There is a reason people usually cannot be detained without trial. That we start to make defavto exceptions for a certain group of people now is worrisome.

Correct, and I agree it's an important point, but pre-trial detention is a thing (and I suppose pre-hearing as well)

I think that's how the US justifies it (and I'm certainly not defending the way they do it).

Asylum shouldn't be a "immigrate for free" card. And abusing the system hurts the legitimate claimants more.

Pre-Trial is limited, needs a judge to aprove and is counted against your sentence. Pre-Hearing used to be limited, I'd have to lie on how long exactly, and required a suspected crime to be committed. Something rooted in German history.

Exception, and that got abused often, held in psychiatry in case of imminent risk of self harm and / or harming others.

An example with France, there is between 400000 and 600000 (source an article from Le Monde) illegals, meanwhile the jail system can hold less than 60000 and are already full. So, even if you want to put everybody in prison, you need some absolutely massive investments, and the cost every year will also be substantial (guards, food, sewage, etc, etc). And I ignore the fact these facilities were designed for adults.

Update for clarity, My point here is to point out that you cannot technically just "Keep them detained in the meanwhile." without doing monstrous actions at industrial scale.

Oh yes, let's bring even more concetration camps then we already have, kond of. What could possibly go wrong?

> Not our problem? Not our problem, and not our problem. Keep them detained in the meanwhile.

Keeping people detained is absolutely our problem, even if you disregard their humanity, because it costs a lot of money.

> If you want asylum the least you can do is be honest.

You can be honest and still have not been registered in your home country, or not wanted by your home country… or worse: they do want you, so they can kill you.

> Having come from a 3rd world country

Which one? There's a big gap between South Sudan and Egypt, but both are technically "third world". (Even more pedantically, Ireland, Sweden and Switzerland are also third world, but nobody would use the phrase today to refer to "neither NATO nor Soviet Bloc").