英國(guó)政府稱(chēng)，英國(guó)庇護(hù)酒店的賬單下降了30%
UK's asylum hotel bill down 30%, government says
譯文簡(jiǎn)介
“你懂的，他們可以用一個(gè)簡(jiǎn)單的技巧將賬單降低100%?！薄狟BC報(bào)道。
正文翻譯
UK's asylum hotel bill down 30%, government says
英國(guó)政府稱(chēng)，英國(guó)庇護(hù)酒店的賬單下降了30%
新聞：
The government spent nearly a third less on hotels to house asylum seekers between April 2024 and March 2025, according to newly published figures.
根據(jù)最新公布的數(shù)據(jù)，在2024年4月至2025年3月期間，政府在為尋求庇護(hù)者提供住宿的酒店上的支出減少了近三分之一。
The Home Office's annual accounts, external show ￡2.1bn was spent on hotel accommodation - an average of about ￡5.77m per day, down from ￡3bn or ￡8.3m per day, the previous year.
內(nèi)政部的年度對(duì)外賬目顯示，酒店住宿支出為21億英鎊，平均每天約577萬(wàn)英鎊，低于前一年的30億英鎊或每天830萬(wàn)英鎊。
Data obtained by BBC Verify shows the saving has been driven by a reduction in the average nightly cost per person housed, after a government move to use cheaper forms of accommodation and room sharing.
BBC核實(shí)獲得的數(shù)據(jù)顯示，在政府采取更便宜的住宿和房間共享方式后，人均每晚住宿費(fèi)用的下降推動(dòng)了這一節(jié)省。
But Dr Peter Walsh, from the Migration Observatory think tank at Oxford University, warned that the surge in small boat crossings seen since March could lead to a renewed reliance on hotels.
但牛津大學(xué)移民觀察智庫(kù)的彼得·沃爾什博士警告說(shuō)，自3月份以來(lái)，小船越境的激增可能會(huì)導(dǎo)致對(duì)酒店的重新依賴(lài)。
"I don't think hotels are going away anytime soon based on current trends," he said.
“根據(jù)目前的趨勢(shì)，我認(rèn)為酒店不會(huì)很快消失，”他說(shuō)。
Hotel accommodation is used when there is no other housing available for asylum seekers, and the government has committed to stop using asylum hotels by the end of this Parliament.
當(dāng)沒(méi)有其他住房可供尋求庇護(hù)者使用時(shí)，就會(huì)使用酒店住宿，政府已承諾在本屆議會(huì)結(jié)束前停止使用庇護(hù)酒店。
There were 32,345 people in asylum hotels at the end of March 2025, up from 29,585 people at the end of June last year, but lower than the total in December.
截至2025年3月底，庇護(hù)酒店共有32345人，高于去年6月底的29585人，但低于去年12月的總數(shù)。
A senior Home Office source said one of the main factors behind the saving was moving some asylum seekers from hotels into other types of cheaper accommodation.
內(nèi)政部一位高級(jí)消息人士表示，節(jié)省開(kāi)支的主要原因之一是，一些尋求庇護(hù)者從酒店搬到了其他更便宜的住宿場(chǎng)所。
They said the department had prioritised moving families and children into regular housing so they were not living in hotels for long periods of time.
他們說(shuō)，該部門(mén)已經(jīng)優(yōu)先將家庭和兒童轉(zhuǎn)移到正常住房，這樣他們就不會(huì)長(zhǎng)時(shí)間住在酒店里。
BBC News understands the majority of people moved out of hotels are now living in local housing, or houses in multiple occupation (HMOs), a type of rented accommodation where at least three individuals share the use of a bathroom and kitchen.
BBC新聞了解到，大多數(shù)從酒店搬出來(lái)的人現(xiàn)在住在當(dāng)?shù)氐淖》坷铮蛘咦≡诙辔堇?，這是一種租來(lái)的住房，至少有三個(gè)人共用一個(gè)浴室和廚房。
Most of these properties have been acquired through the government's contracts with Serco, one of the three companies responsible for asylum accommodation.
