I agree, I thought it was a good use of the barracks. As long as they have maintained well enough.
- Status
New to Tattle Life? Click "Order Thread by Most Liked Posts" button below to get an idea of what the site is about:
If they are anything like Napier Barracks, they won't have been. In 2021 The High Court said that they were “inadequate accommodation” for asylum seekers and labelled the process for selecting people to be accommodated at the Barracks as “flawed and unlawful”. The Home Office claimed that following that judgement, "significant improvements' were made. In 2022 the All Party Parliamentary Group on Immigration Detention visited and found that they had "failed to address the fundamental problems at the site". Look at the pictures on the link. If that's conditions after a "significant improvement" what were they like before?
Napier Barracks: Asylum seeker site must close, MPs say
A report into the asylum site finds improvements directed by the High Court have not been made.
www.bbc.co.uk
The view of MPs:
Migration policies are harming families and society
Current migration rules are at odds with the Government’s commitment to family life: they force family members to live apart. The arrival of spouses and partners of British citizens is deterred or delayed by complex rules and financial requirements. Children grow up without a parent. Families are effectively banned from being joined in the UK by elderly parents. Child refugees cannot be joined by any relatives.
Rules are overly restrictive and the Home Office is systematically deficient in its processing of family visa applications. Delays pile up, communication is appallingly poor, evidential requirements—how you prove your case—are unduly complex, and fees are prohibitive. This affects British citizens, refugees and permanent residents, including children born in the UK and adult citizens who have never lived in another country but have family members of a different nationality.
Family migration policies also undermine society. Essential skills are lost when people feel they have no alternative but to leave the UK, and some people may not come in the first place. The NHS is particularly affected. An individual’s contribution to the economy is weakened when a partner or parent is not allowed into the country to help raise children. In extreme cases, migration policies force families into destitution, making them reliant on the state.
The committee recognises that strict criteria and vetting of applications is necessary; public support demands it. The committee believes, however, that policies that respect family life also benefit society. With this report, the committee brings the question of family migration back to public attention, making its recommendations to nurture family life and unleash the potential of families to contribute to society.
Baroness Hamwee, Chair of the Justice and Home Affairs Committee, said: “Nobody should have to choose between home, safety, and family. The primary concern of family migration policies should be to allow families to live together in the UK where possible and the Home Office should ensure safe and legal routes for family reunion.
“The interests of families and society are not in competition: they go hand-in-hand. Family migration policies should ensure that they are sufficiently protective of family life.
“These restrictive rules and deficiencies affect British citizens, refugees, and permanent residents alike. As one witness told us: “I feel that, although I am a British citizen, I have no rights”.
“We believe that it is in the best interests of a child living in this country to be surrounded by their family and to remain here. The scandal around the children placed in asylum hotels—and going missing from them—points up the importance of looking at immigration from the child’s point of view.
“Current policies are extreme. It is virtually impossible to be joined by an elderly parent who needs care. No visa was issued to anyone in that situation in 2021. Tight but fair immigration rules should allow families to live together.
“The minimum income requirement, which those trying to be joined by a partner must meet, is fundamentally flawed. It should be made more flexible, and should not increase.
“Home Office processes must improve considerably, and standards of service substantially raised, without applicants left in the dark as to what is happening.
“The Government should significantly increase funding to improve the standards of the services the Home Office delivers to families. Recruiting and training caseworkers is an essential yet insufficient starting point.”
Migration policies are harming families and society
Current migration rules are at odds with the Government’s commitment to family life: they force family members to live apart. The arrival of spouses and partners of British citizens is deterred or delayed by complex rules and financial requirements. Children grow up without a parent. Families are effectively banned from being joined in the UK by elderly parents. Child refugees cannot be joined by any relatives.
Rules are overly restrictive and the Home Office is systematically deficient in its processing of family visa applications. Delays pile up, communication is appallingly poor, evidential requirements—how you prove your case—are unduly complex, and fees are prohibitive. This affects British citizens, refugees and permanent residents, including children born in the UK and adult citizens who have never lived in another country but have family members of a different nationality.
Family migration policies also undermine society. Essential skills are lost when people feel they have no alternative but to leave the UK, and some people may not come in the first place. The NHS is particularly affected. An individual’s contribution to the economy is weakened when a partner or parent is not allowed into the country to help raise children. In extreme cases, migration policies force families into destitution, making them reliant on the state.
