Andy Burnham says wealthy areas must house more migrants after leafy village revolts over 1,250 asylum seekers

[MrsLifeisnotabowlofcherries4]

Andy Burnham just doesn't get it does he, we don't want anymore migrants/illegals put anywhere not in rich or poor areas we want to stop them coming here full stop.

Yes a few but not millions like now leaving their country of origin leaving their women and young children, why not stay and fight make their country better. No they are cowards just wanting freebies and not wanting to work and our stupid PM is too weak to do anything other than spread out the pain well you can bu××er off Andy Burnham. Anyone who thinks the illegals coming over on the now Mega dinghies are anything but economic migrants need their heads testing.

This political commentary makes specific claims regarding UK immigration law, the asylum process, benefits eligibility, and Indefinite Leave to Remain (ILR).

Here is a fact-based breakdown refuting the inaccuracies and contextually misleading claims in the text:
1. Indefinite Leave to Remain (ILR) Exemption Claims

• The Claim: Refugees applying for ILR pay no fees, face no language tests, do not need to prove knowledge of British culture, and face lower barriers than legal immigrants.
• Fact: Under standard UK immigration rules, refugees applying for settlement (ILR) after five years of protection status are exempt from the standard ILR application fee, the KoLL (Knowledge of Language and Life in the UK) test, and English language requirements.
• The Context: This is an intentional structure established under international treaties (such as the 1951 Refugee Convention). Once an individual is recognized as a refugee escaping persecution, their legal status transitions from asylum seeker to refugee. Exemption from these specific fees and tests recognizes that refugees often arrive without financial resources or documentation due to fleeing war or persecution, unlike standard economic or study visa applicants.

2. Free Food, Housing, and "Breaking In"

• The Claim: Small boat arrivals are "rewarded with free food and housing" and can "break into Britain."
• Fact: Under the UN Refugee Convention and international law, individuals have a legal right to seek asylum in a country regardless of how they enter.
• The Context: Asylum seekers are legally prohibited from working in the UK while their claims are processed (except under narrow shortages after 12 months). Because they cannot work, the UK government provides basic accommodation (such as hotels or hostels) and a weekly allowance (around £49.18 per person for food and essentials, or £9.50 if meals are provided in full board) to prevent immediate destitution.

3. Universal Credit and Asylum Claims

• The Claim: People can "go straight onto benefits" once granted asylum, and 180,000 asylum recipients are on Universal Credit.
• Fact: Asylum seekers cannot claim Universal Credit while their claim is pending. Only after a person is granted official Refugee Status or Humanitarian Protection do they acquire the right to work and access the public safety net like any UK citizen or legal resident.
• The Context: Once granted refugee status, individuals are given a short grace period (typically 28 days) to transition off asylum support into independent housing and employment. Those unable to secure employment immediately can apply for Universal Credit under the same conditionality and work-search rules as UK citizens.

4. Pull Factors and European Migration

• The Claim: "No wonder illegal migrants cross the whole of Europe to come here."
• Fact: Academic and NGO research consistently shows that welfare benefits are rarely a primary "pull factor" for migrants.
• The Context: The primary reasons migrants and asylum seekers head to the UK include language familiarity (English is widely spoken globally), existing family or diaspora networks, and perceived labor market opportunities, rather than state benefit systems. Furthermore, the vast majority of refugees entering Europe remain in continental nations like France, Germany, or Italy rather than traveling on to the UK.

Have you got any evidence for your assertion that none of the small boat arrivals are genuine asylum seekers?

And the people who say "fighting age , young men" , who are they talking about?

I’m fine if you have no issues. If you see no risk then yes by all means have the accommodation near you.

There’s no vetting and I prefer not. There is a way for us both to benefit. Just place the groups of men accordingly.

There are a few schemes like this. I housed a young Sudanese man for a year, and it was fine, he was fine.
There’s some really dehumanising language cropping up on this thread and it’s troubling.

Where would you put groups of men?

Where people are keen, as you appear to be.

I don’t think there’s too many who will be keen, Piddington is a Lib Dem voting leafy area and they are a no thanks still.

But as you believe it’s only DM / Telegraph readers who are paranoid who would say no there are probably others who feel the same as you do. It makes sense to put the groups of men in those areas. They see no extra risk, which is up to them.

No I haven’t mentioned sexual offences in my post, I meant religion and heritage

I cannot find any statistics on how much crime is driven by migrants. It’s really hard to get clear data. If anyone has a source or a reference I would be keen.

A lot more stranger rape is being reported lately. It used to be incredibly rare. I am struggling to think of an instance that was a white Englishman. This is definitely feeding perceptions. If it can be refuted through objective data, it should be. It’s irresponsible not to.

And houses, where available.

Too late to edit so I'm quoting myself.
Our area had a larger number of family refugees because we had surplus housing stock (I have no idea whether it was purchased by the council or rented from the BTL owners who couldn't let it out).

We now have some refugees, including some families, housed in a barracks.

