After Asylum: A Glimpse Inside the Hidden Realities of the UK Refugee Hotel System

[nauseus]

2 hours ago, recom273 said:

no one gets free money. These people are here, the UK could follow the Thai model, if they don’t have finances, let them wander the streets, Hyde park would be just like Calais with some massive plastic encampment. It would be chaos, beggars everywhere, crime would go through the roof and it’s cheaper to put asylum

seekers in a crap hotel, bung them 8 quid a week for sweets, than overload the justice system and put them in prison awaiting trial. 
 

if their claim Is successful, then rightly or wrongly they get the same rights as UK citizens, they can get a small loan for a house deposit or whatever, they can claim unemployment benefit while seeking work, but that doesn’t run forever. No one gets free money and lives on eternal benefits, that’s another myth that suits a rhetoric.
 

After they are up and running they contribute far more than UK citizens that enables them to use the NHS and they pay a higher rate of tax. 

 

You got a link to all that mate?

[Watawattana]

2 hours ago, recom273 said:

how do you work that out? 
 

if you are referring to the idea that asylum seekers (correct they are not refugees, they are going through the process of applying for a right to remain in the UK) have to seek asylum in the first safe country they arrive to, then you might want to question other information that you have also picked up along the way. 
 

Asylum seekers don’t necessarily have to seek asylum in the first safe country, it’s a bit of a myth that suits the narrative of certain right wing organizations. Hell, I wouldn’t want to live in France or Germany, would you? 

Hi recom273.  I have made the same mistake you pointed out.  Thanks.  I had a quick, but not exhaustive look online for info on this.  The UNHCR web site isn't clear on this (I've not read 100% of it though).  I did find this though - https://www.refugeecouncil.org.uk/stay-informed/explainers/the-truth-about-asylum.  In that it states:

 

 - A European regulation allows countries in the EU to return an adult asylum applicant to the first European country they reached.

 - This means that countries on the edge of Europe have responsibility for a lot more people seeking asylum than others.

 

So leaving the EU has in part caused the asylum issues that the UK are experiencing.  This is almost entirely the fault of the Conservative Party's abject failure to counter right-wing Press run by an Australian, and Boris Johnson's bovine excrement.  So the UK needs to negotiate this with the EU or suck it up.

[Kinok Farang]

A large number of people will never work a day in their lives but their children might. That's alright then.No fuucking wonder we are the laughing stock of the world.

[Watawattana]

1 hour ago, newbee2022 said:

You can joggling with your money as long you want. But fact is you will have to act: Give them a job and let them earn their living.

Yeah.  A lot of things in this if their application is rejected and the country they are from is not a good destination.  But I want to concentrate on the positives of this as I've seen this first hand in Hong Kong, where I live.  Seekers do not get much, I won't bore everyone with the details but I've seen first hand the impact of the inability to work, which includes modern-day slavery & prostitution, all of which is driven by people smuggling from very poor countries with promises of a golden land and untold riches - for a price.  The reality is exploitation by, for example, restaurants who pay a tiny fraction of the HK minimum wage, nowhere near enough to pay the people smuggler or to live, with the threat of the worker being sent back home and barred from HK due to illegal working.  If they could work legally then they'd be contributing to the economy, with the knowledge that there's a seeker process that may lead to rejection.

[dinsdale]

12 hours ago, newbee2022 said:

Due to the fact that you can only send them back to their home countries if these countries agree... you'll have to take the burden and feed them trying to get them jobs in order to pay taxes.

This alone shows just how uneducated you are or are you simply a troll. 

AI overview.

The term "safe third country" refers to a country where an asylum seeker can be reasonably assumed to be safe and where they can seek protection from persecution, according to international refugee law. If a country is deemed a safe third country, an asylum seeker may be sent there for their asylum claim to be processed, rather than to the country where they initially arrived. 

[recom273]

14 hours ago, nauseus said:

 

You got a link to all that mate?

https://www.gov.uk/asylum-support/what-youll-get

 

There are other pages on gov.uk on the subject. 

 

Here is an independent site, not too sure if the info is impartial.

 

https://www.gov.uk/asylum-support/what-youll-get

 

It’s often the assumption from applicants that they can get free money, which creates it’s own issues, as outlined in the article. Successful applicants move from the asylum system to the UK benefits system, the assistance they get isn’t bottomless, just as the same way it is for UK nationals. 

[newbee2022]

12 hours ago, dinsdale said:

This alone shows just how uneducated you are or are you simply a troll. 

If you want to communicate with me you're advised to do it in a respectful way. In case you can't look for a fool. It's not me.

 

Actually your comment is wrong. Even you will blast it to Nirwana.

