|
|
Post by andrewbrown on Feb 5, 2024 8:02:15 GMT
Temporary accommodation for Asylum Seekers is a separate issue. This thread is about permanent, low-cost housing for people on low income. Red Rackham is obsessed with Asylum Seekers. He cannot think of anything else. He brings it into thread. The fact that Asylum Seekers are not entitled to social housing should make his current comments irrelevant. |
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Feb 5, 2024 10:30:05 GMT
Given that something around 80% of asylum seekers are granted refugee status - going on for 100% for some nationalities - Red isn't too far off the mark.
But the larger point, and the point behind the thread title, is whether or not non-citizens should be given social housing.
What is the legislation that allows that to happen?
|
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Feb 5, 2024 10:40:53 GMT
Apart from temporary accommodation for people claiming asylum, my understanding is that non-citizens (apart from those expected to become citizens any day) are not eligible for social housing now, Dan.
I might be wrong though. Are you suggesting this is not the case?
|
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Feb 5, 2024 10:44:27 GMT
My understanding is that refugees are entitled to social housing as are all foreigners not ineligible for public funds.
|
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Feb 5, 2024 11:26:45 GMT
Actually I think you are right Dan. People who have become refugees are eligible to join the queue but not for preferential treatment.
Your double negative was a little confusing but given that the vast majority of non British nationals (or with ILR) are not eligible for public money, they are similarly not eligible for social housing as I understand it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Feb 5, 2024 11:32:50 GMT
Actually I think you are right Dan. People who have become refugees are eligible to join the queue but not for preferential treatment. Your double negative was a little confusing but given that the vast majority of non British nationals (or with ILR) are not eligible for public money, they are similarly not eligible for social housing as I understand it. As they are typically by definition utterly homeless , I assume they get priority associated with need. ..and by this method, those who are here and have connections here, are relentlessly pushed to the back of the queue while more 'homeless' people are collected from Somalia and Eritrea |
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Feb 5, 2024 11:44:57 GMT
The Grenfell Tower episode, where around 90% of occupants were not of white British ancestry, brought the matter to light although there was little public discussion.
The political class and the legacy media showed little interest in exploring that aspect of the incident, nor in how typical Grenfell was of social housing in London in particular.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Feb 5, 2024 11:48:19 GMT
Actually I think you are right Dan. People who have become refugees are eligible to join the queue but not for preferential treatment. Your double negative was a little confusing but given that the vast majority of non British nationals (or with ILR) are not eligible for public money, they are similarly not eligible for social housing as I understand it. As they are typically by definition utterly homeless , I assume they get priority associated with need. ..and by this method, those who are here and have connections here, are relentlessly pushed to the back of the queue while more 'homeless' people are collected from Somalia and Eritrea Even with those councils where 'local connections' are taken into account an applicant doesn't have to have been born in the area or even spent any particular amount of time there. Having a job in the area and/or having 'family' there will serve just as well. |
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Feb 5, 2024 11:53:14 GMT
Actually I think you are right Dan. People who have become refugees are eligible to join the queue but not for preferential treatment. Your double negative was a little confusing but given that the vast majority of non British nationals (or with ILR) are not eligible for public money, they are similarly not eligible for social housing as I understand it. As they are typically by definition utterly homeless , I assume they get priority associated with need. ..and by this method, those who are here and have connections here, are relentlessly pushed to the back of the queue while more 'homeless' people are collected from Somalia and Eritrea Only if they have kids I believe. In the real world (not the tabloid world) its a major issue for those seeking asylum. They have no idea when their asylum decision will pop up in the post. When it does they have 28 days to find accommodation and a job etc. In todays labour market not at all easy. |
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Feb 5, 2024 11:56:21 GMT
Actually refugees (former asylum seekers as opposed to 'direct entrants') will almost certainly go to the head of the queue since they are supposed to vacate their asylum housing within 28 days of being notified about their new status.
To the extent that the Home Office enforces its own rules that is.
|
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Feb 5, 2024 12:00:43 GMT
As they are typically by definition utterly homeless , I assume they get priority associated with need. ..and by this method, those who are here and have connections here, are relentlessly pushed to the back of the queue while more 'homeless' people are collected from Somalia and Eritrea Only if they have kids I believe. It still amounts to the same thing. Unless you have a child you will be pushed towards the back of the queue by people with children who have been collected from Africa / Middle east. |
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Feb 5, 2024 12:01:58 GMT
The Home Office computer largely does enforce those rules (the 28 days) and there is n preferential treatment, hence only those new refugees with kids are likely to get accommodation. The rest are likely to be left to fare for themselves. Welcome to the UK.....
|
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Feb 5, 2024 12:09:42 GMT
Well given that an asylum-seeker will have had six months or more to plan their affairs pending the decision it's hardly the case that eviction from their digs will come as a great surprise, is it?
Either way, they're going to have to sort out their accommodation, either in the private sector or at the local council, and will have had several months at least to get on with doing it.
I'm sure there are any number of migrants rights charities ready, willing and able to pitch with helpful advice and support. That's what taxpayers are funding them to do isn't it?
|
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Feb 5, 2024 12:14:13 GMT
I'm sure there are any number of migrants rights charities ready, willing and able to pitch with helpful advice and support. That's what taxpayers are funding them to do isn't it? You mean the very same taxpayers maneuvered towards the back of queue by the activity of the charity? |
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Feb 5, 2024 12:23:39 GMT
Yes them. Of course nobody in government or the legacy media highlights for them what these charities get up to or how they are funded. Well, maybe an occasional story in the Mail to allow a short and temporary release of steam.
|
|