這些房產(chǎn)大多是通過(guò)政府與信佳集團(tuán)（負(fù)責(zé)庇護(hù)住宿的三家公司之一）簽訂的合同獲得的。
Some savings have also been made by renegotiating elements of those contracts, which were originally signed by the previous Conservative government.
這些合同最初是由前保守黨政府簽署的，通過(guò)重新談判這些合同的條款也節(jié)省了一些開(kāi)支。
Officials have previously told MPs that greater room-sharing in hotels has helped reduce the number of sites and per head costs over the past financial year.
官員們此前曾告訴國(guó)會(huì)議員，在過(guò)去的財(cái)政年度里，酒店客房共享的增加有助于減少客房數(shù)量和人均成本。
It is not clear how many people usually share a room, but Home Office minister Angela Eagle has previously said "people can double up or treble up" if rooms are big enough.
目前尚不清楚通常有多少人合住一個(gè)房間，但英國(guó)內(nèi)政大臣安吉拉·伊格爾此前曾表示，如果房間足夠大，“人們可以合住兩個(gè)人或三個(gè)人”。
The Home Office accounts suggest 273 hotels were in use in March 2024 but that number has now fallen by 71.
英國(guó)內(nèi)政部的數(shù)據(jù)顯示，2024年3月，英國(guó)有273家酒店在使用，但現(xiàn)在這個(gè)數(shù)字已經(jīng)減少了71家。
The average nightly cost per person fell from ￡162.16 in March 2023 to ￡118.87 by March 2025, according to BBC Verify's analysis of official data obtained through a Freedom of Information request.
根據(jù)BBC對(duì)《信息自由法》要求獲得的官方數(shù)據(jù)的分析，人均每晚住宿費(fèi)用從2023年3月的162.16英鎊降至2025年3月的118.87英鎊。
The Home Office's accounts also show that almost ￡50m of public money was effectively written off after the Labour government scrapped a Conservative plan to use the RAF Scampton site in Lincolnshire to house asylum seekers.
內(nèi)政部的賬目還顯示，在工黨政府取消保守黨利用林肯郡斯坎普頓皇家空軍基地收容尋求庇護(hù)者的計(jì)劃后，近5000萬(wàn)英鎊的公共資金實(shí)際上被注銷(xiāo)掉了。
Tens of millions had already been spent on the site when Labour came to power and axed the plans.
當(dāng)工黨上臺(tái)并取消該計(jì)劃時(shí)，已經(jīng)在該地點(diǎn)花費(fèi)了數(shù)千萬(wàn)美元。
The Home office annual report says that decision resulted in a "constructive loss of ￡48.5m", but a department source said the site would have been an even more expensive option than hotels, even taking into account the loss incurred.
內(nèi)政部的年度報(bào)告稱(chēng)，這一決定導(dǎo)致了“4850萬(wàn)英鎊的推定損失”，但一位部門(mén)消息人士表示，即使考慮到造成的損失，該地點(diǎn)將是一個(gè)比酒店更昂貴的選擇。
The report also confirmed that ￡270m paid to Rwanda to help support the country's economic development was not refunded after the UK government scrapped the Rwanda scheme.
該報(bào)告還證實(shí)，在英國(guó)政府取消盧旺達(dá)計(jì)劃后，為幫助支持該國(guó)經(jīng)濟(jì)發(fā)展而支付給盧旺達(dá)的2.7億英鎊沒(méi)有退還。
Conservative ministers had planned to send some asylum seekers to Rwanda to deter people from crossing the Channel in small boats.
保守黨大臣們?cè)?jì)劃將一些尋求庇護(hù)者送往盧旺達(dá)，以阻止人們乘坐小船穿越英吉利海峽。
However, the scheme was stalled by legal challenges and Home Secretary Yvette Cooper has said it led to just four people being removed to the country voluntarily.