Nobody's told me how it's different having a load of British single men who've been exposed to war in a barracks, as opposed to a load of asylum seeker single men who've been opposed to war.

Yes houses are used, not sure why pp thought not. It’s dispersal housing overseen by Serco etc

They may have actually contributed to the exchequer, been employed and educated here and be British nationals would be a big difference for me

You think Britain should withdraw from the 1951 UN refugee convention?

Where would you put groups of men?

Near you and your dd?

I think you’ll find that most British men don’t think that women should only be allowed out with a male relative as chaperone, even if he’s only 5 years old, as is a common way of thinking across Pakistan and the Middle East. Neither do they believe women should be entirely covered up, otherwise they are responsible for men having impure thoughts and should be ashamed of themselves.
There’s also the issue that Afghan asylum seekers are 18 times more likely to rape a woman than a British man… need I go on?

In other words, these men generally come from very different cultures, and this is why many people regard their presence as a problem.

Yes. The US did, right? The 1951 convention is outdated now as society and mobility have both changed greatly.

A older woman would.

The specific 18-to-22 times multiplier claim overstates the statistical reality. Fact-checkers and migration experts analyzing UK police and census data indicate that while foreign-born populations and certain nationalities show higher per capita rates of recorded sexual offenses or charges, the actual rate for Afghan nationals is estimated to be roughly 3 to 4.5 times higher than UK-born individuals, not 18 or 22 times. 1, 2]

Context and Data Issues

• Denominator problems: High claims often rely on outdated population baselines (such as 2021 estimates) that miss the actual increase in the resident Afghan population following arrivals. 1, 2]
• Demographics: Raw comparisons frequently fail to adjust for age and gender. The Afghan cohort in the UK includes a high proportion of young, working-age males, a demographic that is statistically more prone to offending across all nationalities, including British-born men. 1, 2]
• Distinction in metrics: Some figures mix up charges, arrests, and actual convictions, or conflate broad foreign national categories with specific asylum seeker groups. 1, 2]

-

Why do all conversations get funneled into two strands - colour and sexual assault?

By imposing that binary we make sure that a reasoned discussion cannot take place and solutions not found.

This may have been posted already, but for info, this is an extract from the 1951 Convention on Refugees.

What rights do refugees have under the 1951 Convention?
The cornerstone of the 1951 Convention is the principle of non-refoulement contained in Article 33. According to this principle, a refugee should not be returned to a country where they face serious threats to their life or freedom.
Other rights contained in the 1951 Convention include:
The right not to be expelled, except under certain, strictly defined conditions (Article 32)
The right not to be punished for irregular entry into the territory of a contracting State (Article 31)
The right to non-discrimination (Articles 3 and 5)
The right to decent work (Articles 17 to 19 and 24)
The right to housing, land and property, including intellectual property (Articles 13, 14 and 21)
The right to education (Article 22)
The right to freedom of religion (Article 4)
The right to access to justice (Article 16)
The right to freedom of movement within the territory (Article 26 and Article 31 (2))
The right to be issued civil, identity and travel documents (Articles 12, 27 and 28)
The right to social protection (Articles 23 and 24 (2-4)).

Does a refugee also have obligations?
Yes. Refugees are required to abide by the laws and regulations of their country of asylum and respect measures taken for the maintenance of public order.

Can someone be excluded from refugee protection?
Yes. The 1951 Convention only protects persons who meet the criteria for refugee status. Certain categories of people are considered not to deserve refugee protection and should be excluded from such protection. This includes persons for whom there are serious reasons to suspect that:
they have committed a crime against peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity;
they have committed a serious non-political crime outside their country of refuge prior to the admission to that country as a refugee; or
they are guilty of acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

Why would we have anything to fear?

Seriously, why are you so scared of brown people? They are no more likely to commit sexual crimes than any other demographic.

I don’t think posters are trying to dissuade you from being keen, rather it makes sense to match the accommodation to where people feel as you do.

The Guardian reports an Oxford study which says that there is no evidence that brown asylum seekers are more likely to commit sexual violence

The director of the Migration Observatory who carried out the study is quoted in your link - she estimated that Afghan nationals were 14.5 times more likely to be convicted of sex offences than British nationals;

Madeleine Sumption, the director of the Migration Observatory, told BBC Radio 4’s More or Less programme that she estimated the conviction rate of sex offences rate to be 14.5 – not 22 – times higher for Afghan nationals.

Also, Ben Brindle, the researcher who carried out the analysis, said:

“I think it’s likely that asylum seekers are more likely to commit crimes, but that’s in good part due to some of the other characteristics that those people tend to have...

“For instance, asylum seekers are more likely to be young men and young men are more likely to commit crime...

“There are a range of other things which impact likelihood that somebody commits a crime, both Brits and migrants. Trauma is certainly one of them, mental health more broadly, socioeconomic status,

So, we are importing young men with trauma, mental health problems and low socioeconomic status, who are then more likely to commit crimes. Hardly reassuring.