Dominik Tarczyński calls out UK elites, demands ZERO illegal migrants, and says the silent majority is done being silent.

Featuring: ✅ Dominik Tarczyński ✅ Nick Tenconi ✅ Imam Tawhidi ✅ Tareq Al-Suwaidan ✅ Shaykh Zakaullah Saleem

Whether you support or oppose — you need to hear this message. THE DEBATE IS HERE.

🎥 Watch now → https://youtu.be/VBUYzE2ywXc

I didn't understand this issue very well, so I did a deep dive, and here's what I learned…

If you’ve read the headlines lately, you’d think local councils are writing cheques to Premier Inn and Travelodge for thousands of asylum seekers. That’s not actually true — but the reality is messier, and that’s why everyone’s shouting past each other.

Who really pays for hotels?

The hotel contracts are signed and paid for by the Home Office — not your local council. The National Audit Office (NAO) sets this out clearly in its work on the Home Office’s asylum accommodation contracts (NAO briefing, May 2025). In 2023/24, the Home Office expected to spend £4.7bn on asylum support, including £3.1bn on hotels (NAO report, Mar 2024). In 2024/25, hotel spending ran at about £108m per month — roughly £1.3bn for the year (Reuters fact check, Jun 2025; see also NAO, May 2025).

So why are councils angry?

Because while they don’t pay the hotel bill, they do pay for everything that comes with it:

Schools and childcare, safeguarding and social care.

Housing and homelessness support when people leave hotels — whether granted status or evicted.

Local services like waste collection, environmental health and community safety.

The Local Government Association says councils receive no funding for hotels and want the same per‑bed support that exists for other accommodation types (LGA briefing, May 2024). Case in point: Hillingdon reports a £5m annual pressure linked to supporting people leaving hotels, with a cumulative shortfall over £16m (Hillingdon Council, Jul 2025). Glasgow forecast £26.5m of asylum‑related costs in 2024/25 (Glasgow City HSCP paper, Jan 2025).

This all lands after a decade of squeezed local budgets. Independent analysis shows core local government spending remains below 2010/11 in real terms (Institute for Government, Jul 2024; see also NAO, Feb 2025).

Why did the central bill drop?

Not because the Home Office suddenly got efficient. The drop is mainly from using fewer hotels, packing more people into remaining sites, and shifting to cheaper options like large sites or other accommodation models. The NAO documents hotel closures and plans to reduce reliance on them (NAO report, Mar 2024). The Migration Observatory estimates hotel accommodation averaged about £170 per person per night in 2024/25 — far more than other options (Migration Observatory, Aug 2025). The House of Commons Library explains the policy shift to barges and large sites to cut hotel use (Commons Library, Jul 2023).

Why are councils going to court now?

Recent legal challenges (like the Epping case) argue hotels can’t be repurposed this way without planning permission. That’s about where hotels are used, not ending hotel use everywhere. After the High Court ruling, the government said it would appeal and manage closures “in an orderly way” (Reuters, Aug 2025; also Guardian, Aug 2025).

Do councils get any central funding at all?

Yes, but it’s fragmented and often doesn’t match actual local costs. Examples include the Asylum Dispersal Grant and Move On Grant funding instructions to local authorities (GOV.UK Dispersal Grant 2025–26; GOV.UK Move On Grant, Mar 2025). The LGA continues to push for proper funding tied to the pressures councils face (LGA campaign explainer).

Why “Stop the Boats” is such a stupid slogan

“Stop the Boats” sounds simple, but it’s an undeliverable demand. Britain has no jurisdiction over where the boats set off from, no control over the wars, persecution, or other disasters that push people onto them, and no runway left in the countries of origin after decades of bombing, interventions, and half‑baked foreign policy. You can’t stop people fleeing danger with a soundbite.

That’s why it works politically: it’s a perfect wedge issue. It promises a solution that can’t be delivered, so whichever government fails can be painted as weak, and whichever opportunist shouts loudest can look like a saviour. Even if they took power, they’d be in the same situation — the only policies left would be cruel, extreme, and harmful to everyone involved.

A better approach would be the opposite: quicker and fairer asylum decisions, investment in schools, health centres and libraries to support both new arrivals and existing residents, and proper public spending that strengthens communities. Building capacity is a force multiplier. It helps everyone.

So who’s really footing the bill?

All of us. The Home Office still spends billions centrally on hotels and asylum support (see NAO above). Councils then pay for the knock‑on local costs — with some grants, but large gaps remaining. That means council tax rises and service cuts are still on the table in many areas (IFS, Jun 2024; Commons Library, Jul 2025). The numbers move around, but the bill never disappears.

Immigration isn't the root of all our problems though, it's barely even visible in the budget.

People are angry... Some are angry for stupid racist reasons, some because they just don't want to hear foreign on the bus or are terrified of muslims after decades of demonisation, some because their councils are broke and the general sense of social rot is spreading, and some because the whole thing feels like a giant shell game where the poorest communities always end up carrying the weight.

The overall cost just isn't that much compared to the many many other problems that its convenient for the halls of power to pretend aren't there, because most people have never seen what the budget really looks like, so of course they're going to be easier to deal with if they're not complaining about real problems, but instead complaining about problems you could fix for the cost of a couple of hospitality villages if you really wanted it to go away.

This Labour government seems unable to raise taxes in the places that would raise funds, won't means-test the largest expenditures (like the pension, even though it could save £25 billion for a cost of less than half a billion), won't pursue tech companies or multinationals who export wealth, won't push any policies that might stunt 'growth' (despite there being little to no evidence for it), and have no power to establish new exports as more money leaves local economies than flow into them, but let's not make this about Brexit ;)

Illegal immigration down 70% under Donald Trump

THE FIVE TODAY THURSDAY 7/20/17 Illegal immigration down 70% under Donald Trump IMMIGRATION CRACKDOWN Illegal immigration plummets after … “Lauren Southern”

Advice on Hypergamy (Response Video)

Response to Lauren Southern and Brittany Pettibone’s video “The Consequences of Trading Up.” Watch it here: … “Lauren Southern”

TUCKER vs SATANIST | TUCKER CARLSON TONIGHT

TUCKER CARLSON TONIGHT TODAY 7/20/17 TUCKER vs SATANIST TUCKER INTEVIEWS LUCIEN GREAVES OUTRAGE OVER PLANS FOR SATANIC … “Lauren Southern”