然而，該計(jì)劃因法律挑戰(zhàn)而停滯不前，內(nèi)政大臣伊維特·庫(kù)珀表示，該計(jì)劃只導(dǎo)致四人自愿被遣送到盧旺達(dá)。
The Rwandan government said last year that it was "under no obligation" to pay back the ￡270m after Labour scrapped the deal.
盧旺達(dá)政府去年表示，在工黨取消協(xié)議后，它“沒(méi)有義務(wù)”償還2.7億英鎊。
英國(guó)政府稱(chēng)，英國(guó)庇護(hù)酒店的賬單下降了30%
新聞：
The government spent nearly a third less on hotels to house asylum seekers between April 2024 and March 2025, according to newly published figures.
根據(jù)最新公布的數(shù)據(jù)，在2024年4月至2025年3月期間，政府在為尋求庇護(hù)者提供住宿的酒店上的支出減少了近三分之一。
The Home Office's annual accounts, external show ￡2.1bn was spent on hotel accommodation - an average of about ￡5.77m per day, down from ￡3bn or ￡8.3m per day, the previous year.
內(nèi)政部的年度對(duì)外賬目顯示，酒店住宿支出為21億英鎊，平均每天約577萬(wàn)英鎊，低于前一年的30億英鎊或每天830萬(wàn)英鎊。
Data obtained by BBC Verify shows the saving has been driven by a reduction in the average nightly cost per person housed, after a government move to use cheaper forms of accommodation and room sharing.
BBC核實(shí)獲得的數(shù)據(jù)顯示，在政府采取更便宜的住宿和房間共享方式后，人均每晚住宿費(fèi)用的下降推動(dòng)了這一節(jié)省。
But Dr Peter Walsh, from the Migration Observatory think tank at Oxford University, warned that the surge in small boat crossings seen since March could lead to a renewed reliance on hotels.
但牛津大學(xué)移民觀察智庫(kù)的彼得·沃爾什博士警告說(shuō)，自3月份以來(lái)，小船越境的激增可能會(huì)導(dǎo)致對(duì)酒店的重新依賴(lài)。
"I don't think hotels are going away anytime soon based on current trends," he said.
“根據(jù)目前的趨勢(shì)，我認(rèn)為酒店不會(huì)很快消失，”他說(shuō)。
Hotel accommodation is used when there is no other housing available for asylum seekers, and the government has committed to stop using asylum hotels by the end of this Parliament.
當(dāng)沒(méi)有其他住房可供尋求庇護(hù)者使用時(shí)，就會(huì)使用酒店住宿，政府已承諾在本屆議會(huì)結(jié)束前停止使用庇護(hù)酒店。
There were 32,345 people in asylum hotels at the end of March 2025, up from 29,585 people at the end of June last year, but lower than the total in December.
截至2025年3月底，庇護(hù)酒店共有32345人，高于去年6月底的29585人，但低于去年12月的總數(shù)。
A senior Home Office source said one of the main factors behind the saving was moving some asylum seekers from hotels into other types of cheaper accommodation.
內(nèi)政部一位高級(jí)消息人士表示，節(jié)省開(kāi)支的主要原因之一是，一些尋求庇護(hù)者從酒店搬到了其他更便宜的住宿場(chǎng)所。
They said the department had prioritised moving families and children into regular housing so they were not living in hotels for long periods of time.
他們說(shuō)，該部門(mén)已經(jīng)優(yōu)先將家庭和兒童轉(zhuǎn)移到正常住房，這樣他們就不會(huì)長(zhǎng)時(shí)間住在酒店里。
BBC News understands the majority of people moved out of hotels are now living in local housing, or houses in multiple occupation (HMOs), a type of rented accommodation where at least three individuals share the use of a bathroom and kitchen.
BBC新聞了解到，大多數(shù)從酒店搬出來(lái)的人現(xiàn)在住在當(dāng)?shù)氐淖》坷铮蛘咦≡诙辔堇?，這是一種租來(lái)的住房，至少有三個(gè)人共用一個(gè)浴室和廚房。
Most of these properties have been acquired through the government's contracts with Serco, one of the three companies responsible for asylum accommodation.
