If there is any subject that in the United Kingdom would set of a heated discussion in a freezer, that subject is probably immigration.
The U.K. is not alone in that regard. The topic has been in the news throughout Europe for the last decade, even before COVID-19.
Voters are vocal about immigration.
The usual argument is that legal immigration is fine, but illegal immigration is a burden on taxpayers, social services, education, housing and other areas that many legal residents feel suffer from short supply anyway.
As with any emotional subject, there can be some alarming rhetoric, reasoning and goals in between the arguments for and against.
Politicians always have one eye on the next election.
In May, the government announced new measures to make immigration and legal residency harder to realize.
Let’s give the benefit of doubt to the government and say that the June 11 announcement that it will halt its contracts with third-party accommodation providers — who work with hoteliers to secure housing options — is being done to save taxpayers money.
According to the Migration Observatory, nearly two-thirds of the recent wave of people receiving asylum accommodation were moved into hotels.
COVID-19 was an important aspect of this.
The MO claims that “at the end of [the first quarter of] 2020, only 5% of asylum seekers were housed in contingency accommodation, but by 31 Dec. 2024, over a third were staying in such facilities. … This rise closely followed the overall increase in asylum seeker numbers. Between Q1 2014 and Q3 2023, the number of asylum seekers receiving accommodation support grew from 28,300 to 119,000 people (an increase of 320%).”
Recently I wrote about the numbers, the solutions and the arguments about U.K. asylum hotels, and it proved impossible to get hoteliers on record.
The pandemic hurt so many hotels economically. Who is to blame those hoteliers for reaching out to grasp with both hands the raft that was the government's contracts for housing asylum seekers?
Some hoteliers have made money from these contracts and, perhaps, saved their hotels.
Those who see the scheme as a waste of money should never underestimate the government’s ability to waste the same amount or more in completely baffling ways.
The numbers mentioned in terms of what the country can save might be real, but so are the costs for the new solutions that the government has to come up with to house these people, and others — it is not only asylum seekers in hotels via government contracts.
It can also be people who are legal residents.
Councils — local jurisdictions — spend a lot of money on housing.
Chances are whatever solution is agreed upon will cost more money that the hotel idea, but they might not be as politically notable.
There will always be people to use any government-funded system for their own benefit. That can be annoying, and it can be tackled legally, but initially it is just part of the contract we all make to live in what we hope is a civilized society.
How we treat those less fortunate than us is at the backbone of that, although the solution to that takes in every stratum of society, law, policy and spend.
I just know by a hunch that most solutions end up being more expensive than any original idea and thus more onerous.
The opinions expressed in this column do not necessarily reflect the opinions of CoStar News or CoStar Group and its affiliated companies. Bloggers published on this site are given the freedom to express views that may be controversial, but our goal is to provoke thought and constructive discussion within our reader community. Please feel free to contact an editor with any questions or concern.