Should affluent communities share responsibility for housing asylum seekers?
The UK government is shifting asylum accommodation away from hotels (now under 160 sites, down from 400 at peak) towards dispersal housing and former military bases, aiming to reduce pressure on the poorest areas that have hosted the majority of supported asylum seekers. Current dispersal is concentrated in deprived urban areas with cheaper housing, with the least deprived local authorities hosting far fewer per capita. Prime Minister Andy Burnham has stated that affluent communities must play their part for fairness, with plans to raise rent caps to enable more housing in wealthier postcodes via HMOs and other sites.
7 Opinions
I voted no because IMO NO community should be supporting these ‘assylum seekers’ (as they are mostly economic scroungers from 3rd world countries that just want a free ride at the taxpayers expense, are fighting aged undocumented unvetted males who think it’s to rape our women & children, & follow a medieval cult). The shoukd ALL be deported asap they land.
They shouldn't be here in the first place. Let's look after ourselves first whilst the country's on it's knees. Once we have things back together again of course we should put them in wealthy areas just the same as less so. We'd see things change quickly once they had to deal with them.
No communities should have to house mass numbers of asylum seekers. Asylum should be reserved for the most vulnerable women and young children only. With all fighting-age able-bodied males rejected automatically and immediately returned.
Everyone should share in the benefits and the burdens.
Of course yes - when illegal immigrants, that is criminals committing at least one criminal offence to get to UK, will be co-mingled with wealthy, maybe said affluent people start doing something. Btw. Said illegals usually are coming from France - a safe country, so they have no right of asylum, or they should have.
Yes if they have to be here. Of course, they don't have to be here.