Hundreds of illegal migrants to be put in existing military barracks

NotSpaghetti

Is it about swallowing one's pride?

Now I'm confused again!

Yes, sort of, like eat humble pie - though that latter might be a tarte or a croissant?! 🥐
To make a humble apology basically.

Gracey 👏👏👏👏👏 - brilliantly put

Many on here seem totally unconcerned

Is it about swallowing one's pride?

Now I'm confused again!

MartavTaurus

GrannyGravy13

MartavTaurus ravaler son orgueil 🤷‍♀️

Oui, devenir humble en dépit de sentiments contradictoires.

End of French lesson!

One of our Aussie contingent is attending residential French school in Antibes this week, they are well cooked 🥵🥵🥵

GrannyGravy13

MartavTaurus ravaler son orgueil 🤷‍♀️

Oui, devenir humble en dépit de sentiments contradictoires.

End of French lesson!

I'm in total agreement GrannyGravy13.

There is nothing unreasonable about being concerned regarding, undocumented, unvetted young men with different cultural norms arriving in great numbers and being placed in suburbs.
Using barracks is an option but to be honest, what would be more effective would be to build large, modern detention centres and to hire an army of clerks, admin staff and specialist lawyers to see to the processing, in the shortest possible time, of those who arrive illegally in the UK.

There seems to be no plan, no time frame and no urgency to resolve the problem of these young men being moved from place to place, given the freedom to hang around in the streets, town centres, or vanish into the ether.
It's worrying. One has to allude to growing crime and violence, but my anger lies with those who are letting the problems run and run.
There seems to be no solution to a growing concern or no plan for the future.
None of us know when the latest cohort of young men will be placed up the road from where we live. There are certainly no signs of integration or a cohesive plan to assure communities that they are safe .

These matters just haven't been dealt with. People are rightly concerned. The government's concern regards accomodation for these young men, and nothing more.
There's no end in sight, no plan and that sort of uncertainty in any sphere is likely to have communities asking questions, fearing how these accommodation 'solutions ' in barracks or HMOs might pan out and/or affect them.

For too long the terms racist or xenophobic have been bandied around, but that will no longer wash. Valid concerns are being voiced, but not heard.

CatsWhiskas

sundowngirl

LemonJam

sundowngirl

I agree that using ex military barracks being used, but these immigrants should not be allowed to roam freely in the neighbourhood.

Many posters have clarified this before- but here we go again:

Asylum seekers are not automatically classified as "immigrants" legal or otherwise in the UK. Seeking asylum is a legal right and entering a country without prior permission to claim asylum is a recognised process under the 1951 Refugee Convention. The UK has very few authorised routes however and the person has to be in the UK physicallyuto claim asylum- a bit of a catch 22- hence small boat crossings.

An illegal immigrant refers to someone residing in the country without legal right to be here or pending applications such as visa overstayers or those who bypass border controls entry (like on the back of lorries) without declaring themselves to the authorities. The barracks are for asylum seekers who have made an application not illegal immigrants.

You always post this as justification, but nevertheless they arrived illegally - but let's not split hairs - do you think they should be allowed to roam around? unchecked???

Even if they did arrive illegally (and that's a moot point), they are not illegal immigrants, if they are asylum seekers. It's not splitting hairs. It's impossible for asylum seekers to have illegal status. There is absolutely nothing illegal about applying for asylum.

Facts are facts it's for the government to justify things not me.

An asylum seeker is legal by definition and must be on UK soil to claim asylum.

The UK makes its asylum seeking application process clear: asylum seekers must make themselves known to Border Force at Point of Entry airport, sea port or. train station to claim asylum.

Coming via a small boat is doing exactly as instructed.

However the UK has deemed a small boat crossing an unauthorised route but has no authorised routes.

As there is no visa route to claim asylum in the UK and because asylum seekers must be on UK soil hence small boat crossings.

Exception: The UK does have a Ukraine Visa scheme bespoke visa route for Ukrainian nationals if they have family here- evidently does not match the needs of the majority of asylum seekers.

As asylum seekers are legal they are housed in barracks ( in this scheme) whilst their application is processed. What would be the legal basis to imprison an asylum seeker and restrict their freedom of movement during the AS application process?

MartavTaurus ravaler son orgueil 🤷‍♀️

Europe is seeing more and more migrants/asylum seekers reaching its shores

Indeed, France discusses this issue and how it is affecting THEIR country almost every day on tv.

I'm not the type of poster on here who gets stroppy or defensive when corrected, so I apologise if I used the incorrect terminology

At 6 am after a night of sweating in bedroom temperatures of 26 degrees after a daytime high of 42 degrees, I apologise if I used the wordillegalwhich I drew down from the title.

Additionally, my current language is very much French based for 8 weeks, and anyone arriving heresans papiersis often referred to asun illégal.
It is, however, true that several media outlets over the past decade have been limiting the use of the wordillégalto describe thosewithout papers, so I'll join them in correcting my use of that terminology.

Sorry, sorry, sorry. Humble apologies x 3.

I'd like to continue contributing to the thread, so humble apologies in advance if I slip up.
Sorry x 4.

Oh David49!!!

their legal representatives should also be resident in the camps.
🙄

Primrose53

We can check on Uk citizens by using sarah’s Law, Clare’s Law etc. We can find out about people who commit domestic violence and who abuse children.

