Cost True of Housing Asylum Seekers

I want to address some common myths about asylum seekers (especially those in hotels).

84,000-108,000 individuals apply for asylum in the UK per year (2023-2024), and only about 1/3rd arrive on small boats. Most have arrived in the UK through legal processes.

Asylum seekers aren't allowed to work while their asylum claim is being processed. 

Only if they are DESTITUTE, they get a meagre £49.18 PER WEEK to help pay for things like 

• food, 
• clothing, 
• toiletries. 

Could you manage on that?

They only get that money if they are in self-catering accommodation and destitute.

Some are housed in hotels with food provided. No extra frills or luxuries. They are given an additional £9.95 per person per week to buy anything they need. What could you buy for £10? 

32,059 asylum seekers are housed in hotels. No, it's not a luxury holiday. They share rooms and are provided with only the basics. They have nothing to do all day and no jobs.

The cost of housing them:

• Does not reduce spending on health, welfare, and education. 
• It doesn't affect the spending on services for  existing British people

The cost is covered by the overseas aid budget, which doesn't affect public spending in the UK.

The overseas aid budget is a tiny % of government spending, less than 1%. The cost of caring for refugees seeking asylum in the UK is a small part of that.

In other words, even if we got rid of all asylum seekers and reduced that spending to ZERO, it would have no impact on the amount of tax available to spend on important things like healthcare.

We have a population of 70 million, and the asylum seekers are a tiny % of the people living here.

Meanwhile, all the funds allocated to support asylum seekers are actually being spent in the UK, making a small contribution to the local economy.

FIGHTING AGE MEN?

I hear a lot about asylum seekers being fighting-age men, which surely just means adult men. Why mention fighting?

A little more than 1/2 of asylum applications are from adult males (about 61%).

CHILDREN

1 in 5 asylum seekers in the UK are children under 18 years of age - these children are given places in school.

Women and Girls

29% of asylum seekers are female (almost 1 in 3).

ACCESS to NHS Healthcare

Asylum seekers are entitled to free NHS healthcare (GP visits, hospital treatment, and prescriptions) while their asylum claim is being decided. 

Do you think they are taking your place in the Q? 

Are they taking up valuable NHS appointments when there are long waiting lists and a shortage of doctors and hospital beds?

The answer is NO. 

There are a small number of asylum seekers compared to the general population. Their impact is negligible. 

They make up about 0.1% of extra patients. If there were no asylum seekers, you wouldn't get a GP hospital appointment any faster.

The NHS's problems are largely due to a lack of funding and the government's policy of austerity, which has been in place for years.

CHRISTIAN COUNTRY

Some people claim they are concerned about the impact of migrants on a Christian country.

In the UK, church attendance is low; approximately 6% of adults identify as practicing Christians and attending church regularly.

Many people seeking asylum are Christians.

Christians are the largest religious group among foreign-born UK residents.  

In fact, a far higher proportion of non-white people go to Christian churches than is typical among the white British population.

Churches know migrants make a significant contribution to keeping Christianity alive. 

 The impact of migrants on a Christian country is a false argument that would only be put forward by someone who doesn't go to church and isn't part of any Christian community.

Bottomline:

• Not all asylum seekers arrived on boats.
• Not all asylum seekers arrived through illegal channels.
• Asylum seekers aren't given a free life of luxury. They aren't given mobile phones by the government.
• They can't work, so they will be in dire poverty if they don't already have savings or family here to help them.
• Some have family already in this country.
• They are people just like us with the same hopes and dreams and fears; so, what terrible crisis would happen in your life to push you to move across the world in the way that they have?
• They are helped by charities; British people across the country help asylum seekers.
• The existence of asylum seekers does NOT affect the amount of welfare or healthcare available to British people.
• You and I would not feel richer if there were no asylum seekers. It wouldn't improve the quality of our lives.

What terrible life background must have brought people to such desperation that they risk their lives to get here?

 “No matter who we are or where we come from, we all have the right to feel safe. We know from our clinical work that many men, women and children in these hotels came here seeking protection after being tortured in countries like Afghanistan and Iran. To meet with hate on the streets of Britain, whipped up by politicians for their own ends, makes survivors feel hunted again and adds to their trauma. This isn’t who we are as a country. It is down to the millions of us who want a more compassionate approach to stand together with refugees and for an end to the torture and repression which drives people across borders in the first place.” 

Sonya Sceats, Chief Executive at Freedom from Torture.

