To explain what an immigration detention centre actually is

I think the main case against them, if they are well run and not abusive, is that they cost an awful lot of money. It’s very costly to detain people, you need the staff, the facilities. It’s billions. It also throws up so many ethical questions the main one being what do you do with families with children? When do you lock people up ? Some people would be on a legal pathway to regularisation already but technically not supposed to live here now? What about people who can never be deported (because there may be no diplomatic relationship with the country that they came from)? Do they just stay in detention forever, even though they may not be a danger to anyone?

It would be surely more effective to target the black economy where people who are illegal work.

It’s the kind of thing that sounds good (to some) but in reality it’s expensive and when it is done, people end up being cruelly treated. While the real answer of tightening regulations on businesses and employers, is something a party like Reform is very unlikely to do.

I had a friend deported in late 90’s. I visited him in a detention centre before he was deported.

it makes sense. If people are going to be deported they do need to be detained & then sent back surely? The UK has too big a population & economy to just leave people alone & trust them to leave or turn up themselves on deportation day?

what’s the fuss about? You should get deported if you are caught being in a county illegally, & decline to leave voluntarily.

I hope the tories don't do a coalition with Reform. I think they would end up watering down Reform's policies which are desperately needed and overdue.

I wish I shared your confidence about Reform's chances of success.

With the left of centre vote split between Green, Labour, LDs, SNP and Plaid Cymru, I don't think it's inconceivable that Reform will end up as the largest party. They'll take votes from the Tories, too, there are plenty of Tory voters who don't think the Tories are right wing enough.

While I can't see them having an overall majority, I could see them forming some sort of arrangement with the Tories.

I bloody hope I'm wrong though.

@LadyVioletBridgerton it’s also interesting you reference US laws as well. The US has a far higher rate of illegal immigration than the UK. In fact nearly 5% of the population in the US is there illegally.

illegal Immigration laws work alongside asylum laws. But again the US has a much higher rate of asylum claims.

But overall the law is not dissimilar in either place with the US implementing the laws in a more punitive manner.

So I wonder why people are banging on about human rights then

Yes I understand that. It is also criminal offence to enter the UK illegally. Unless you claim for asylum and are granted it ultimately.

That specific law isn’t referring to asylum but it works alongside laws around asylum.

We're taking about detention centres. Whatever is near you is not an IDC or IRC.

Yes it is not a detention centre. But reform are proposing building detention centres. Not instead of the centre you live near, in addition to. To house people who are due to be deported.

I live around the corner from a centre where 100’s of men off the boats have been housed for several years now.

the men housed there are 100% free to come & go as they like. It’s nothing like a prison.

So sounds like free bed and board to me. That’s ok for a non-national who is trying to get into the country. They can go back home if they want to.

If I knew I was going to be locked up if I went to a country illegally or overstayed my visa...guess what? I wouldn't do either.

Women and girls are never believed. A migrant HMO was briefly opened not far from me and immediately there were several sexual assaults as well as kids being filmed. My friend's daughter was one of the schoolgirls being followed during the Kirkby/St Helens row. But that's fine to many posters who think it amusing to post misspellings they imagine the sort of people at the sharp edge of their diversity make because only thick knuckledraggers make a fuss about the very real threats, and who engage in tinfoil-hat conspiracies about GB news. They're not the ones being attacked on the roadside, those women and girls are collateral for their dinner party set. Just put up with it for the greater good of their fuzzy feelings. Well now you can host the HMOs and detention centres instead seeing as you want them so much. You should be happy.

Yeah but the public can protest to the extent that it would be political suicide but I dont think Reform will win just cause a hung parliament at most, thank god.

This isn’t referring to asylum though, it’s referring to illegal entry. My point still stands though regarding our problem with illegal immigrants, if they don’t like it they can go home.

They can only do it if then form the government. But if that happens then public support for that policy doesn’t really matter, only whether MPs vote for it.

I assume they don’t breach human rights or the ECHR would have shut them down by now?

I've tried ro raise the point about what the impact on women's safety will be now and for the future and was told it's racism talking and immigration benefits us in whatever form it takes

That makes certain acts of entry illegal. But there are also other laws in the US that allow people to claim asylum even if they entered the country illegally. So no, it’s not illegal, even in the US, to claim asylum even after breaking this specific law.

I know they can in theory, but I doubt they would get public support (although you could say that about Brexit)

I be bothered about this. They shouldn’t have tried to come over and illegal immigration should be a crimimal offence. It certainly is in the States under 8 U.S.C. § 1325 (Improper Entry by Alien) punishable by First offence: up to 6 months in jail, fine, or both. Second subsequent offence: up to 2 years in prison (for anyone who wants to argue it’s not criminal)

We need to be stricter, no papers, go home.

There are no short term fixes for this big push to travel to wealthier countries. The potential migrants and their traffickers know the systems and how to use them. They want to work and earn or do whatever they can to make it. They can and do compare their chances in different countries if they don’t already have a contact in a destination country.
Detention of undocumented arrivals is a massive disincentive. That’s why it’s the only solution with a prospect of working. I live very close to a migrant hotel. Lots of food delivery bikes being handed over in an alley around the back. A few tents have popped up for people who’ve been through the system and kicked out of the hotel and presumably been unable to find somewhere to live with their limited resources.
Any detention centre would be full of despair. People have invested everything for their chance to make it and being locked up is the end of the line unless they can find a lawyer to get them out.
I don’t have a problem with the morality of locking up asylum seekers. Virtually everyone who has no prospect of migrating legally will claim asylum at some point. The self selected people who are drowning the system are preventing wealthier countries from targeting their resources towards genuine refugees - such as women and children.

Realistically they can’t withdraw from a treaty like that. It would take years, it would be extremely legally complex as it would impact numerous laws which would need to be sorted and that would face a lot of appeals etc….

That’s why no country has done this, even Trump. Instead you’d likely see more of an effort to stop people landing perhaps, pushbacks at sea which would result in deaths. Or making their lives miserable when they arrive, by detaining them.

I know a lot about rough sleepers actually because I spent 10 years working in homeless services. So although I would agree they need to be housed but it’s not as simple as putting them in a hotel unfortunately.

But again none of that has anything to do with opening up more detention centres.

Depending on how it’s done it might need treaty change. But yes, govts with a decent majority can just “change the law”, including withdrawing from treaties.

(not saying whether they should or shouldn’t, but they can).