To explain what an immigration detention centre actually is

[ThesebeautifulthingsthatIvegot]

AIBU to explain what an immigration detention centre is? We have a major political party stating that they want to build new detention centres in constituencies that vote for another party. But even they seem confused, if not intentionally misleading people. So I thought I'd save people a bit of Googling as there seems to be some serious misunderstanding. So below is a Google summary. Happy to be told I'm unreasonable for trying to educate people.

An immigration detention centre (or Immigration Removal Centre - IRC) is a secure facility where foreign nationals are held, often in prison-like conditions, while the government resolves their immigration status. These centres are used to detain asylum seekers, undocumented migrants, or those awaiting deportation.
Administrative Process:
Detention is not a criminal sentence ordered by a court, but an administrative decision often made by immigration authorities.
Purpose: Centers are primarily used for initial processing, establishing identity, or holding individuals for removal/deportation from the country.
Conditions: Despite not being prisons, many facilities are high-security with locked cells, limited contact with the outside world, and often managed by private companies.
Legal Standing: People detained often include asylum seekers and people whose visas have expired

I used a tool to help me explain more clearly than I can in the time available.

I believe that people are being intentionally misled by politicians and wondered if actually explaining (with help) might be appreciated.

No. I'm against politicians who make non-sensical threats to try to manipulate voters.

I think immigration detention centres are necessary. I think that they should be used for the minimum time possible while a decision is made on the person's immigration status. I do not think that they should ever be used for children.

You have a legal right to claim asylum in the UK.

Flawed logic proving the stupidity of reform and the supporters.

If someone did want open boarders, everyone coming would have the right to be here and live anywhere in general in the country full stop.

The immigration centres are a product of what reform wants, systems to control and/or remove them. So by reforms own stated logic, they should be building them solely in reform areas.

That just isn't true though is it?

People who arrive here do it in several ways. They either arrive through legitimate means and have a legitimate process to follow, be it immigration application, or seeking asylum. Then there are the irregular arrivals (small boats), which have been encouraged by the Conservative party changing the rules to mean that a person has to be here to claim asylum, and Brexshit which reduced the help of France (the irony of Farage spouting about boats when he was a key Brexshiteer should not be lost on anyone).

There are methods by which they are processed, and the rubbish about them all being given hotel rooms, and loads of money just feeds the bullshit. They are housed in basic accommodation until their claim is processed, and they are given a very minimal amount of money for subsistence.

The current government are returning more than the previous government managed, so they are being deported, unless their claims are being granted. If we don't like that their claims are granted, then we need to change the rules. If they have no right to be here, they are deported. Just not fast enough.

The irony is that the economy is suffering as we have a lack of migrants, but we should never let the truth get in the way of a good publicity stunt.

There's an international law that says you can claim asylum if the country is signed up to a Convention made in 1950 ish. Soz can't remember exactly!.
It's cheaper in the UK to give people asylum and then you don't have to house them hence why most people get asylum (at least that's what happened when I was working in this field). Not the families with children, I dont know about them as I worked with single males.

I mean, I've been critised already for referring to Google (both on this thread and during my undergrad!), but Google says;
Release vs. Removal: While detention aims for removal, a significant portion (roughly 55% in some reports) are released.
I don't know how accurate this is and I'm sure if fluctusres.

So majority was a bit strong of a word but technically accurate, I think.

Interesting! Maybe it’s a good policy then? Everyone would be happy?

Googling and copying the AI generated result isn’t really educating people though…

But much different under the Trump administration with stricter enforcement and a much heavier reliance on detention. In his first term, he brought in zero tolerance policy , which meant that anyone crossing the border without authorisation was criminally prosecuted. This caused family separations, as children could not be held in criminal custody with their parents, thousands of children were affected, and they had trouble reuniting them.

also the administration moved away from the previous practice often referred to as catch and release where migrants were allowed to remain in the community while awaiting immigration hearings. Instead, more people were held in detention centres, including asylum seekers.

The use of immigrant detention centres has grown quickly. Lots of facilities were either newly opened or expanded and a big proportion were run by private companies. The conditions in these centres became a major point of criticism - overcrowding, poor hygiene , and limited access to medical care.

