Hundreds of illegal migrants to be put in existing military barracks

And if I’ve heard correctly, there will be some sort of scheme where people can sponsor refugees and have them live with them….

winterwhite

Posterity will surely view what is happening as classic population shift, caused by war and famine. We are fortunate to live where we do and could be more charitable.

An obvious partial solution would be to allow asylum seekers to work while waiting for their cases to be heard.

Agree winterwhite.

The Home Secretary is presenting a bill to Parliament next week with a proposed safe asylum route that will allow asylum seekers to work and will be screened before they come to the uK- I understand see "Government announces Ukrainian style scheme....." current post.

Posterity will surely view what is happening as classic population shift, caused by war and famine. We are fortunate to live where we do and could be more charitable.

An obvious partial solution would be to allow asylum seekers to work while waiting for their cases to be heard.

But given that it still has the colonial era "Unnatural Offences (Buggery)" law there is a lot of hostility.

There is documented aggression and violence towards the gay community. The tariff - up to 10 years imprisonment with hard labour.

I agree with NotSpghetti.

The UK considers all asylum seeker applications from any countries on a case by case basis under the 1951 Refugee Convention. In relation to Jamaica and Turkey Acceptance rates are relatively low compared to conflict zones like Sudan or Syria.

Of applications from asylum seekers ( relatively low number of applications) from Turkey acceptance rates have been around 19% in recent years- rates fluctuate as case workers evaluate political, religious or minority based persecution crimes.

Jamaica is not a worn torn country but applications are accepted for consideration in the same way- ( applications numbers are low) there must be a well founded fear of persecution, such as targeted gang violence or state inability to protect evidenced and the acceptance rate is very low

David I believe that you are wrong about India.
Turkey and Jamaica do have some particular challenges:

Under the framework established by the Illegal Migration Act, India is officially listed as a "Safe State" (Section 80AA) list. Maybe you missed this as I believe this was in 2023.

You are right that Jamaica is not on this list though it used to be. It was actively removed in 2015.
So, we don't operate fast-track removal to Jamaica or declare asylum claims automatically invalid.

We can and do still return or deport someone to Jamaica if they have no legal right to stay in the UK (like an overstayed visitor or someone who has committed a crime), but if that person submits an asylum or human rights claim, the Home Office cannot just ignore it.
Jamaicans are given a review.
Most reviews are on the basis of sexuality. I don't think this is unreasonable because of the well documented appalling treatment of LGBTQ+ people there.

Turkey is not on the statutory "safe" list either, but the UK actively and aggressively returns people there through a fast-track agreement.

However, political dissidents/activists and people vocal about Kurdish rights are in danger in Turkey.
Economic migrants are handled as routine returns but if they are on the radar of the Turkish state or police for political or ethnic reasons, UK courts treat Turkey as unsafe and will block the deportation.

So although David you are right technically about Turkey and Jamaica - we can and do still return people there - but not without looking at their actual situation first.

David49 regular tourists or economic migrants who arrive without a visa can be summarily turned away... asylum seekers can not as they are treated under a separate legal framework.

I expect you know this?

MaizieD

^Well unless you want everyone to be drowned when France refuses to take them back - and why should they? (goes away muttering, reminding GN's that around 94% of incomers come legally and the govt are taking more action on both these matters than previous ones. And actually speeding up the processing.^

I think that drowning is the preferred solution, Wyllow. That, or a mass abduction by aliens to take them to a galaxy far far away. They certainly don’t seem to be considered fit to exist on the same planet as the British…

What a horrible comment

David49

Countries that are deemed unsafe to return migrants include Turkey, India and Jamaica, you might understand Afghanistan being unsafe so may be surprised learn that some have been granted Asylum, then returned home for a holiday.

It's a farce we are all being taken for fools.

The Home office has a list of safe states for asylum seekers- your list doesn’t correlate.

Half-baked humble pie me thinks 😜

Countries that are deemed unsafe to return migrants include Turkey, India and Jamaica, you might understand Afghanistan being unsafe so may be surprised learn that some have been granted Asylum, then returned home for a holiday.

It's a farce we are all being taken for fools.

Now my brain has moved on to humble pie!

NotSpaghetti

Is it about swallowing one's pride?

Now I'm confused again!

I meant I wondered why anyone was eating it?
🤔
I know the phrase.