"Let's not lose sight of the fact that asylum seekers are fleeing situations in their own countries which are dangerous and life-threatening." Eric Drysdale

Of course, asylum seekers should be processed swiftly so that they don't remain asylum seekers for a long time. If they are given refugee status with the right to remain, then they can work, pay taxes, and get on with their lives.

Assisted Dying ~ How you you vote?

It is a tough question; on 20th June 2025, I would most likely have voted FOR the drafr bill: 

 Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill 

For reference here is how your MP voted.

There is merit to arguments on all sides.

Here are my basic principles:

• Life is precious -- make the most of it.
• We should do all we can to keep people alive, healthy, and able to enjoy their lives. This means a safety net of assurance for the basics of food, housing, and healthcare.
• We should do all we can to keep people from even considering suicide. This means people should have a reason to go on living without constant pain.
• People should be treated with respect and dignity.
• In their final days and weeks, if life is truly insufferable and death is imminent, people should have control over their final hours and be able to bring peace with dignity.

I would NOT want to extend help to assist suicide in the way that it has been done in some countries. 

I am alarmed that people kill themselves, and I think we should be preventing unnecessary death, not helping it.

Disability should not be a reason for suicide.

Mental anguish should not be a reason for suicide.

No one should be coerced into suicide.

That said:

At the end of their lives, some people spend their final days or weeks in terrible pain and distress, waiting for it to end. It can't be right. We don't allow our beloved pets to suffer in this way.

The legal change in the UK that I would support would limit assisted death to people facing certain death of natural causes within 6 months.

What of the actual bill before the House that was passed on Friday?

• It has its problems. 
• It will go through many more stages before becoming law. 
• I hope and believe it can be changed; it is a work in progress with more stages to go through before the final thing.

PROBLEMS ~ Safeguards

I hope the safeguards will be strengthened.

I am concerned about the role of medical doctors and other clinicians in all this -- it needs to be looked at carefully. 

RELIGIOUS OBJECTIONS

I understand some people have objections on the grounds of their religious convictions. 

I do not think YOU should be free to hold your views and practice your religion, but you should not be able to dictate the law of the land that applies to ALL people based solely on religious faith.

No one should be forced into a suicide arrangement or assisted dying.

While most MPs voted in favour of the bill on Friday, as I would have also done, 

Adam Jogee Labour Party MP

for Newcastle-under-Lyme

voted against the bill.

In his NEWSLETTER to constituents, he explained the difficult dilemma, and the letters from constituents presented arguments for both sides of the case.

I can respect this POV, I understand it was a difficult decision, I may have voted the same way if I were actually in his shoes. However, if the Bill didn't go forward at this stage, it might be years before a bill makes it through Parliament. My hope is that this will be changed; it can be defeated at a later stage if necessary.

Would you ban the burqa?

 MPs should focus on making a meaningful difference to improve society. 

If I were an MP and someone asked me if we should ban the burqa in public places right now, I would have to say NO.

• How does a ban help anyone in society? It doesn't. 
• How are burqas causing trouble?
• Banning this item of clothing merely upsets a very tiny religious minority for no benefit.
• Banning this item RESTRICTS the freedom of a small number of women to dress how they wish and express their religious views.
• MPs should focus on solving the real problems that affect many people.

I am pleased we live in a FREE society where people can be free to express themselves and have religious freedom.

Banning the burqa in public is a slippery slope towards legally defining what people may and may not wear. I believe in freedom.

Perhaps as many as 1,000 women wear it in the UK, and it affects no one else if they choose to do so.

ME: 

* I prefer to see people's faces.

* Being able to lip-read and recognise facial expressions is an essential part of communication and being an integral part of society.

Still, if a small minority opt for something different, I think that is OK.

The BURQA SHOULD BE BANNED in certain situations:

• such as in many workplaces, where communication is relevant (such as school teachers), 
• but these do not require parliamentary time taken up discussing the far-reaching ban suggested last week:

Sarah Pochin( MP for Runcorn and Helsby) :  “Given the prime minister’s desire to strengthen strategic alignment with our European neighbours, will he in the interests of public safety follow the lead of France, Denmark, Belgium and others and ban the burqa?”

HOW STRANGE!

The far-right were passionate about BREXIT.

They wanted us to leave the European Union.

Each country is unique; it faces different issues and can forge its own path.

There is no REASON for the UK to BLINDLY follow other countries.

NOTE: France actually bans face coverings -- All face coverings...

***

As with other issues, I think public policy and laws should be evidence-based.

So, how many people actually wear the Burqa in the UK and where and when?

What is the evidence that the Burqa causes a problem in the UK?

What is the evidence that a ban on the Burqa in all public places will make anything better?