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

Elements of this post - not all - bear some similarities to the deliberate blindness and obfuscation of the trans debate.

Any suggestion that dangers to women increase by allowing universal unchallenged access by any man into spaces where women formerly relied on single sex spaces receives shouts of transphobia- whereas in reality none of the objecting women are remotely concerned about transmen being present - just males. Call it misandry if you wish, but it’s not transphobia!

What drives many women’s concerns about
immigration is the contingent of large numbers of single poor young men from cultures that often regard women as lesser, in some cases akin to livestock - naturally they feel that these males are unlikely to have a positive impact on our society or the safety of women and children. It’s their maleness and misogyny that is regarded as objectionable, not the colour of their skin. It’s not racism.

Some women feel that the interests of women and children must always give way to those of needy men. Those views are no more worthy or moral than the opposite view.

No. I think it was just done so that those people coming out of prison couldn't disappear before they were deported. More of an efficiency decision, as far as I know.

Very well put!

Most homeless people don't want a roof over their heads, even when it's offered. Mental ill health, alcoholism and addiction are the issues that prevent them leading a safer life.

I volunteered to help at a winter night shelter, but only if was literally freezing, would people choose to stay overnight. They might come in for an evening meal and for breakfast, but it was a struggle for them to manage to sleep indoors and many didn't want to stick to the (very few and very fair) rules, so they went back to where they usually slept.

There is accommodation available to rough sleepers, but many choose not to take advantage of it. Immigration detention centres are not depriving the homeless of a roof.

NRPF still includes NHS (for all ) and education (for children). Its housing ,which is the most expensive for individual councils to provide, in the South anyway so they support granting asylum.

Excellently explained.

I wonder, if after, this valiant, brave, courageous and public service minded attempt to explain what a detention centre is, OP has managed to convince everyone that they want one in their neighbourhood. A bit like a Waitrose.

Agreed.

I don't want to convince anyone that they want one in their neighbourhood.

Yep. Nailed it.

I thought you had been held in one or worked in one. That would have been a lot more interesting.

I do know that 100s of people attempt to bring drugs into the country every day. If they are caught, they are arrested, sentenced and deported. Presumably they often end up in immigration detention centres at some stage of that process. It is a lot more humane than what a lot of other countries do to people smuggling in drugs. I also suspect that in the life of a drug mule it is probably not the worst thing that happens to them.

I have worked with people who have been in one, but not extensively nor on aspects related to their stay in one. I wouldn't say I have any great insight compared to you or the average person.

The people that I worked with weren't drug runners. They were mainly people who had illegally outstayed visa requirements. Personally, I don't feel that this should lead to imprisonment and I would be happy with looser immigration laws that would allow people easier access to a visa if they have been working and contributing successfully for years. I do appreciate that this is an easier position to have as a person whose job is extremely unlikely to go to an new immigrant (such as me). I am able to see the big picture that immigration supports economic growth without any direct threat to my short-term income; others do not have that luxury. I don't believe that we should have open borders because a rapid increase in immigration would be harmful.

I do think that people who commit harmful crimes should be detained. This would include drug running, murder, rape etc. I don't think that immigration detention centres should be eradicated because they are necessary for people who cause public harm, as well as a short-term measure while processing asylum claims.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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'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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.