One of the things which amazes me when we see interviews with asylum seekers, successful asylum seekers and other immigrants to the UK is their limitless sense of entitlement. They frequently seem to have an amazingly developed sense of their “rights” under the UK system; often far sharper than that of native Brits.
I’m not picking on Isra Sulevani with her “lived experience of homelessness”, but just using it as a case in point. I do have to say at the outset, though, that based on the internal evidence of the article Ms Sulevani was not homeless; she was housed, almost certainly at public expense. She came from another country, Iraq, to the UK and received free shelter and, it would appear, free education, and, while she is rather coy about it, it would seem financial support as well, (since she talks about a ‘household income’ after her parents ‘lost their jobs’). Strikingly absent is the slightest hint of gratitude. Rather – she and her family, pitched up in the UK, (again we are not told how), received all of the above, and it is still not enough.
Quotes and Comments;
My family came to the UK after becoming refugees during the Iraq war, and were homeless, repeatedly, for years – moving from friends’ house to friends’ house, or B&B to B&B. Each new place meant a new school, a new set of friends and a new set of rules I had to get used to.
“Came to the UK”. Why not say how? Why not? As for “refugees” that seems to suggest an asylum seeker route. Did they enter the country legally? Did they really have to leave Iraq? I ask, because time and time again, when I read actual interviews with would be asylum seekers to the UK they openly say that the reason for coming to Europe or the UK is economic. [1] Even when they say it is due to “persecution” the story often sounds rather stretched; for example; if you convert to Christianity, or publicly announce you are gay, in a strongly conservative, Islamic country, is that our problem? Did you really have to do that? Did you really have to leave; was life impossible or just not comfortable? I don’t know the details in the case of Isra Sulevani; but that is because she doesn’t provide them. Again; why not? In whose world can you just say “refugee” and from that flows a whole series of unquestioned entitlements?
B&B. Again; the total lack of candour and details; just this overriding theme of entitlement. But, perhaps from “B&B” we can at least speculate, expensive Local Authority, temporary accommodation?
In another place there were four of us in one room with all our belongings, while my siblings and I played human Tetris in bunkbeds. I remember reading to my younger brother there, doing my best to give him that normal family experience despite the chaos…. The conditions in temporary accommodation are often well below the standard anyone should be expected to accept – it can be cramped, or cold or dangerous.
I’m not disputing the veracity of the account, such that it is. But; what did you expect? immediate placement in a 4 bed semi? (It seems she did). Notice the strong sense of “rights”. Personally; if I moved to another country I simply can’t imagine lecturing that other country on what they should provide for me. I would take what they offered, and if I couldn’t bear it, I would leave. The fact is, a lot of the “refuges” to the UK are from very middle-class families; those who can afford the thousands of dollars for their illegal passages – and they come from countries where they are used to having servants to cater for their needs, They bring the tone with them. Of course, I don’t know if this applies in the case of Ms Sulevani, but that is because her article provides no details.
When I showed a teacher proof of our household income, her face just dropped. She couldn’t believe the number on the paper. She had to ask me again if I was sure of the amount, because she was struggling to believe that that figure had sustained my whole family. When I saw the look on her face, I realised this was not a normal way to live.
Strong on emotion. Short on details. How much money did you have? If your parents had “lost their jobs” that means that by this point your (I am presuming in the absence of any information) asylum claim had been successful. (If they came in on a Work Visa route they would have had to leave if they lost their jobs, I think – so, together with the word “refugee”, I am assuming asylum seeker basis). Well; people in the UK who have been granted leave to remain are entitled to normal social security benefits. Are you saying this was not enough for you? I guess it is just possible, theoretically, that there was some legal situation which meant they weren’t entitled to benefits; but, again, no information. We get it; the situation was not to your liking and did not meet your expectations, (despite the education and apparent roof over your head); but there is a total lack of details. It looks like you are so overwhelmed by your sense of frustrated entitlement that it doesn’t even occur to you that the actual details might be interesting.
My family are now stably housed – we’re safe and happy.
Again – the total lack of detail. It could be that her family paid their own way, but it certainly seems that this family was fully supported by the benefits system and the author can’t even bring herself to acknowledge that. “Housed”; implies social housing, provided to you, by other people out of their taxes. In concrete terms then, the complaint is that pending being “housed” in a stable house, her family had to live in temporary accommodation. My gosh.
After my teacher found out about our situation, she put us on free school meals, which helped massively.
Which, you could, of course, have simply applied for yourself. More freebies.
The worst thing is that we could stop this if we wanted to. We know what causes homelessness, which means we know how to end it. That means building more social homes, and it means creating a welfare system that allows people to live in dignity.
Well, yes! I could not agree more about the need to build more affordable social housing. But, the hard fact is that if we are to provide it for people who have “just come to the UK” – that is going to mean that the bill has suddenly got much larger.
We moved from place to place, but none of them were home, because we didn’t feel comfortable living there. It wasn’t normal to grow up like that, and no one else should have to.
Essentially, the provocation of this author is that she does not distinguish between a UK Citizen and newly arrived “refugees”. Yet; if everyone who decides to “come to the UK” is to be provided with a comfortable permanent house the moment they arrive, what implications does that have for the availability of decent social housing for existing British citizens, given the reality that no budget is limitless?
For context; the real problem with immigration and the UK is not individual immigrants, even insatiably entitled ones, but the fact that open immigration is a decided policy of financial elites who calculate, correctly, that it will increase the profits they can cream out of the system – a policy which has been imposed, without any democratic process, on people. (And which is then defended by accusing anyone who questions it of being “racist” in an analogous way to how anyone who criticises murderous Israeli ethno-fascism is called antisemitic).
Notes
- This is just one example – in a story about a “refugee” entering Europe: “Five years earlier, he had set off from his home city of Minya, on the western bank of the Nile, abandoning his dream of studying medicine to find a job in Europe that would allow him to provide for his parents and eight younger siblings.” That is; economic reasons. I have multiple examples. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/sep/21/rafie-nadi-survived-40-hours-adrift-in-the-mediterranean