[newbee2022]

14 hours ago, Watawattana said:

Yeah.  A lot of things in this if their application is rejected and the country they are from is not a good destination.  But I want to concentrate on the positives of this as I've seen this first hand in Hong Kong, where I live.  Seekers do not get much, I won't bore everyone with the details but I've seen first hand the impact of the inability to work, which includes modern-day slavery & prostitution, all of which is driven by people smuggling from very poor countries with promises of a golden land and untold riches - for a price.  The reality is exploitation by, for example, restaurants who pay a tiny fraction of the HK minimum wage, nowhere near enough to pay the people smuggler or to live, with the threat of the worker being sent back home and barred from HK due to illegal working.  If they could work legally then they'd be contributing to the economy, with the knowledge that there's a seeker process that may lead to rejection.

Thank your for your observation. 

However, we're talking about European countries.

The minimum for living is set by govt and courts regarding international human/laws. 

[newbee2022]

14 hours ago, nauseus said:

 

If these home countries will not take them then why should the UK? Especially as most of these migrants pass through several "safe" countries on the way?

You got something completely wrong.

I will correct it:

A migrant who is illegal in Europe  can be relocated in his country of origin. But only if you know where he was coming from and also only if this country will take him back. 

If this migrant was applying for asylum in Greece as first entered country in EU and Greece did not registered him and he came to UK where the registration was done you have to keep him.

In case he was registered already in Greece you can send him to Greece (theoretically)

[newbee2022]

16 hours ago, SunnyinBangrak said:

I'd deport every single one today

Where to, please ??

[Watawattana]

1 hour ago, newbee2022 said:

Thank your for your observation. 

However, we're talking about European countries.

Of course, but the same happens in Europe.  Mostly east Europeans heading west, Africans or Asians.  Plenty of stuff about it on Google, virtually the same in HK.

[recom273]

15 hours ago, Watawattana said:

Hi recom273.  I have made the same mistake you pointed out.  Thanks.  I had a quick, but not exhaustive look online for info on this.  The UNHCR web site isn't clear on this (I've not read 100% of it though).  I did find this though - https://www.refugeecouncil.org.uk/stay-informed/explainers/the-truth-about-asylum.  In that it states:

 

 - A European regulation allows countries in the EU to return an adult asylum applicant to the first European country they reached.

 - This means that countries on the edge of Europe have responsibility for a lot more people seeking asylum than others.

 

So leaving the EU has in part caused the asylum issues that the UK are experiencing.  This is almost entirely the fault of the Conservative Party's abject failure to counter right-wing Press run by an Australian, and Boris Johnson's bovine excrement.  So the UK needs to negotiate this with the EU or suck it up.

 

It’s a total mess, no argument there.

 

My objection is the untruth that’s banded around by the likes of reformUK and farage. Life as an asylum seeker is pretty bad, and they make it sound like it’s a matter of rocking up on a small boat, being handed a phone and you on the path to the promised land.

I find The Telegraph article interesting, like you say, a lot of the problems were created by the conservatives, some of these places aren’t local authority controlled, people are making money out of this  - ex-hotels aren’t the places to keep asylum seekers, it was a program created by the conservatives whilst they weren’t processing asylum claims.

 

7 minutes ago, Watawattana said:

Of course, but the same happens in Europe.  Mostly east Europeans heading west, Africans or Asians.  Plenty of stuff about it on Google, virtually the same in HK.

 

I think your post is very relevant, the UK may have laws, but there can be a work around - years ago I worked in a company where I was one of the few English nationals, most were foreign students, migrants, illegals - the work was bad, the management were up to no good, they were paid minimum wage and worked like dogs. When you have situations with the possibility of exploration, there will be.

[Woke to Sounds]

21 hours ago, BangkokReady said:

Tons of spare land and housing, too, apparently.  That's why people say "Just get to England, they'll give you a free house and free money, then after a few years, you can bring your family over, and they'll get free money too!".  Wonderful!

Well, shxite, if that's really the case, I'm going to England buddy!  Screw this place!

[BangkokReady]

32 minutes ago, Woke to Sounds said:

Well, shxite, if that's really the case, I'm going to England buddy!  Screw this place!

 

I'll start pumping up the dingey.

[nauseus]

3 hours ago, newbee2022 said:

You got something completely wrong.

I will correct it:

A migrant who is illegal in Europe  can be relocated in his country of origin. But only if you know where he was coming from and also only if this country will take him back. 

If this migrant was applying for asylum in Greece as first entered country in EU and Greece did not registered him and he came to UK where the registration was done you have to keep him.

In case he was registered already in Greece you can send him to Greece (theoretically)

 

You have ignored my question completely. Your par for this course, so no surprise.

[newbee2022]

14 minutes ago, nauseus said:

 

You have ignored my question completely. Your par for this course, so no surprise.

There was no question

[nauseus]

4 hours ago, recom273 said:

https://www.gov.uk/asylum-support/what-youll-get

 

There are other pages on gov.uk on the subject. 

