Thread: As the @ukhomeoffice has taken it upon itself to hijack the #RefugeeWeek hashtag, it's important to remember that not only do resettlement places globally account for a tiny fraction of refugees, it is also not illegal to seek asylum. 1/ 
https://twitter.com/stand_for_all/status/1404468764796723201
Patel is attempting to make a distinction between those who use resettlement routes and those who seek asylum by other means. There is no such distinction under international law though. A refugee is permitted to enter a country via any means necessary without being penalised. 2/
Patel's #NewPlanForImmigration sets in place penalties though. It automatically creates a two tier system, a system which directly contravenes international refugee law to which the UK is a signatory. It also ignores the myriad of reasons someone may become a refugee. 3/
It is easy to think of refugees as those fleeing war, but they are also those fleeing persecution. That persecution may happen for a variety of reasons, and only affect a small part of a nation's overall population. 4/
Resettlement also takes time, and, being honest, paperwork. Time and an ability to complete said paperwork which someone fleeing persecution may not have. This means that even with a, what will be minimal, increase in routes there will be those left unprotected. 5/
Patel has made out that people crossing the channel are avoiding "safe countries". Let's be clear here, no-one is seeking asylum from France, Germany, etc. They just aren't required to seek asylum in them if they don't feel safe there. 6/
Even when UK was party to what are known as Dublin Regulations, the process by which it's determined which EU member state would process someone's asylum application, first "port of entry", note not "safe country", was way down the list of factors for where they should apply. 7/
I like France, many people enjoy holidays there. Many people feel, and indeed are, safe there, but let's recognise that the experiences most of us have are very different to those faced by a number of asylum seekers. 8/
France has been found to routinely violate their rights, police officers are known to attack them. The threat to safety is widespread though, Germany had more than 1600 attacks against asylum seekers by the far-right last year for example. 9/
Resettlement routes are great, and we definitely need more seeing as UK only resettled 353 people last year, but they aren't the only way asylum seekers reach countries and penalising them for finding other ways will only benefit the very gangs Patel claims to want to combat. 10/
The UK has no agreements in place with EU nations to return asylum seekers, and as a now "third country", and therefore out of the Dublin Regulations, the EU has no responsibility for taking them. 11/
Considering the UK already takes far fewer asylum seekers than a number of EU countries, including France, this is a situation which seems unlikely to change any time soon. So what happens to those who Patel want to penalise for their manner of entry? 12/
Best case, they are left in limbo in detention centers, creating an increased cost to the taxpayer and damaging refugees mental and physical health. Worst they are sent to unsafe countries, potentially such as Libya, where they face torture, being sold into slavery or death. 13/
None of this affects the gangs though, as explained in the thread attached to the initial tweet in this one. All it does is mean that they can exploit more people. If we are to combat gangs we need safe routes, not just resettlement routes. 14/
Processing facilities in Calais, staffed with immigration lawyers, to ensure people don't have to risk channel crossings and accelerated processing of applications, where currently more than 74% are waiting over 6 months despite a 24% drop in their number, would be a start. 15/
That acceleration cannot be conducted to the detriment of refugees' rights though. There appears at times to be a culture of denial in the @ukhomeoffice, hence why even unaccompanied minors who have family already living in the UK are finding it so hard to gain access. 16/
That culture is clear with plans to limit appeals, but that again won't solve anything. By nature of the trauma and experiences they have been through a refugee may be unable to fully explain and provide evidence of their case immediately. That's why appeals are important. 17/
When you deny those appeals and then deport asylum seekers you place them at risk once again. Those who are fortunate enough not to die are placed at increased risk of being preyed on by traffickers and exploited. 18/
There will always be those who the government will claim aren't "genuine refugees", but 98% of those crossing the channel have sought asylum through the system. The majority of applications are then found to be fair either on first instance or appeal. 19/
Their manner of entry doesn't mean they aren't "genuine refugees". It means that they have had to take some god-awful risks in their lives to try and find safety. No-one takes those risks for fun and by penalising them for taking those risks we just increase those risks. 20/
I've used both the term "asylum seekers" and "refugees" here, but mainly I've used "refugees" due to character limits. A refugee may not necessarily be seeking asylum somewhere. It is a "declaratory term" and applied once someone meets the criteria of the Refugee Convention. 21/
Currently about 86% of the world's 26 million refugees are hosted in developing countries. Nearly half of the total 80 million people displaced, including those not classed as refugees because they have been unable to cross an international border, are under the age of 18. 22/
80 million people displaced and only 4.2 million of them are classified as "asylum seekers". Last year the UK took in 353 people via resettlement routes. Those routes will never provide enough safety for asylum seekers unless we also help those entering via other means. 23/
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