Trump’s second term beginning in 2025 this all intensified with more people held in detention has increased significantly with reintroduction of family detention in some cases and proposals that could allow families to be held for longer

Also no surprise there has been an increase in the use of force by staff, along with reports of deaths in custody.

pretty grim

The percentage used to be higher. But now IRCs also take people who've completed a prison sentence, but will not be allowed to be released into the community. Almost all of those will be deported/removed to their home countries, which brings the percentage who are released, down.

Where would those people have been previously?

I'm a cynic - do you think this was done so that the percentage staying in the UK decreased, to appease people who want this?

Check the migration observatory, the ONS and the House of Commons Library.

It depends on what the point of contention is. People with a legitimate right to stay are allowed to. Those that don't have one are deported. It is fairly simple.

If we don't like the criteria under which they are judged, we should change it, but nobody is proposing that. They are just banging a drum that provokes division and hate. Any reasonable argument really stops there.

Isn't it also because they made a deal with Albania so they could be returned as some towns had no young men in them. They were coming here on boats and then disappearing into the criminal gangs.

You’ve got a bloody nerve thinking you have the right to ‘educate’ me and others. Just another do-gooder. You’ll end up pushing people in the opposite direction to what you espouse.

Googling and copying and pasting the AI summary which is invariably wrong more often than not is weird

IRCs have existed in England for about 25 years, probably more! I worked at one briefly, supporting single women asylum seekers.

All the asylum seekers I met had been detained for out staying visas (usually by several YEARS) and working illegally! It was only when caught they claimed to be fleeing persecution.

I still have friends working in the immigration sector. Detention is now rare, the more common way of dealing with an asylum claim is to grant “immigration bail” which means they are left to fend for themselves with no recourse to public funds (no benefits, housing, education, NHS etc) and no right to work. And from there most will go and work illegally as a way of supporting themselves.

We don’t have any idea where people are or how many people are living here ‘illegally’ A removal centre solves that issue!

Poland doesn’t “refuse asylum seekers”.

They run temporary bans on the border with Belarus due to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

But generally, Poland accepts asylum seekers.

Why do you think it doesn’t ?

Oh I don't deny I'm weird. But Google summaries are not invariably wrong. They can be wrong, that's true. You need to check them before using. I did check this one and even removed a part that I was unsure about.

I suppose the true answer to a PP who asked "whats your point" is that I wanted to start a debate, which I have. I've also learnt things from people who have posted here. Perhaps there were other ways to achieve the same ends rather than copy and paste, but I don't think it was unsuccessful.

@ThesebeautifulthingsthatIvegot why do you think people don't know what it is?

Sounds great. As long as they are not free to roam the streets I don’t care

YABVU for trying to "educate" people by mindlessly copying an AI summary.

If you want to encourage other people to engage their brains on this topic, it would be more compelling if you had engaged your own brain first rather than outsourcing your own thinking.

The irony is that the economy is suffering as we have a lack of migrants, but we should never let the truth get in the way of a good publicity stunt.

We have had vast amounts of immigration, if there's still a skills shortage then clearly it's not been the right people at all.

I suppose I am curious about what the motive for the debate is?

If I am unhappy about anything, it is that the level of migration is dropping. I am concerned that those who have legitimate rights to seek asylum are being ostracised in this country, and that the division and hate is increasing. That isn't the country I was brought up in. I thought we were more generous of spirit than that, and wanted to help the oppressed and persecuted.

Obviously, some take the piss, as will always be the case. They are, and have always been, the minority though.

Maybe a better debate would be what is fact vs what is fiction?

From things I've seen on here and in the media.

For example (BBC reporting):
Reform UK has also said it would not put detention centres in areas where its own party has an MP, or where it controls the council.
Yusuf said: "Given the Green Party advocate for open borders and for an infinite number of undocumented men to come here, we will prioritise Green constituencies and Green-controlled councils to locate these detention centres.
"This is the fairest approach to ensuring democratic consent for all aspects of our mass deportation programme."

That whole statement makes no sense if you actually know what a detention centre is.

I have also read two threads on here where people are completely unaware, although I don't want this to be a TAAT so I won't go into details.