This is more likely going to be a situation where they were always xenophobic.
There's a rather uncomfortable interview with a local resident (of many years) who is Australian with a Jamaican husband, saying "well great now I know all my neighbours hate foreigners".
This isn't a good example of xenophobia, assuming you are using the word for its colloquial implications (I.e. simple race-adjacent hatred, and not just the fear of a large group of new strangers of a culture or circumstance that is alien to your community).
Previous approaches of distributing them across low-rent hotels and bnb accommodation have recently suffered arson attacks. This isn't the first time a disused military base has been used for this kind of purpose, and ultimately they have to go somewhere; wherever the government puts them is going to object.
I'm not even 100% clear whether they're allowed off the site!
The asylum system leaves people in an extremely unpleasant limbo for a long time while it makes decisions, based purely on the false belief that they're uniquely likely to be criminals.
A spokesman for the Home Office said: "The Government is closing every asylum hotel, saving taxpayers over £1 billion on asylum support since the election.
With nothing. Why does the UK have giant numbers of asylum seekers, and why wasn't any of the EU countries they travelled through to get there good enough? It's the hardest to reach country in Western Europe.
Because the UK wants them. They can stop the boats at any time. They can stop feeding and housing them at any time. They come because the UK government and NGOs provide them with a comfortable life.
It's the minimum requirement under ECHR. The government does actually have to comply with its legal obligations, this isn't America. They can't choose to just ignore them.
This is why the problem hasn't been fixed. You can't say "just do X" when X isn't legal. Do you really think nobody's thought of this? That the government actually likes being in this position of the past decade or so?
Of course. When a family lives in a dangerous region and has too few resources to afford everyone's escape, no human would ever choose to save a loved one while staying behind themselves.
And if they do, it must be virtue signaling or something like that, right?
Much like the residents of Martha's Vinyard, I am sure all have been very progressive, until it was time to have migrants in their back yards.
This was voted down but it is to the point, NIMBYism is more the rule than the exception when it comes to this subject.
This is more likely going to be a situation where they were always xenophobic.
There's a rather uncomfortable interview with a local resident (of many years) who is Australian with a Jamaican husband, saying "well great now I know all my neighbours hate foreigners".
It's not xenophobia to not want foreigners to outnumber you 4 to 1 in your hometown.
Not so much "in" as "next to"; https://maps.app.goo.gl/ERuytwVias2Lmfof9 - it's the area above and to the right of the prison, HMP Bullington.
Thinking that not liking over 1000 men moving in next to a small village is purely "hatred of foreigners" is mind-blowingly race-brained.
…so xenophobic that they voted for both a Liberal Democrat MP and Mayor?
This isn't a good example of xenophobia, assuming you are using the word for its colloquial implications (I.e. simple race-adjacent hatred, and not just the fear of a large group of new strangers of a culture or circumstance that is alien to your community).
How did the migrants get to Martha's Vineyard?
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/09/16/migrants-marthas-vi...
They were of course removed from the community swiftly.
See the 1949 Ealing Studio film “Passport to Pimlico” for a take on how it’s going to work out.
It's been going on for some time now.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piddington%2C_Oxfordshire
And the mice voted to bell the cat.
It seems a bad idea to put them all in one place where they will outnumber the local residents almost 4-to-1
Previous approaches of distributing them across low-rent hotels and bnb accommodation have recently suffered arson attacks. This isn't the first time a disused military base has been used for this kind of purpose, and ultimately they have to go somewhere; wherever the government puts them is going to object.
I'm not even 100% clear whether they're allowed off the site!
The asylum system leaves people in an extremely unpleasant limbo for a long time while it makes decisions, based purely on the false belief that they're uniquely likely to be criminals.
This is why the hotels and bnbs were a bad idea.
.. and replacing them with what, exactly?
With nothing. Why does the UK have giant numbers of asylum seekers, and why wasn't any of the EU countries they travelled through to get there good enough? It's the hardest to reach country in Western Europe.
EDIT: other than RoI.
Because the UK wants them. They can stop the boats at any time. They can stop feeding and housing them at any time. They come because the UK government and NGOs provide them with a comfortable life.
It's the minimum requirement under ECHR. The government does actually have to comply with its legal obligations, this isn't America. They can't choose to just ignore them.
This is why the problem hasn't been fixed. You can't say "just do X" when X isn't legal. Do you really think nobody's thought of this? That the government actually likes being in this position of the past decade or so?
Yes indeed, that is the oft-cited fatal flaw of remaining in the ECHR.
But that aside: why come to the UK?
The ECHR is actually very loose with their definitions and gives the governments much freedom.
The UK chooses to interpret and enforce them as they do. Other european countries are within ECHR limits and deal with it entirely differently.
The UK elites no longer have the EU to blame for their policies, so they speak about ECHR. On the continent people barely know ECHR exists.
The ECHR says you must give prisoners the vote. Successive UK governments chose to ignore that part.
So don’t be so sure about “can’t” versus “won’t”.
These are not Ukranian war refugees. They can be sent back to their home countries
Can they? Have you personally reviewed all 1,200 cases?
Real refugees take their families.
Of course. When a family lives in a dangerous region and has too few resources to afford everyone's escape, no human would ever choose to save a loved one while staying behind themselves.
And if they do, it must be virtue signaling or something like that, right?
They're already outnumbered by prisoners, which has not turned out to be a bad idea.
https://hmiprisons.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmipris_repor...
garrison the barracks with asylum seekers!?
Disused barracks; shortage of other places; hotel accommodation has recently been subject to racially motivated arson attacks.
It's all fun and games until they're in your own backyard