這些房產(chǎn)大多是通過(guò)政府與信佳集團(tuán)（負(fù)責(zé)庇護(hù)住宿的三家公司之一）簽訂的合同獲得的。
Some savings have also been made by renegotiating elements of those contracts, which were originally signed by the previous Conservative government.
這些合同最初是由前保守黨政府簽署的，通過(guò)重新談判這些合同的條款也節(jié)省了一些開(kāi)支。
Officials have previously told MPs that greater room-sharing in hotels has helped reduce the number of sites and per head costs over the past financial year.
官員們此前曾告訴國(guó)會(huì)議員，在過(guò)去的財(cái)政年度里，酒店客房共享的增加有助于減少客房數(shù)量和人均成本。
It is not clear how many people usually share a room, but Home Office minister Angela Eagle has previously said "people can double up or treble up" if rooms are big enough.
目前尚不清楚通常有多少人合住一個(gè)房間，但英國(guó)內(nèi)政大臣安吉拉·伊格爾此前曾表示，如果房間足夠大，“人們可以合住兩個(gè)人或三個(gè)人”。
The Home Office accounts suggest 273 hotels were in use in March 2024 but that number has now fallen by 71.
英國(guó)內(nèi)政部的數(shù)據(jù)顯示，2024年3月，英國(guó)有273家酒店在使用，但現(xiàn)在這個(gè)數(shù)字已經(jīng)減少了71家。
The average nightly cost per person fell from ￡162.16 in March 2023 to ￡118.87 by March 2025, according to BBC Verify's analysis of official data obtained through a Freedom of Information request.
根據(jù)BBC對(duì)《信息自由法》要求獲得的官方數(shù)據(jù)的分析，人均每晚住宿費(fèi)用從2023年3月的162.16英鎊降至2025年3月的118.87英鎊。
The Home Office's accounts also show that almost ￡50m of public money was effectively written off after the Labour government scrapped a Conservative plan to use the RAF Scampton site in Lincolnshire to house asylum seekers.
內(nèi)政部的賬目還顯示，在工黨政府取消保守黨利用林肯郡斯坎普頓皇家空軍基地收容尋求庇護(hù)者的計(jì)劃后，近5000萬(wàn)英鎊的公共資金實(shí)際上被注銷(xiāo)掉了。
Tens of millions had already been spent on the site when Labour came to power and axed the plans.
當(dāng)工黨上臺(tái)并取消該計(jì)劃時(shí)，已經(jīng)在該地點(diǎn)花費(fèi)了數(shù)千萬(wàn)美元。
The Home office annual report says that decision resulted in a "constructive loss of ￡48.5m", but a department source said the site would have been an even more expensive option than hotels, even taking into account the loss incurred.
內(nèi)政部的年度報(bào)告稱(chēng)，這一決定導(dǎo)致了“4850萬(wàn)英鎊的推定損失”，但一位部門(mén)消息人士表示，即使考慮到造成的損失，該地點(diǎn)將是一個(gè)比酒店更昂貴的選擇。
The report also confirmed that ￡270m paid to Rwanda to help support the country's economic development was not refunded after the UK government scrapped the Rwanda scheme.
該報(bào)告還證實(shí)，在英國(guó)政府取消盧旺達(dá)計(jì)劃后，為幫助支持該國(guó)經(jīng)濟(jì)發(fā)展而支付給盧旺達(dá)的2.7億英鎊沒(méi)有退還。
Conservative ministers had planned to send some asylum seekers to Rwanda to deter people from crossing the Channel in small boats.
保守黨大臣們?cè)?jì)劃將一些尋求庇護(hù)者送往盧旺達(dá)，以阻止人們乘坐小船穿越英吉利海峽。
However, the scheme was stalled by legal challenges and Home Secretary Yvette Cooper has said it led to just four people being removed to the country voluntarily.
