Channel migrants held on double-decker bus as Britain struggles to cope with influx

Short Url
Updated 08 October 2021
Follow

Channel migrants held on double-decker bus as Britain struggles to cope with influx

  • Local monitor: “It is clear that more and better provision is urgently needed”
  • More than twice as many people have arrived in UK via Channel this year than in whole of 2020

LONDON: Migrants arriving in Britain via the English Channel have been held on a double-decker bus as the UK struggles to manage record levels of arrivals.

The Dover Independent Monitoring Board said the surge in numbers of migrants has been so great that the overstretched Border Force had to accommodate migrants in “manifestly unsuitable” tents and portacabins on a nearby car park.

The facilities, the IMB said, were not suitable for children or the vulnerable and put peoples’ welfare at risk. At one point the facilities became so overwhelmed that some individuals were even held on a double-decker bus parked on site.

While the area was originally established purely as a processing facility, the record-breaking number of arrivals this year means that people have often been forced to spend the night there, sleeping on the floor without mats.

Many unaccompanied children and families, the IMB added, were forced to spend the night in small spaces with adults that they did not know. Food was insufficient, and in some cases, age assessment failings saw children moved to immigration removal centers rather than being taken into care by councils.

More than 17,000 people have made the perilous crossing across the English Channel to reach the UK so far this year — more than double the 8,410 people that made the journey in the whole of 2020.

William Baker, Dover IMB chairman, said: “The board has seen an unprecedented increase in the number of people held in unsuitable conditions where adults and children may be held for over 24 hours.

“Migrants are initially held in an overstretched facility at the docks, with unsatisfactory arrangements for food, sleeping or washing. They are then transferred to other locations, which can include holding rooms in Dover and Folkestone which are also not designed to cope with these numbers. It is clear that more and better provision is urgently needed.”

He continued: “Given how long the situation with small boat arrivals has continued, it is surprising that the Home Office still has such inadequate facilities for properly managing the care of children, that elderly and vulnerable people have been sleeping on mats on the floor, that medical support has not been expanded, and that there are still no proper washing facilities at the overflow room in Folkestone.

“The board has observed some small improvements over the summer, but they have not gone far enough to address these challenges.”

The increase in the number of arrivals in Britain over the past year has also become a bone of contention between the UK and France, with London urging Paris to do more to prevent individuals from attempting the crossing.

Britain has deployed aircraft and naval vessels to track small boats making the journey, but there are few concrete actions it can legally take to prevent people from arriving in the country via the Channel.


Tug of war: how US presidents battle Congress for military powers

Updated 01 March 2026
Follow

Tug of war: how US presidents battle Congress for military powers

  • The last official declaration of war by Congress was as far back as World War II

WASHINGTON, United States: Donald Trump’s unleashing of operation “Epic Fury” against Iran has once more underscored the long and bitter struggle between US presidents and Congress over who has the power to decide on foreign military action.
In his video address announcing “major combat” with the Islamic republic, Trump didn’t once mention any authorization or consultation with the US House of Representatives or Senate.
In doing so he sidelined not only Democrats, who called for an urgent war powers vote, but also his own Republican party as he asserts his dominance over a largely cowed legislature.
A US official said Secretary of State Marco Rubio had called top congressional leaders known as the “Gang of Eight” to give them a heads up on the Iran attack — adding that one was unreachable.
Rubio also “laid out the situation” and consulted with the same leaders on Tuesday in an hour-long briefing, the US official said.
According to the US Constitution, only Congress can declare war.
But at the same time the founding document of the United States first signed in 1787 says that the president is the “commander in chief” of the military, a definition that US leaders have in recent years taken very broadly.
The last official declaration of war by Congress was as far back as World War II.
There was no such proclamation during the unpopular Vietnam War, and it was then that Congress sought to reassert its powers.
In 1973 it adopted the War Powers Resolution, passed over Richard Nixon’s veto, to become the only lasting limit on unilateral presidential military action abroad.
The act allows the president to carry out a limited military intervention to respond to an urgent situation created by an attack against the United States.
In his video address on Saturday, Trump evoked an “imminent” threat to justify strikes against Iran.

- Sixty days -

Yet under this law, the president must still inform Congress within 48 hours.
It also says that if the president deploys US troops for a military action for more than 60 days, the head of state must then obtain the authorization of Congress for continued action.
That falls short of an official declaration of war.
The US Congress notably authorized the use of force in such a way after the September 11, 2011 attacks on the United States by Al-Qaeda. Presidents have used it over the past two decades for not only the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan but a series of operations in several countries linked to the “War on Terror.”
Trump is far from the first US president to launch military operations without going through Congress.
Democrat Bill Clinton launched US air strikes against Kosovo in 1999 as part of a NATO campaign, despite the lack of a green light from skeptical lawmakers.
Barack Obama did the same for airstrikes in Libya in 2011.
Trump followed their example in his first term in 2018 when he launched airstrikes in Syria along with Britain and France.
But since his return to power the 79-year-old has sought to push presidential power to its limits, and that includes in the military sphere.
Trump has ordered strikes on alleged drug trafficking boats in Latin America without consulting Congress, and in June 2025 struck Iran’s nuclear facilities.
Perhaps the most controversial act was when he ordered the capture of Venezuelan president Nicolas Maduro in a lightning military raid on January 3.
Republicans however managed to knock down moves by Democrats for a rare war powers resolution that would have curbed his authority over Venezuela operations.
Trump has meanwhile sought to extend his powers over the home front. Democrats have slammed the Republican for deploying the National Guard in several US cities in what he calls a crackdown on crime and immigration.