Military barracks: The U.K.’s new destination for asylum seekers

British media reported on Tuesday that Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s government plans to begin relocating hundreds of asylum seekers in early November from hotels and temporary hostels to Crowborough Camp in East Sussex and Cameron Barracks in Inverness.

Officials have framed the decision as an austerity measure aimed at reducing the massive cost of housing migrants — a figure that, according to the National Audit Office, has surged from roughly £4.5 billion to over £15 billion.

The Home Office claims the move is intended to phase out hotel use within a year and replace it with state-managed centers. However, critics argue that this change will do little to improve the humanitarian conditions of asylum seekers — merely transforming one form of administrative detention into another, by moving people from dormitories to military compounds.

Ironically, before taking office, the Labour Party had condemned the use of military sites and offshore barges to house asylum seekers as “immoral and inhumane.” Now, the Starmer government appears to be adopting the very approach it once denounced — a shift that analysts see as a response to mounting political and economic pressure to appear tough on immigration.

Parliamentary sources report that more than 103,000 asylum seekers are currently within the Home Office’s housing system, about one-third of whom live in hotels or temporary centers. In a recent report, the House of Commons Home Affairs Committee described the government’s approach as “disorganized, costly, and lacking a coherent strategy,” warning that current policies are simply relocating the crisis rather than resolving it.

Human rights organizations — including Human Rights Watch and Just Fair — have warned that housing asylum seekers in closed, military-style environments will restrict access to social, educational, and health services, exacerbating mental health problems. They note that barracks are designed for military training, not human habitation, and converting them into living quarters effectively redefines migration as a security issue.

The experience of Napier Barracks, previously criticized for overcrowding and poor sanitation, looms large in public memory, raising fears of a repeat scenario under the new plan.

Observers argue that the real motive behind the move is not administrative reform but budgetary relief. Facing recession, fiscal deficits, and falling public trust, Starmer’s government appears eager to demonstrate control and discipline — even if that means sidelining humanitarian principles.

Critics contend that the policy reflects a strategic shift in Britain’s migration stance: away from a human-rights framework and toward one driven by political optics and financial expediency.

Ultimately, analysts warn that the government’s decision exposes a widening gap between the U.K.’s human-rights rhetoric and its domestic realities. By prioritizing austerity and deterrence over dignity and compassion, London risks undermining the very values it claims to uphold — trading moral leadership for short-term political gain.