Plevey08

Some people David49 think that most asylum seekers come for economic benefits or social welfare. But most come to seek legal right for safety. It's sad there are many misconceptions. So aren't we lucky we don't need to flee this country in fear for our safety. After all we are all accidents of birth aren't we. Just think of the diabolic injustice in certain parts of the world.

So you are saying the everyone from a poor country who is disadvantaged ushould come to the UK, you are in favour of leveling down our lifestyle to theirs

I have friends in Africa that are finding food difficult to find now but they have children so cant travel, it's a "safe" country so would be sent back anyway as economic migrants, so you would allow them into the UK.

Some people David49 think that most asylum seekers come for economic benefits or social welfare. But most come to seek legal right for safety. It's sad there are many misconceptions. So aren't we lucky we don't need to flee this country in fear for our safety. After all we are all accidents of birth aren't we. Just think of the diabolic injustice in certain parts of the world.

David49- see higher post- there is no UK asylum seeker visa route for asylum seekers to take. They are arriving as instructed at our Borders and approaching Border Force, as instructed to claim asylum. They have a legal right to claim asylum.

NotSpaghetti

Oh David49!!!

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

Their gravy train of Legal aid for multiple appeals would be much quicker if the lawyers were resident in the camps for the duration of the process. They employ every device to extend the stay.

If I or you arrived in a foreign country without a visa we would be locked up and go straight back home with no appeal.

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???

You say they ‘arrived illegally’, which is not strictly true. Arriving in a small boat is classified as an ‘irregular method of entry’, and, as such, means the people are entitled to apply for asylum. They do this, and then must wait until their claims are processed ( and it is estimated that around 75% of claims will be successful).
I find it strange that the phrase ‘illegal immigrants’ is now widely used to describe asylum seekers.
Saying they ‘roam around unchecked’ sounds as if you are inferring that these people are a danger to society. Are you basing this on any verifiable statistics, or maybe just on media reports ( like Sky calling them illegal immigrants)?

Re the OP, why do we always have the reference to young men?

In many of the earliest waves of European immigration the immigrants were disproportionately young men. If you allow people's homes to become unsafe, either through war, famine or exploitation, they will look for somewhere else for themselves and their families and the first to go have to be those with the strength to work hard, sustain themselves on long journeys and, if necessary, defend themselves.

This pattern isn't unique but understanding it could help us find answers.

Thanks LemonJam always better to get facts than opinions and wild ideas.

David49 The Home Office has a voluntary return programme in place for economic asylum seekers. Once it is established that they are purely economic, they can appeal (we all have a right to appeal) If their appeal fails they are sent back to their homeland. Many economic asylum seekers have been returned through this programme.

I can understand concern but there is a plan and there are vetting processes so incorrect to say otherwise.

The trouble is if asylum seekers must be on UK soil to claim asylum they have to already be in this country before any screening takes place thus risks are not known or assessed before they get here. Catch 22 yet again.

If asylum seekers come across in small boats they necessarily pay small boat traffickers etc to get here, their passports and documents can be seized as collateral by the traffickers at any stage en route or lost at sea etc.

All those who arrive and make themselves known to Border force are in fact all screened see Home Office Asylum Screening and Routing Guidelines there is therefore a plan.

Upon arrival they are finger printed, biometrics recorded and cross checked against UK Police, immigration, security and international law enforcement databases to identify known criminals or previous asylum applications made under a different name.

Analysis of digital devices verifies travel routes, establish identities etc. If young men presenting as under 18 scientific and age assessments are carried out. Etc etc see all detail in guidelines...

If it's the timescales and urgency of the vetting process that is of concern this is a work in progress. The LP did listen to this public concern as it came to office after the last GE and has reduced the asylum back log it inherited from the C Party.

The C party had paused asylum applications and the LP stopped this pause and surged decision making capacity simplified guidance and overhauled the fast track appeals system to accelerate removals.

For breakdown of all the LP has done in past 2 years to compare to previous C party performance in relation to asylum seekers see Migration Observatory website. Just saying....

This is what Google comes up with

That's alright Marty. I'm amazed we can even text in this heat 😜

GG13,
BBC verify says 'in the years before the BREXIT vote the UK returned more people than it received.
After the 2016 referendum, arrivals, started to outpace returns.'