Why do Labour not get it?

Wasn’t that the idea behind Rwanda and Labour voted against it. They’re hardly going to now implement similar.

As has been said ad infinitum, they do not have to stay in France, and are free to claim asylum in any country they choose. The vast majority do so in the neighbouring country.

I don’t really get your stance. I agree the residents near the barracks will oppose it, but that’s no different to the residents living next to the hotels. The vast majority of the population would say no thank you to hundreds of undocumented unknown males roaming about. The difference with the being put up in barracks is that it won’t cost as much so purely on that basis it’s better idea.

Third country processing.
It worked for Australia.
If people know if they arrive uninvited they cannot stay and (all) are swiftly sent to a third country they won't come in the first place.

I read the barracks are 900 beds? That's one day of arrivals on a calm day at sea. So that's one day's arrivals sorted just the other 364 days arrivals to consider now.

Third country processing.
It worked for Australia.
If people know if they arrive uninvited they cannot stay and (all) are swiftly sent to a third country they won't come in the first place.

I read the barracks are 900 beds? That's one day of arrivals on a calm day at sea. So that's one day's arrivals sorted just the other 364 days arrivals to consider now.

@jeremyclarksonsthirdnipple quite but if we are having to put them up in hotels and barracks /taking ages to process them ,I'd also suggest we are taking too many in the first place.

So how do we reduce numbers

And, what has he put in place to start doing that?

They will be, hence the concerns being raised by people close by.

Heck even on mn there isn’t anyone who has said yes I’m ok with the barracks near to me.

No one wants this in their own area, Labour will struggle even more.

Btw checks aren’t always definitive, the recent sad death of the dog walker was after checks.

That’s not what Starmer pledged, it was to smash the gangs. Channel crossings are up.

The point is, they are allowed to seek asylum anywhere they want.

If 1% of the 20% of refugees who seek asylum anywhere other than their neighbouring country want to come to the U.K., it really isn’t the problem people seem to think it is.

If you think people are getting on boats to make a treacherous journey across the channel so they can get less than £10 quid a week and stay in a disused hotel and be fed mass produced slop, just for shits and giggles, you are fooling yourself.

The point is that they are coming from France so hardly fleeing for their lives. So melodramatic.

Stop the money would be a good start. Acommodate in barracks, fed 3 times a day, with an initial medical,no phones,no money,then deport. You cannot survive to house yourself or have a job in place then you cannot make it in the UK and you have to go. No other country fannies about like we do. Being a nation of do gooders has got us absolutely nowhere.

Exactly. They’ve tried using disused barracks before and they had to stop for all sorts of reasons. But this is about optics, not a better solution. The most important thing they’ve done is expedited the turnaround for assessing cases. That’s the real problem and they are doing something about it.

But, it’s unpopular to point out anything good Labour are doing so that part will go largely unnoticed.

Stop the money would be a good start. Acommodate in barracks, fed 3 times a day, with an initial medical,no phones,no money,then deport. You cannot survive to house yourself or have a job in place then you cannot make it in the UK and you have to go. No other country fannies about like we do. Being a nation of do gooders has got us absolutely nowhere.

I think, and I am NO Labour supporter that the Barracks thing is excellent. If they are processed there and not allowed into general society until we know who they are then it can only be good. As a safety issue alone its worth every penny. We need to reclaim our streets and stop being a third world trough for all and sundry.

That will have been written by an group that advocates for asylum seekers.

The point is that they are coming from France so hardly fleeing for their lives. So melodramatic.

The hotels are not ‘cushy’ but currently the public appears to falling for the bullshit that asylum seekers are living it up in 4* hotels with all the trappings.

Yep, I do. Maybe use facts to dispute my point rather than suggesting I'm uninformed?

Thing is, most of these people will have been documented already in Europe. Don't they now get fingerprinted when they initially come into Europe?? Also many of them have already spent years trying one, or two, three, other countries, all being denied asylum, and eventually end up at the end of line ie: England or increasingly Ireland, as the furthest West they can get. So where is all the paperwork for all of them, I assume since Brexit, we no longer have access to that??

Thing is, most of these people will have been documented already in Europe. Don't they now get fingerprinted when they initially come into Europe?? Also many of them have already spent years trying one, or two, three, other countries, all being denied asylum, and eventually end up at the end of line ie: England or increasingly Ireland, as the furthest West they can get. So where is all the paperwork for all of them, I assume since Brexit, we no longer have access to that??

I don’t think it was ever answered what the ‘robust checks’ are that are done to asylum seekers once they get into the country. A PP talked about it and I’ve heard a government minister mention them but she then could t tell the interviewer what it entailed. If someone is undocumented then what checks can they do?