Thread by @stand_for_all

Thread: I regret to inform you that the Home Office is at it again, spreading misleading, and at times just plain false information, while also using refugees as cover to penalise vulnerable asylum seekers. 1/

Straight off the bat, this is blatantly false. There are a multitude of ways that an asylum seeker can, legally under international law, enter the UK on their own in order to apply for asylum. Ways which the government is looking to penalise them for. 2/

No-one is against the prosecution of smugglers or traffickers. They abuse and exploit asylum seekers, but they aren't the only ones being prosecuted and included in these figures. The asylum seekers themselves are, and that doesn't stop the gangs. 3/

Comparing it to the drug trade is actually a pretty good analogy, although not in the way the Home Office intends. How well has the decades long "war on drugs" worked, in large part because the serious players are so far removed they don't get caught? 4/

Asylum seekers are often forced into driving the boats by gangs because the gangs know that if they are caught then they can just force someone else to drive the next one. It has minimal impact on their actual operations. 5/

So how do you crack down on gangs? Well, you remove their "supply" by providing safe and legal routes for asylum seekers. Even here though the Home Office is being more than a little disingenuous with its boast. 6/

First off, resettlement globally accounts for about 4%/5% of refugees, and that number is dropping. In the UK last year there was a 93% drop in resettlement routes, with only 353, being provided resettled. 7/

Resettlement is great, when it is available. Problem is, for a lot of refugees it isn't an option. Either the routes don't exist, or they don't have the opportunity to take advantage of them. When you are fleeing for your life you may not have time to fill in forms and wait. 8/

So what is the solution? People aren't going to stop trying to reach safety. If anything the last year's increase in channel crossings has demonstrated that when other routes are closed people are forced into taking more dangerous ones. 9/

Well, for starters, being able to process applications in France would remove quite a lot of the need for many to rely on smugglers. Opening actual safe and legal routes, not PR stunts, to facilitate the entry of more asylum seekers would likewise have the same effect. 10/

Patel's new plan doesn't do that though. The new routes are hazy at best, and still apparently limited. The plan ignores international law and the drivers for people seeking safety, which may mean France et al aren't for them, and just forces more people into hands of gangs 11/