然而，該計(jì)劃因法律挑戰(zhàn)而停滯不前，內(nèi)政大臣伊維特·庫(kù)珀表示，該計(jì)劃只導(dǎo)致四人自愿被遣送到盧旺達(dá)。
The Rwandan government said last year that it was "under no obligation" to pay back the ￡270m after Labour scrapped the deal.
盧旺達(dá)政府去年表示，在工黨取消協(xié)議后，它“沒(méi)有義務(wù)”償還2.7億英鎊。
評(píng)論翻譯
很贊 ( 1 )
收藏
Unless they deported 30% of them, which they didn't, those people are just housed somewhere else, in social housing.
Which not only brings its own set of issues, but also costs taxpayers money, so for completeness we should also get told what this figure is.
除非他們把30%的人驅(qū)逐出境，但他們沒(méi)有，這些人只是被安置在其他地方，在社會(huì)住房里。
這不僅帶來(lái)了自己的一系列問(wèn)題，而且還花費(fèi)了納稅人的錢(qián)，所以為了完整起見(jiàn)，我們還應(yīng)該知道這個(gè)數(shù)字是多少。
benjm88
They are also using cheaper hotels, putting more to a room and renegotiated on some existing deals but yes would like to see the cost of those moved into alternate accommodation included
他們也在使用更便宜的酒店，在一個(gè)房間里住更多人，并對(duì)一些現(xiàn)有的協(xié)議進(jìn)行重新談判，但是的，他們希望看到那些搬進(jìn)替代住房的人的成本也包括在內(nèi)
IronedOutCrease
Misleading.
Hotels are freed up and Serco on their private government contracts have been buying up tonnes of properties and homes around the country to house them all in instead.
This is making the problem worse.
Lots very expensive and illustrious townhouses have been bought on the taxpayers expense. The government has even been issuing Compulsory Purchase Orders on certain properties to boost numbers, these places are supposed to be derelict and will be renovated to house the incoming migrants.
It’s a level of support that British citizens can only dream of and it’s just ludicrous at this point to be spending billions on illegal entries.
Ask yourself why the majority of these people are spending thousands, risking their lives with dangerous conditions to illegally enter the country instead of booking a flight at an airport for much less.
Yes… some countries like Afghanistan make that impossible for their citizens. Still, the UK remains the target destination because of these crazy incentives.
這是誤導(dǎo)。
酒店被騰出來(lái)，信佳集團(tuán)根據(jù)私人政府合同在全國(guó)各地購(gòu)買(mǎi)了大量房產(chǎn)和房屋，以供他們居住。
這使問(wèn)題變得更糟了。
許多非常昂貴和著名的聯(lián)排別墅都是用納稅人的錢(qián)買(mǎi)的。政府甚至對(duì)某些房產(chǎn)發(fā)布了強(qiáng)制購(gòu)買(mǎi)令，以增加數(shù)量，這些地方本應(yīng)該是被廢棄的，卻將被翻新，以容納即將到來(lái)的移民。
這種程度的保障英國(guó)公民只能夢(mèng)寐以求，而在這種情況下，在非法入境者身上花費(fèi)數(shù)十億美元是荒謬的。
問(wèn)問(wèn)你自己，為什么這些人中的大多數(shù)人會(huì)花費(fèi)數(shù)千美元，冒著生命危險(xiǎn)非法進(jìn)入這個(gè)國(guó)家，而不是在機(jī)場(chǎng)訂一張便宜得多的機(jī)票。
是的……像阿富汗這樣的國(guó)家讓他們的公民無(wú)法做到這一點(diǎn)。盡管如此，由于這些瘋狂的激勵(lì)措施，英國(guó)仍然是目標(biāo)目的地。
osfryd-kettleblack
It's such a bullshit myth to declare the UK a target destination because of incentives
We've taken roughly 70k afghan refugees. Pakistan and Iran have taken millions.
The UK is 14th in asylum applications per capita, 5th in overall amounts. Does this sound like "target destination"?