The committee recognises that strict criteria and vetting of applications is necessary; public support demands it. The committee believes, however, that policies that respect family life also benefit society. With this report, the committee brings the question of family migration back to public attention, making its recommendations to nurture family life and unleash the potential of families to contribute to society.
Baroness Hamwee, Chair of the Justice and Home Affairs Committee, said: “Nobody should have to choose between home, safety, and family. The primary concern of family migration policies should be to allow families to live together in the UK where possible and the Home Office should ensure safe and legal routes for family reunion.
“The interests of families and society are not in competition: they go hand-in-hand. Family migration policies should ensure that they are sufficiently protective of family life.
“These restrictive rules and deficiencies affect British citizens, refugees, and permanent residents alike. As one witness told us: “I feel that, although I am a British citizen, I have no rights”.
“We believe that it is in the best interests of a child living in this country to be surrounded by their family and to remain here. The scandal around the children placed in asylum hotels—and going missing from them—points up the importance of looking at immigration from the child’s point of view.
“Current policies are extreme. It is virtually impossible to be joined by an elderly parent who needs care. No visa was issued to anyone in that situation in 2021. Tight but fair immigration rules should allow families to live together.
“The minimum income requirement, which those trying to be joined by a partner must meet, is fundamentally flawed. It should be made more flexible, and should not increase.
“Home Office processes must improve considerably, and standards of service substantially raised, without applicants left in the dark as to what is happening.
“The Government should significantly increase funding to improve the standards of the services the Home Office delivers to families. Recruiting and training caseworkers is an essential yet insufficient starting point.”
Didn’t they give overseas nurses notice to leave their accommodation as it was being lined up for young men seeking asylum
It’s always been that way if a person marries a foreign spouse they have to prove they’re able to support them before they can come to the UK , there’s hundreds of women and children in Thailand and Russia that can’t join their uk husbands for exactly that reason.I’m sure their right to a family life is just as valid.
It’s always been that way if a person marries a foreign spouse they have to prove they’re able to support them before they can come to the UK , there’s hundreds of women and children in Thailand and Russia that can’t join their uk husbands for exactly that reason.I’m sure their right to a family life is just as valid.
Couples speak of pain over spouse visa rules
Three couples speak of their struggle to stay in the UK with their partners because of visa rules.
www.bbc.co.uk
Attachments
Last edited:
OK yeah the one near me isn't great either.If they are anything like Napier Barracks, they won't have been. In 2021 The High Court said that they were “inadequate accommodation” for asylum seekers and labelled the process for selecting people to be accommodated at the Barracks as “flawed and unlawful”. The Home Office claimed that following that judgement, "significant improvements' were made. In 2022 the All Party Parliamentary Group on Immigration Detention visited and found that they had "failed to address the fundamental problems at the site". Look at the pictures on the link. If that's conditions after a "significant improvement" what were they like before?
Napier Barracks: Asylum seeker site must close, MPs say
A report into the asylum site finds improvements directed by the High Court have not been made.www.bbc.co.uk
Asylum seeker housing conditions under scrutiny at third ex-military site
Allegations of poor conditions, poor food quality and mental health crises at RAF Coltishall in Norfolk
www.theguardian.com
Given that Barracks are built as accommodation I had naively assumed it was a good solution.
Which is said in the report I shared...
I highlighted the parts that were relevant to refugees because that's the discussion of this thread but the report acknowledges that rules have negative impacts on all people who come to the UK.
We know there’s thousands of people affected it’s not a new thing.
York: Nurses' hotel accommodation to be used by asylum seekers
York Hospital says it is struggling to find alternative rooms for the nurses.
www.bbc.com
Yes, we do. The report also highlights some of the consequences which are then complained about by British citizens when it comes to migrants and refugees.We know there’s thousands of people affected it’s not a new thing.
York: Nurses' hotel accommodation to be used by asylum seekers
York Hospital says it is struggling to find alternative rooms for the nurses.www.bbc.com
It says policy restrictions can push people to rely on the state, do not protect children and limits the number of skilled people that are allowed into the country. All complaints which have been raised in this and the last thread when people discuss who we should prioritise when speaking of migrants and/or refugees or the supposed burden they place on this country.
Skilled people can apply for work visas ?
