Urgent.. Criticism over immigrant shelters in Britain

While the sites identified by the British Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak, to house asylum seekers in preparation for their transfer to Rwanda were criticized as “expensive.” and "poor management" And “inappropriate.” Press reports indicated that hundreds of migrants left after “extremely bad” conditions.

According to “The Independent” newspaper, there are more than 400 asylum seekers who left the “Wethersfield” base. Of the British Royal Air Force, and the ship “Baby Stockholm” In the first three months of this year.

Sunak’s government was subjected to severe criticism. Because of its spending of 145.7 million pounds sterling on the air base, and 15.8 million pounds sterling on the ship, amid “prison-like” conditions, according to the newspaper.

While the newspaper “The Telegraph” noted: Until the immigrants were settled in “Baby Stockholm” It costs more than renting a house in Sandbanks Resort. Luxury.

It is useless. At the end of January 2024, the ship “Baby Stockholm” was It houses 321 people, while the British Home Office expected to accommodate 430 people.

In Wethersfield, only 576 people were housed last January, despite the government’s expectation of providing space for 1,445 people.

According to the data, 74 people were transferred from the Wethersfield base. By the Ministry of Interior; For their safety, 170 people left voluntarily, after witnessing “desperate migrants attempting suicide and going on a hunger strike.”

The data showed that the villages were “dispersed.” 162 migrants from the ship “Baby Stockholm”, where one asylum seeker died.

The Conservative MP Sir Edward Leigh, who campaigned against the use of another military site for asylum seekers, the site of the “Scampton” air base, was He said the number of people leaving the site “just shows how useless these military bases are for migrants.”

Stephen Kinnock, Labour’s shadow immigration minister, described what was happening as “Tory chaos in the asylum system”. “The Independent” reported.

Kinnock pointed out that the military boats and bases were intended to reduce costs, but instead cost taxpayers more than the exorbitant sums spent on asylum hotels.

A recent analysis by the National Audit Office (NAO) also concluded that the cost of housing asylum seekers on the controversial ship, and in military sites, would be much more expensive than paying for hotels; According to “The Independent”.

Also, one of the documents revealed in a legal challenge against “Wethersfield” showed… Civil servants continued with the project “despite knowing that the value for money for taxpayers would be marginal.”

To ease the pressure, asylum seekers from “Baby Stockholm” are being sent to to other places in the UK, when they have asylum interviews or when they receive a grant. Unlike Wethersfield, which houses immigrants who have finally arrived in the country.

  • For more: Elrisala website and for social follow us on Facebook
  • Source of information and images “rosaelyoussef

Related Articles

Back to top button