宣稱(chēng)英國(guó)是旅游目的地是出于激勵(lì)，這簡(jiǎn)直是一派胡言
我們接收了大約7萬(wàn)阿富汗難民。巴基斯坦和伊朗已經(jīng)接收了數(shù)百萬(wàn)人。
英國(guó)的人均庇護(hù)申請(qǐng)數(shù)量排名第14，總申請(qǐng)數(shù)量排名第5。這聽(tīng)起來(lái)像“目標(biāo)目的地”嗎？
IronedOutCrease
Its literally happening right in front of your face.
If visual evidence of hundreds of illegals arriving on boats on a daily basis isn’t sufficient for you, or the fact hotels were too full and now Serco have resorted to purchasing properties to cope with the amount of people, then good for you I guess.
I’m not against the idea of asylum seekers, but things are clearly way too out of hand and being exploited and nothing is being done, it cannot last forever.
它真的就發(fā)生在你面前。
如果每天都有數(shù)百名非法移民乘船抵達(dá)的目視證據(jù)還不足以讓你信服，或者酒店客滿(mǎn)以及現(xiàn)在信佳不得不采取購(gòu)買(mǎi)房產(chǎn)來(lái)應(yīng)對(duì)這么多人的事實(shí)，那么我想你真牛。
我不反對(duì)尋求庇護(hù)者的想法，但事情顯然太失控了，被利用了，沒(méi)有采取任何措施，這種情況不可能永遠(yuǎn)持續(xù)下去。
jsdjhndsm
That's just false.
We are not the leading destination, the vast majority of refugees filter out into bordering countries or nearby locautons. Only a small % even trickle down into the uk. They stop off at the multitude of countries along the way.
Yes it's a problem, but lying about how we have it worst is ridiculous and misleading.
不是的。
我們不是主要的目的地，絕大多數(shù)難民都逃到了邊境國(guó)家或附近地區(qū)。甚至只有一小部分流入英國(guó)。他們?cè)谘赝镜脑S多國(guó)家停下來(lái)。
是的，這是一個(gè)問(wèn)題，但謊稱(chēng)我們的情況最糟糕是荒謬和誤導(dǎo)的。
SASColfer
Wherever they now house them, that service just got more expensive. If it's rental accommodation then the cheapest units just people need are now more expensive, if it's council housing then waiting lists for citizens that need it most has just gone up.
Ultimately people are not going to be satisfied until refugees are not taking up tax payers resources. I'm glad it's now a bit cheaper and kudos to that but it's still no real solution.
They either need to hard sell the inevitable drop in standard of living across the board to welcome and support millions of migrants and refugees, or it needs to completely stop dead for a while while infrastructure recovers.
無(wú)論他們把他們安置在哪里，這項(xiàng)服務(wù)都變得更加昂貴了。如果是租賃住房，那么人們需要的最便宜的單元現(xiàn)在更貴了，如果是公共住房，那么最需要它的公民的等候名單就增加了。
最終，除非難民不占用納稅人的資源，否則人們是不會(huì)滿(mǎn)意的。我很高興它現(xiàn)在便宜了一點(diǎn)，但它仍然不是真正的解決方案。
他們要么需要強(qiáng)行讓人們接受生活水平不可避免的全面下降，以歡迎和支持?jǐn)?shù)百萬(wàn)移民和難民，要么需要在基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施恢復(fù)之前完全停止接納他們。
RunTimeFire
Isn’t this going to make illegal working even harder to track if instead of being congregated at central locations they’ll be broken up and dispersed through the country?
In the same argument is their safety at more risk too?
Something to be said for housing them in one location to keep an eye on them both for their protection and our own.
這難道不會(huì)讓非法勞工更難被追蹤嗎？——他們不是集中在一個(gè)地方，而是被拆散，分散到了全國(guó)各地？
同樣，他們的安全是否也面臨更大的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)？
把他們集中安置在一個(gè)地方是為了保護(hù)他們和我們自己。
MightyBigSandwich
You know, they could lower the bill by 100% with one simple trick
你懂的，他們可以用一個(gè)簡(jiǎn)單的技巧將賬單降低100%
Reformed_citpeksYorkshire
Oh nice, obvious facist talking point.