 

Here is an independent site, not too sure if the info is impartial.

 

https://www.gov.uk/asylum-support/what-youll-get

 

It’s often the assumption from applicants that they can get free money, which creates it’s own issues, as outlined in the article. Successful applicants move from the asylum system to the UK benefits system, the assistance they get isn’t bottomless, just as the same way it is for UK nationals. 

 

 

The links send me to the same site. So there is money, food and accommodation available, whichever way you  look at it. And from news reports there may be quite a bit more than that, too.

 

But I was more interested in your comment saying: "after they are up and running they contribute far more than UK citizens that enables them to use the NHS and they pay a higher rate of tax". Where on earth did you get this from? I need to know because it sounds like bs. Or  by "up and running" do you mean leaving government paid accommodations to hide in the shady illegal economy in UK towns and cities??

 

 

[dinsdale]

4 hours ago, newbee2022 said:

If you want to communicate with me you're advised to do it in a respectful way. In case you can't look for a fool. It's not me.

 

Actually your comment is wrong. Even you will blast it to Nirwana.

If you do not know about third country processing/resettlement of asylum seekers your education is lacking. Offshore processing happens. If you want respect then earn it by not posting clearly inaccurate posts/flames/trolling. Support your comments.

[nauseus]

18 minutes ago, newbee2022 said:

There was no question

 

 

If these home countries will not take them then why should the UK? Especially as most of these migrants pass through several "safe" countries on the way?

 

Now, two question marks might suggest the possibility of two questions, even to a donkey.

[Photoguy21]

On 4/12/2025 at 8:29 AM, newbee2022 said:

Due to the fact that you can only send them back to their home countries if these countries agree... you'll have to take the burden and feed them trying to get them jobs in order to pay taxes.

Up to this time there will be hardly no change.

Unless you would make life in their home countries livable.

So any investment to improve education and infrastructure in these countries is a good investment.

But it seems almost impossible for any govt to tell the simple people/electorate the truth.

Put them in a camp and give them enough food. No luxuries. Additionally let them know if they do not have verifiable proof of where they come from they will be deported end of story. While we are at it include Starmer and his cronies, kick them out as well.

[newbee2022]

1 minute ago, Photoguy21 said:

they will be deported

...and where to ????

[Photoguy21]

1 minute ago, newbee2022 said:

...and where to ????

Anywhere I dont care. We have enough home grown problems without these illegals coming in.

[Photoguy21]

3 minutes ago, newbee2022 said:

...and where to ????

Not our problem. Send them to Siberia if they can. I couldn't carer less

[newbee2022]

1 minute ago, Photoguy21 said:

Anywhere I dont care. We have enough home grown problems without these illegals coming in.

Hahaha. If you don't know where to deport them you will have to keep them

[newbee2022]

1 minute ago, Photoguy21 said:

Not our problem. Send them to Siberia if they can. I couldn't carer less

.....if it would be so easy....

[ElwoodP]

Keep it civil please.

[jaideedave]

On 4/12/2025 at 10:56 AM, newbee2022 said:

You missed the point unfortunately and didn't read/understand the thread.

And, unfortunately don't understand why the migrants are coming.

Btw...why do you call me a racist? Because I want/and do helping the poor? 😳😳😳

To make it easy for you I'll give you this question to answer:

Would you leave your country voluntarily just to live 5000km away by charity and dole? Without your family? Not even speaking the language?

Think again. Possible??🤗

Money

[jaideedave]

On 4/12/2025 at 12:00 PM, James105 said:

 

I would do the same as any sensible country.   Remove incentives, no free money, no free housing, detention on arrival, no free legal representation and deportation as soon as possible thereafter using any money they turned up with to pay for their flight.   The UK being an island has a unique advantage also of being able to defend its seas from invasion, so stopping boats from arriving in the first place seems to be the easiest approach. 

 

I'm not completely heartless though so I would also set up a scheme that lefties can pay into to fund these illegal migrants lives outside of the UK, some kind of sponsor a migrant scheme where you get a photo of the illegal migrant you are sponsoring that you can carry in your wallet so you can show people how virtuous you are.   Like all of these schemes of this nature I would of course take my cut for administration costs but would guarantee that around 10% of your money gets into the migrants hands.   

105,I love your solution to the problem.If they only followed half your suggestions the UK taxpayer would save millions...

 

[newbee2022]

12 minutes ago, jaideedave said:

Money

Do you want to tell me something? Then do it please.

[Kinok Farang]

5 hours ago, nauseus said:

 

 

If these home countries will not take them then why should the UK? Especially as most of these migrants pass through several "safe" countries on the way?

 

Now, two question marks might suggest the possibility of two questions, even to a donkey.

He haw,he hawa's evades the question.