Primrose53
You cannot use these laws to run a background check on a complete stranger just because you saw them in public, nor can you ask the police for a general list of offenders - even those living on your street.

The UK does not have a public access "sex offender registry" map.

​Our law is entirely based on relationship and contact.

It applies to (close) neighbours or people you are actively involved with.

I think it's an excellent idea hotel accommodation is far too attractive.
Concentrate them in camps with basic barrack facilities then they can be processed efficiently, their legal representatives should also be resident in the camps.
The genuine assylum claimants can be separated from the economic migrants who can be sent home, not allowed to disappear.

Maremia

GG13, I asked Google, 'before BREXIT did more or fewer migrants arrive in small boats'
Google says 'far fewer'.

Yes, they used to arrive hiding in lorries and cars now they use boats.

Europe is seeing more and more migrants/asylum seekers reaching its shores, the world has become more unstable in the last 10 years, hence the mount of young men fleeing Afghanistan, Iraq, Sudan and many other countries.

GG13, I asked Google, 'before BREXIT did more or fewer migrants arrive in small boats'
Google says 'far fewer'.

sundowngirl

Plevey08 - So why do we have a border force at all - why not let everyone in if we don't need to know their background?

You may not have a problem with groups of young men wandering around the town but I'm sure if you asked the people of Crawley/Crowborough etc they would have a different opinion

But we don't just let anyone in, do we? We check passports and visas of people who have them. We turn people back if their paperwork is not in order, unless they apply for asylum, which is perfectly legal.

sundowngirl

LemonJam

sundowngirl

I agree that using ex military barracks being used, but these immigrants should not be allowed to roam freely in the neighbourhood.

Many posters have clarified this before- but here we go again:

Asylum seekers are not automatically classified as "immigrants" legal or otherwise in the UK. Seeking asylum is a legal right and entering a country without prior permission to claim asylum is a recognised process under the 1951 Refugee Convention. The UK has very few authorised routes however and the person has to be in the UK physicallyuto claim asylum- a bit of a catch 22- hence small boat crossings.

An illegal immigrant refers to someone residing in the country without legal right to be here or pending applications such as visa overstayers or those who bypass border controls entry (like on the back of lorries) without declaring themselves to the authorities. The barracks are for asylum seekers who have made an application not illegal immigrants.

You always post this as justification, but nevertheless they arrived illegally - but let's not split hairs - do you think they should be allowed to roam around? unchecked???

Even if they did arrive illegally (and that's a moot point), they are not illegal immigrants, if they are asylum seekers. It's not splitting hairs. It's impossible for asylum seekers to have illegal status. There is absolutely nothing illegal about applying for asylum.

We can check on Uk citizens by using sarah’s Law, Clare’s Law etc. We can find out about people who commit domestic violence and who abuse children.

Plevey08 - So why do we have a border force at all - why not let everyone in if we don't need to know their background?

You may not have a problem with groups of young men wandering around the town but I'm sure if you asked the people of Crawley/Crowborough etc they would have a different opinion

Exactly AGAA4

I suppose that's why they are keeping the 7 years as a split. Between the 50% and 66.6%

We personally don't know anything about British people's past either sundowngirl. Well not until they commit a crime! I don't see a problem with being allowed to go to the local town. They haven't committed a crime. And if any do, like the rest of the population they will be dealt with. Much more quickly too.

LemonJam

sundowngirl

I agree that using ex military barracks being used, but these immigrants should not be allowed to roam freely in the neighbourhood.

Many posters have clarified this before- but here we go again:

Asylum seekers are not automatically classified as "immigrants" legal or otherwise in the UK. Seeking asylum is a legal right and entering a country without prior permission to claim asylum is a recognised process under the 1951 Refugee Convention. The UK has very few authorised routes however and the person has to be in the UK physicallyuto claim asylum- a bit of a catch 22- hence small boat crossings.

An illegal immigrant refers to someone residing in the country without legal right to be here or pending applications such as visa overstayers or those who bypass border controls entry (like on the back of lorries) without declaring themselves to the authorities. The barracks are for asylum seekers who have made an application not illegal immigrants.

You always post this as justification, but nevertheless they arrived illegally - but let's not split hairs - do you think they should be allowed to roam around? unchecked???

sundowngirl

I agree that using ex military barracks being used, but these immigrants should not be allowed to roam freely in the neighbourhood.

Many posters have clarified this before- but here we go again:

Asylum seekers are not automatically classified as "immigrants" legal or otherwise in the UK. Seeking asylum is a legal right and entering a country without prior permission to claim asylum is a recognised process under the 1951 Refugee Convention. The UK has very few authorised routes however and the person has to be in the UK physicallyuto claim asylum- a bit of a catch 22- hence small boat crossings.

An illegal immigrant refers to someone residing in the country without legal right to be here or pending applications such as visa overstayers or those who bypass border controls entry (like on the back of lorries) without declaring themselves to the authorities. The barracks are for asylum seekers who have made an application not illegal immigrants.

In Crowborough, for example, they are reportedly bussed into Crawley during the day. These are undocumented adult males whose identities and backgrounds have not yet been fully established. I don't understand why this is permitted, and I believe there should be greater supervision until their status has been determined.

So I think the barracks are a better option prior to vetting. As the Labour Party were trying to calm the vigilantes from attacking hotels following a couple of cases of asylum seekers offending. The reason it didn't happen under the Tories is because they had too much opposition from locals near to the barracks.