- 84comments
- 53comments
- 601comments
- 62comments
- 9comments
- 434comments
- 214comments
- 230comments
- —discuss
- 16comments
- 1comments
- 14comments
- 322comments
- 76comments
- 61comments
- 145comments
- 301comments
- 3comments
- 14comments
- 219comments
- 93comments
- 381comments
- 2comments
- 16comments
- 41comments
- 26comments
- 1comments
- 171comments
- 441comments
- 147comments
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.
Everyone want wolves around until they start hanging around your backyard
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?
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?
garrison the barracks with asylum seekers!?
Disused barracks; shortage of other places; hotel accommodation has recently been subject to racially motivated arson attacks.