I'm getting really, really fed up of the asylum nonsense this last week. It is like a broken record from the Britpop era. I have some questions people should be asking Priti Patel: (thread)
1. The number of asylum claims has fallen over the last year and nearly 3/4 are now genuine refugees according to Home Office stats. Why are extreme measures needed at all? gov.uk/government/pub…
2. Why has the asylum backlog been allowed to build up over the last few years, even before the pandemic began? Why is it now taking over 6 months to decide claims and why can the Home Office not make decisions more quickly, like it used to? freemovement.org.uk/asylum-backlog…
3. If removing failed asylum seekers is so important, why are enforced removals at an all time low, having fallen every year since 2012? This at a time when the the number of appeals has fallen considerably - this is nothing to do with ‘activist lawyers’.
4. Given most asylum seekers will build new lives here and become citizens, why are we treating them so horrendously when they first arrive, with delays, squalid accommodation and minimal support? It makes it harder not easier for them to settle and integrate.
But in the Oasis heyday there were over twice as many asylum claims, far fewer were ultimately found to be refugees and removals were actually much higher than today, peaking at over 21,000 in 2004.
Removals are now at an all time low of around 6,000 per year (pre pandemic). Nothing to do with legal challenges or not using ferries to warehouse people offshore...
It’s because strategy shifted to relying on hostile environment instead of enforced removals. But there’s no evidence it forces anyone out, only that it increases the size of unauthorised population and drives them into extreme poverty *within the UK.*
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
🧵 1. The Illegal Migration Act prohibits any person arriving illegally after 7 March 2023 from being granted asylum or legal status. One of three things can happen to them: (a) be removed to a third country, (b) voluntarily depart to their own country or (c) stay in the UK with no legal status.
2. Voluntary departures likely to be tiny. So unless no. of removals to Rwanda is equal to or greater than number of new arrivals, there will be an ever-growing perma-backlog of asylum seekers who can never be granted status. More people will enter the backlog than leave it.
3. No-one thinks more than a couple of thousand of people a year can ever be removed to Rwanda, if that. So new arrivals have to reduce from c.70-80k per year to around c.2k per year or less.
1. I don’t think preventing care workers bringing their family will cause a shortage of care workers. I agree with @alanmanning4 and @robfordmancs on this. Plenty will still want to come here without family.
2. It is possible the average profile of care workers might change from women with partners and children to women or men without dependent children or partners. Not likely though.
3. The countries of origin may change. Some countries from which care workers traditionally originate have a long tradition of emigration for work and sending remittances home to families.
1. I don’t know about you but I’m totally exhausted. Doesn’t help that I’ve been bed-ridden for most of the last week, admittedly. The recent government “climbdown” on the minimum income rule for spouses and partners is a good illustration of why I’m so, so tired of it all.
2. The pattern is a deliberately or incompetently over-egged govt announcement which is so stupid or outrageous it will have a calamitous effect. Outcry and reality intervene. The government “compromises”. But the new plan is still a terrible one.
3. It looks to the media like a government climbdown and a victory for the campaigners. That’s the story. They move on. All the energy goes out of the campaign. We’re stuck with the compromise, no matter how terrible it is.
1. When Braverman (and many others) claims that refugees who passed through safe countries aren’t real refugees, she is arguing those safe countries should do more than they do already. Think about it in the real world for a moment.
2. In the UK we receive VERY few refugees compared to, say, France and Germany. Never mind Poland or Turkey or further away. Are we seriously telling those countries to “step up” or whatever, while we do so little?
3. And what are those countries supposed to do anyway? Detain refugees to prevent their onward movement? Accept transfer from us even though they already receive far, far more refugees than us?
1. I know there are many that disagree with me on this but I’m fine in principle with citizens having more rights and preferential treatment in some ways than temporary migrants or even permanent residents. That’s kind of what citizenship is. But in the UK it is complicated…
2. Under the ‘immigration’ (actually quasi nationality) reforms of the 1960s and 1970s, fully codified in the British Nationality Act 1981, many former citizens were turned into permanent residents. This was the Windrush generation.
3. They retained some citizenship-like rights including voting, access to social safety net and the NHS and so on. But they were denied full citizenship rights. Their residence was precarious: they lacked proof and they were deportable at the discretion of the Home Secretary.