---
Surely it must be better than the streets ? That’s all that’s on offer from the Irish government unless you have a child In tow .If they are anything like Napier Barracks, they won't have been. In 2021 The High Court said that they were “inadequate accommodation” for asylum seekers and labelled the process for selecting people to be accommodated at the Barracks as “flawed and unlawful”. The Home Office claimed that following that judgement, "significant improvements' were made. In 2022 the All Party Parliamentary Group on Immigration Detention visited and found that they had "failed to address the fundamental problems at the site". Look at the pictures on the link. If that's conditions after a "significant improvement" what were they like before?
Napier Barracks: Asylum seeker site must close, MPs say
A report into the asylum site finds improvements directed by the High Court have not been made.www.bbc.co.uk
Last edited:
Yes, they have to meet certain criteria including a minimum salary, which the report I shared says is restrictive. I'm not sure why you're asking questions nor why I'm relaying this to you because it's all covered in the article I shared. I'll stop engaging now.
I thought this was a discussion forum 
Feel free to put me on ignore.
Lets face it they’ll be thousands unable to get accommodation whether they’re skilled or not, even students will find it impossible with private landlords under HO contracts for years.
Feel free to put me on ignore.
Lets face it they’ll be thousands unable to get accommodation whether they’re skilled or not, even students will find it impossible with private landlords under HO contracts for years.
Italy migrant deaths: Minister says parents to blame for drowned children
A government minister has caused outrage by claiming that migrants whose children died in a shipwreck on Sunday had themselves to blame.The boat carrying about 180 migrants, many of them Afghans, foundered off the coast of southern Italy. Matteo Piantedosi, the interior minister, criticised parents
www.thetimes.co.uk
Worth noting that he’s facing criticism for this stance
That’s the reality of people smugglers/ greed ,apparently it was a child navigating the boat, Turkey are deporting thousands of asylum seekers , there’s calls for the EU to put a stop to the dinghies , looking at scenes like that should make countries want to act.
It's the reality of not giving people safe passage
What would you say is safe passage ?
---
There’s been a drop in the number of asylum claimants in Ireland since new gov measures have been introduced .
Sharp decrease in number of asylum seekers arriving in Ireland recorded
New arrivals down 40 per cent since mid-November and 48 per cent since the start of 2023
Last edited:
Hundreds of trafficking victims in UK missing after referral to support scheme
Home Office data shows 566 people were categorised as missing between 2020 and 2022
www.theguardian.com
Up to a third of overseas aid budget used for housing refugees in UK, MPs report
Select committee accuses government of wilfully obscuring facts around ‘unsustainable’ trend
www.theguardian.com
I haven't had time to look at this specific issue but as generality my wife used to work in scientific research funding and she frequently told me that the government used the overseas aid budget for all sorts of things that a reasonable person would conclude had nothing to do with overseas aid....This is flowing right over my head so someone else can look into it a bit more but from what I understand the money should be used for international aid projects and the rules only permit it to be used on refugees for their first year here. It also seems that the government is not cooperating with providing further information. It's also a bit unclear to me whether this includes asylum seekers or just refugees given that the headline uses refugees, the article sometimes throws in asylum claimants (but also distinguishes them from refugees) and then the end discusses Ukrainians and AfghansUp to a third of overseas aid budget used for housing refugees in UK, MPs report
Select committee accuses government of wilfully obscuring facts around ‘unsustainable’ trend
Edit: the source of the article in The Guardian is this report from the parliamentary International Development Committee. It explains the issue in greater depth. In 2015 the government spent 2% of the total budget on refugee costs within the UK, in 2020 it was 4.3% and in 2021 it was 10%.
The committeee says that in response to questions raised by the IDC Chair The Home Office was "entirely and wilfully unilluminating". The IDC concludes that the government is guilty of "performing a budgetary sleight of hand at the expense of people living in the world’s poorest countries".
Last edited:
A good chunk of the overseas budget is being used to fund asylum seekers.
www.theguardian.com
Ministers urged to drop plans for asylum centre at former RAF base in Essex
People living near MDP Wethersfield believe it has been earmarked to house 1,500 male asylum seekers
www.theguardian.com
Rishi Sunak expected to announce new powers to stop small boat crossings | Immigration and asylum | The Guardian
I predict this going well and being totally lawful
Prosecutions
www.kentonline.co.uk
---
I imagine the costs are now starting to impact services, lots of councils are trying to take action against the government.
Asylum seekers rescued at sea can be lawfully prosecuted, Court of Appeal rules
Provisions in the Nationality and Borders Act, which came into force last year, were considered by leading judges.
I imagine the costs are now starting to impact services, lots of councils are trying to take action against the government.
- Status