What exactly is your simple trick? Would it perhaps involve rounding up the asylum seekers into camps as step one?
哦，不錯(cuò)，明顯的法西斯言論。
你的小技巧到底是什么？第一步是不是要把尋求庇護(hù)者聚集到難民營(yíng)里？
MightyBigSandwich
Nah, that's what the government already does, except they call them hotels. I just want a US style roundup of people who decided to illegally invade. A complete expulsion. A Reconquista.
Reconsider calling the only reasonable fix to this country's problems a "fascist talking point", that's going to blow up in your face when troubles boil over.
不，政府已經(jīng)這么做了，只不過(guò)他們管它們叫“酒店”。我只是想要一個(gè)對(duì)那些決定非法入侵的人的美國(guó)式的圍捕。徹底驅(qū)逐。一場(chǎng)光復(fù)運(yùn)動(dòng)。
重新考慮一下，把這個(gè)國(guó)家問(wèn)題的唯一合理解決方案稱(chēng)為“法西斯言論”，當(dāng)麻煩沸騰時(shí)，它會(huì)在你的臉上爆炸的。
jsdjhndsm
The US style roundup is not a good idea.
Illegal immigrants are only a small fraction of all migration, which is something many people like to ignore.
They simply need to stop the boats and fix the asylum application process. The backlog and system takes far too long to come to a decision. Its needs to be swift and allow people to properly apply.
They can then control migration by looking at each person and assessing whether or not the skills they bring are good enough to allow entry aswell as other individual circumstances.
Like It or not we need migrants, so the best way go seal with it is to control the people we do let in and ensure we bring in the best and most educated people, rather than just anyone.
美國(guó)式的圍捕不是一個(gè)好主意。
非法移民只占所有移民的一小部分，這是許多人喜歡忽視的。
他們只需要停止小船偷渡，并修復(fù)庇護(hù)申請(qǐng)程序。積壓和制度需要很長(zhǎng)時(shí)間才能做出決策。它需要迅速，并允許人們正確地申請(qǐng)。
然后，他們可以通過(guò)觀察每個(gè)人，評(píng)估他們帶來(lái)的技能是否足夠好，以及其他個(gè)人情況，來(lái)控制移民。
不管你喜不喜歡，我們都需要移民，所以最好的解決辦法是控制我們?cè)试S進(jìn)入的人，確保我們帶來(lái)最優(yōu)秀、受教育程度最高的人，而不是任何人。
elementarywebdesign
Good that we have this technology now. So sad it was not possible in the past.
Officials have previously told MPs that greater room-sharing in hotels has helped reduce the number of sites and per head costs over the past financial year.
It is not clear how many people usually share a room, but Home Office minister Angela Eagle has previously said "people can double up or treble up" if rooms are big enough.
很高興我們現(xiàn)在有了這項(xiàng)技術(shù)。這在過(guò)去是不可能的。
“官員們此前曾告訴國(guó)會(huì)議員，在過(guò)去的財(cái)政年度里，酒店客房共享的增加有助于減少客房數(shù)量和人均成本。
目前尚不清楚通常有多少人合住一個(gè)房間，但英國(guó)內(nèi)政大臣安吉拉·伊格爾此前曾表示，如果房間足夠大，‘人們可以合住兩個(gè)人或三個(gè)人’。”
UuusernameWith4Us
I don't understand why we've not reconfigured all these hotels like youth hostels. Stuff every room full of bunk beds. I'm sure the migrants would still be happy, it's a much better living situation than they would have in the wars they say they're fleeing.
我不明白為什么我們不把這些旅館都改造成青年旅館。把每個(gè)房間都塞滿(mǎn)雙層床。我相信移民們?nèi)匀粫?huì)很開(kāi)心，比起他們所說(shuō)的逃離戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)，這里的生活環(huán)境要好得多。
piyopiyopi
Great news! And they haven’t stuck them in homes I. Our communities further increasing rental prices by increasing housing demand even further have they? Have they???
