officer.

  5. That won’t cause any aggravation then. Oh, and how long before the Guardian again ‘refutes’ claims that migrants get priority in social housing? Can you believe both things at once?

  6. I try not to follow the news too closely cause it boils my piss but isn’t there some move afoot to jail rough sleepers or some such cockrot?

  7. @ Rob
    One of the barriers is that genuine refugees (and there tens of millions of genuine refugees around the world today, of which only a few thousand are in the UK) have to wait for months to get their status confirmed by the frequently incompetent Home Office and during that time, are *forbidden* to take any paid employment. So they are living on DWP hand-outs which are (thanks to Gordon Brown, but Gideon Osborne deserves severe condemnation for only partially ameliorating GB’s halving of the level of hand-outs instead of reversing it) only a fraction of that paid to UK citizens and there is a worrying frequency of the DWP screwing up even those payments so they suddenly have no money to pay the rent.
    There is also, as you point out, the new law forbidding landlords to rent to illegal immigrants but that only bites on the landlord so those with forged papers good enough to fool an employer will be able to fool the average landlord.

  8. And to top it all -Visit by the United Nations Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland from 5 to 16 November 2018 to no doubt tell us how vile we are.

    @Ken and how many of these “asylum seekers” fleeing persecution will go back to the place they are fleeing persecution from on holiday once their status is regularised ?

  9. Thanks, Ken
    So Gordon Brown’s decision – while imposing unreasonable hardship on each individual refugee/refugee family during their “asylum seeker” period – saved a small fraction of 1% of what we paid out in the welfare budget.

  10. @ moqifen
    Once again, a small fraction of 1%.
    It isn’t cost-effective to build a process that will get the number of cheats below 0.1% – the cost of appeals by the innocents excluded is greater than the cost of the cheats.

  11. @moqifen

    It’s difficult to say. The Home Office clearly does a poor job of removing refugee status after it is granted. This report looks at the rate at which criminals and those whose refugee status may have lapsed are treated.

    https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/677535/An_inspection_of_the_review_and_removal_of_immigration_refugee_and_citizenship__status_.pdf

    In general many of the refugees who made it to the UK are likely to be richer – and thus more likely to be able to arrange flights back, but it may not be safe for them. Anyone who flies to their home country after gaining refugee status should automatically lose it unless there are extraordinary circumstances.

    Reading figure 8, I’d guess that the Home Office hasn’t really made much effort to remove former refugees from countries that have stabilized For example, the Somalis granted refugee status should probably be sent back.

  12. @John 77 every time an asylum seeker cheats and lies into residency or a lying 25 year old pretends to be a child refugee it casts doubt on the genuine people in need, leading to less sympathy from the population who have to pay for it through their taxes.As for kens figure of only 155,000 refugees and asylum seekers you realise that its the size of the population of oxford. The National Audit Office (NAO) have estimated that every Syrian refugee who comes to Britain will cost taxpayers up to £17,340 per year on average for their first five years in the UK. So extrapolating from that refugees 117,000 x £17340 = £2 billion ponds for 5 years. Bargain.

  13. I particularly like the comment by the chap at the top of the recommendations.

    What a wise fellow he seems.

  14. “Mr Ecks

    I try not to follow the news too closely cause it boils my piss but isn’t there some move afoot to jail rough sleepers or some such cockrot?”

    Jail a homeless person. BINGO, he’s no longer homeless.

  15. @ moqifen
    OF COURSE cheats cast doubt on genuine refugees and decrease sympathy. But that does NOT mean that the genuine refugees do not need and deserve sympathy.
    The total budget for refugees and asylum seekers is a tiny fraction of 1% of the national budget – the amount I allocate from my after-tax income to a charity I know to be honest is an order of magnitude greater than the amount I pay in taxes to help refugees.
    No, you cannot *honestly* extrapolate from the handful of Syrian asylum seekers to the whole group. Of course anyone can dishonestly … An unemployed family of four will get £13k each a year, anyone employed will get a lot less from the state.

  16. @Andrew C, Ecksy – I actually think there is a compassionate argument for jailing rough sleepers. Perhaps not jail as such, but some sort of facility where they can be comfortable but not get out. Comfy jail…

    Most persistent rough sleepers are people who just can’t cope with normal life, due to mental illness or drugs or some other factor. They either won’t stay in shelters or the shelters won’t (can’t) take them, they cause trouble for the citizens, waste police time and lead short, miserable lives.

    Their actual numbers are not great, why not get them off the streets, whether they like it or not? We might even be able to rescue a few.

    This is not a liberal argument I grant you…

  17. @john 77 – well good for you – hope your virtue keeps you warm at night. Me my sympathy ran out when they started mass raping women, blowing up teenage girls at concerts, trying to blow up trains and fucking off to Syria to chop aid workers heads off. As far as i’m concerned they can fuck off and when they get there fuck off some more.

  18. @ moqifen
    You equate refugees with economic migrants – that is stupid, at best. All the incidents that you use to condemn “refugees” are actually down to economic migrants.
    I don’t even pretend to virtue, but occasionally look at Utlity theory

  19. @john 77, August 14, 2018 at 1:35 pm

    Re benefits halved

    Don’t they get free accommodation & free food in hotels?

  20. @Ken & john 77

    imho refugee/asylum benefits, holding centres, food & accom etch should be paid by DFID not DWP & Councils

  21. @ Pcar
    It’s called a “night shelter” not a “hotel” and I didn’t hear about the free food.
    I can sympathise with your view that it should be charged to the DfID budget insteab of the DWP but I don’t know how one could be sure that DWP wasn’t fiddling the reorted numbers.

  22. @john 77 – salman abedi – son of refugees. Ahmad hassan – iraqi refugee, for a start plus the hundreds of rapes in germany, sweden etc. it’s you whose confusing economic migrants with refugees – not me. If as a white person am supposed to feel collective guilt for what some of my fellow countrymen did 300 years ago then they as hell can share some for what’s happening now. Call it cultural appropriation. .

  23. MC
    “This is not a liberal argument I grant you…”

    If they are mentally ill then we have a duty to them to help and that should include secure accommodation. The liberal concern is that it then becomes out of sight …….

  24. None of these fuckers are refugees. If so, they’ve dodged a lot of fucking refuge in order to make it to the UK.

  25. MC, some (probably most) of the refugees come in via our “international obligations”. In other words, our government imports them. As an example, we’re having some of the Syrian “White Helmets”.

  26. If this ‘British national of Sudanese origin’ who tried to breach the Muslim barriers at Whitehall yesterday turns out to be an asylum seeker, the shit might really hit the fan.

  27. @ moqifen
    Salman Abedi – born in Manchester
    Hassan Ahmed – illegal immigrant, trained by Da’esh before leaving Iraq so i) a jihadist not a refugee from Da’esh and ii) not an refugee asylum seeker turning up and asking for asylum
    You seem to be having problems with facts.

  28. @ Julia M
    Yes
    It’s been fanning for twenty years in South Sudan, but that’s no excuse for what he did or tried to do.

  29. “…the shit might really hit the fan.”

    No, it won’t. You could have one or a group of these evil bastards commit mass murder of children in a primary school and the British people would still sit around waiting for “something to be done”. We’re in a normalcy bias, and very few will risk their comfort by becoming active.

    Maybe if popular royalty were killed there might be a sort of “Diana effect” political preference cascade.

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.