“Why is this even a question?” asked the floor’s most-respected Yes case, and the answer came back with unusual force: Yes won by three to one. The result was a clear demand that British citizens in housing need should be placed ahead of people with indefinite leave to remain, even as the debate exposed how readily that category was blurred with illegal migration.
The winning side’s argument was less about the mechanics of allocation than about moral priority. “Of course our own citizens in need should come first,” said one highly rated voice, while another framed it as “Citizenship should come first”; the stronger theme was scarcity, with “charity must begin at home” offered as the governing principle.
There was also a quieter hesitation beneath the majority view. One Yes voter admitted, “I am struggling with this one,” and another stressed that their position was “not a racial thing”, but a response to homeless UK citizens and families who had lived here all their lives. The argument the floor rated highest on the No side answered that appeal directly: “People are not parasites. Housing should be allocated on need.”
The two sides were often arguing about different injustices. No voters returned to the existing principle — “Social housing is and should always be baised off of need first” — and warned that a British-born family who contributed little should not automatically outrank someone who had lived and worked in the UK for years; Yes voters repeatedly brought the small boats crisis and welfare costs into a question specifically about ILR.
That is the debate’s wider finding: the vote was decisive, but the reasoning was not narrowly settled. The chamber gave priority to citizenship over equal treatment in a scarce public service, while its most-respected opponents kept insisting that need, contribution and supply mattered more than birthplace.
41 Opinions
Non-citizens should not have access to taxpayer funded accommodation. Non citizens who cannot support themselves should return to their home countries. This has not been a controversial position for virtually all countries around the world for a great many years. In fact it is, and has always been, the default position.
Why is this even a question? Of course our own citizens in need should come first.
No foreigner should be benefiting from or influencing the state, beyond basic services. No benefits! No housing! No vote! Look at the state of our finances and politics right now!!!!
I spent 2 decades of my life being told we couldn't do anything for the homeless. Met with silence when asking why they can't be in empty hotels and b&b's whilst we find them social housing. 20 years later, we still won't house the homeless unless they're women or parents. However, get here illegally and you can stay forever and you will always be sheltered and housed. That is, disgusting and a scourge on the country.
Citizenship should come first
Does anything more than yes really need saying? Look at it in reverse and the answer is even more glaringly obvious. Could we go to "country x" and claim benefits and get housing from the state ahead of "country x" nationals? Look at African migrants laughing when that is put to them.
Disgusted by some of the language used in these comments. People are not parasites. Housing should be allocated on need. Any human in need of housing should get it. I wonder how many people using such dehumanising language also claim this country to be a Christian one? Perhaps revisit the hymm "When I Needed a Neighbour" and remind yourselves of those values.
No taxpayer funded welfare of any kind for non citizens. This should be a basic principle.
Born & bred should always be the priority. All others should have to wait or rent privately.
If you are on ILR how did you get social housing in the first place? You should be a net contributor not a drain to this country or not be eligible. Source: I am ILR