好消息！他們沒(méi)有讓他們住在別人家里。我們的社區(qū)通過(guò)增加住房需求進(jìn)一步提高了租金價(jià)格，不是嗎？不是嗎？？
travelcallcharlie
There are 30,000 people in asylum hotels. There are 5.5m rental units in the UK.
Even if you took everyone out of hotels and put them in a house by themselves (unlikely as there’s families) then that would still have a negligible impact on rental costs.
有三萬(wàn)人住在庇護(hù)旅館里。英國(guó)有550萬(wàn)套出租公寓。
即使你把所有人從旅館帶出來(lái)，讓他們自己住在別人家里（不太可能，因?yàn)橛屑彝ィ?，這對(duì)租金成本的影響仍然可以忽略不計(jì)。
SenorPoontang
I'm sure they'll be perfectly evenly disseminated across the whole of the UK, rather than clustered in particular areas... Right?
我相信他們會(huì)完全均勻地分布在整個(gè)英國(guó)，而不是集中在特定的地區(qū)……對(duì)吧？
travelcallcharlie
Given that asylum seekers are housed in 400+ hotels evenly distributed across the UK, I would say yes.
You have any evidence of the contrary or are you just one of those who complains about everything all day and then shits on anyone trying to actually solve the problem?
考慮到尋求庇護(hù)者被安置在平均分布在英國(guó)各地的400多家酒店里，我的答案是肯定的。
你有任何相反的證據(jù)嗎？還是你只是那些整天抱怨一切，然后對(duì)任何試圖真正解決問(wèn)題的人吐槽的人之一？
Spamgrenade
What I like about this government is they get shit done, even unpopular shit that has to be done.
Refreshing change from at least a decade of Tories fucking about with nothing but Brexit and making useless pledges.
我喜歡這屆政府的一點(diǎn)是他們能把事情做成，即使是不受歡迎的事情。
至少10年來(lái)，保守黨除了脫歐和做出無(wú)用的承諾外，一事無(wú)成，這是一個(gè)令人耳目一新的變化。
Coolychees
Because they have been moved into houses that the British public and legal immigrants also need which we have a massive housing shortage.
因?yàn)樗麄円呀?jīng)搬進(jìn)了英國(guó)公眾和合法移民也需要的房子，而我們的住房嚴(yán)重短缺。
Exige
This is such a boring argument.
We can’t just disappear these people, as much as you may want to.
這是一個(gè)無(wú)聊的爭(zhēng)論。
我們不能讓這些人消失，盡管你很想。
gixxer-kid
We literally can. They can be sent back
我們確實(shí)能。他們可以被送回去
SituationThink3487
I know you dont care about the actual logic and just want to push the propaganda, but ill ask the questions anyway.
What happens if they dont have documentation that proves where theyre from? Where do we send them?
What if there's credible threat they get executed if they get sent back? Is that not just murder by proxy? Are we really happy sentencing people to death because we hate foreigners so much?
If we try and send them back and the other country just says "no" what do we do?
我知道你不關(guān)心實(shí)際的邏輯，只是想推動(dòng)宣傳，但我還是要問(wèn)問(wèn)題。
如果他們沒(méi)有證明他們來(lái)自哪里的文件怎么辦？我們要把他們送到哪里去？
如果他們被遣返后，有可能被處決呢？這不就是代理人謀殺嗎？我們真的愿意因?yàn)槲覀內(nèi)绱嗽骱尥鈬?guó)人而判處人們死刑嗎？
如果我們?cè)噲D把他們送回去，而另一個(gè)國(guó)家說(shuō)“不要”，我們?cè)撛趺崔k？
deyterkourjerbs
I think we have a massive housing shortage for other reasons.
我認(rèn)為，我們的住房嚴(yán)重短缺是由于其他原因。（反諷）