Drops of 24% applications, 58% being processed, 93% resettlement options. 71% increase in asylum seekers waiting more than 6 months for an initial decision. Irresponsible reporting by @thetimes to not mention that when reporting on channel crossings in such an inflammatory manner 
Even the Daily Mail bothered reporting on the declines in asylum applications and available routes and instead the Times decided to once again rehash the same tired comments from likes of @NatalieElphicke calling for the UK to violate international law and refugee rights.
The pandemic has highlighted that when you deny people other routes they will be forced into the hands of gangs as they attempt to reach safety. All Elphicke's proposals would do is strengthen the gangs by giving them a never ending supply of desperate people to exploit.
It's important to recognise that while majority of asylum seekers do remain in EU countries, there are good reasons why some, and despite increases in channel crossings it remains a relatively small number, do not feel safe there so seek asylum elsewhere. theguardian.com/global-develop…
The problem when you only focus on channel crossings, and use that as an excuse to tighten, already objectively tough, border controls is that the law of unintended consequences leads to increasing the very issue which you are purporting to be solving.
By failing to provide safe routes for refugees, faster processing of applications etc, you increase vulnerability to exploitation by gangs as their options become increasingly limited. We don't need tougher border controls. We need more options and to be #TogetherWithRefugees.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
