UK has space to detain only around 1 in 19 migrants expected to cross Channel

Almost 46,000 migrants entered the UK via the Channel in 2022, and internal Home Office estimates suggest the figure could rise to more than 56,000 this year. (AFP/File)
Short Url
Updated 09 May 2023
Follow

UK has space to detain only around 1 in 19 migrants expected to cross Channel

  • Britain has only 3,000 detention spaces while Home Office estimates suggest more than 56,000 people could enter UK across the Channel this year
  • If the government fails to reach agreements with more countries to return migrants, it might be forced to release those that are picked up, a former official said

The UK has space to detain only about 3,000 people under Prime Minister Rishi Sunak’s controversial Illegal Migration Bill. This is about one in 15 of the number who crossed the Channel on small boats last year and about one in 19 of the number expected to do so this year, The Independent newspaper reported on Monday.

Almost 46,000 migrants entered the UK via the Channel in 2022, and internal Home Office estimates suggest the figure could rise to more than 56,000 this year.

Even with the development of two new immigration facilities, however, there will still only be a little over 3,000 detention spaces available. Furthermore, there are only 98 places in existing immigration detention centers for women, and none for children or families, according to The Independent.

Home Secretary Suella Braverman said that although the government is working to increase capacity, “clearly we are not building capacity to detain 40,000 people, nor do we need to.”

She told Parliament: “The aim of the bill is not to detain people but to swiftly remove them.”

Holding people at immigration detention facilities is illegal unless they are to be deported from the country within a “reasonable” amount of time.

However, a former Home Office civil servant told The Independent that if the government does not reach agreements with more countries than Albania and Rwanda to return migrants, it could be forced to release many of those who arrive on small boats.

Stephen Kinnock, Labour’s shadow security minister, said the figures “just further expose how much of a con this Tory plan really is.”

He added: “It will increase the soaring asylum backlog and increase hotel use, while taxpayers foot the bill.”

Internal Home Office communications obtained by The Independent reveal concerns that “details of how the Illegal Migration Bill will be operationalized” had not been “worked through” when it was introduced.

According to the Refugee Council, at least 10,728 additional spaces will be required to meet the bill’s goal of detaining all small-boat migrants for 28 days before they can seek bail.

“Instead of spending billions to lock up people in desperate need of sanctuary, and a chance to rebuild their lives, the government should focus on creating safe and orderly routes for refugees to reach the UK,” Mark Davies, the charity’s head of campaigns, told The Independent.

Clare Moseley, the founder of refugee charity Care4Calais, described the bill as “unworkable, barbaric and pointless,” adding: “The Illegal Migration Bill will trap possibly hundreds of thousands of people not only in indefinite detention but in a system where their asylum claims will not be resolved, they will be dependent on the state and their human rights will be ignored.”

The Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants has also said that the government is creating an “indefinite legal limbo.”


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

Updated 5 sec ago
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.