Thread by @stand_for_all

Thread: Despite the slightly misleading headline, asylum seekers are often seeking safety, shockingly, and don't have a specific destination in mind. For some, not all, countries like France aren't safe so they have to keep moving. 1/
thetimes.co.uk/article/88dc2f…

Having already fled unimaginable horror, asylum seekers can spend years seeking safety. A safety now being placed at risk by the government's #NewPlanforImmigration. A plan which also violates their right under international law not to be penalised for their manner of entry. 2/

There's no such thing as "first safe country". Never has been in international law. It just doesn't exist. It's a phrase used to by politicians and pundits to avoid meeting obligations under international refugee law, and basic humanity. 3/

Not only would Patel's plan be potentially illegal though, it is also unworkable and will be extraordinarily expensive. You cannot just send someone to a country which won't accept them. So the reality is that the government will have to keep asylum seekers in limbo. 4/

UK already spends £392 million on immigration enforcement. It costs about £95 per day per asylum seeker to keep them in a detention center, and about £13,354 per person for deportations. Costs which will only increase as people are detained for longer. 5/ migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/brie…

It's a never ending irony that the costs of denying asylum exceed the cost of providing it, for example asylum seekers are denied social housing and have to survive on about £39.63 per week, less than half the amount it costs to detain them for a day. 6/
gov.uk/asylum-support…

There are no upsides to @pritipatel's #NewPlanforImmigration. It's been condemned by likes of UNHCR for risking violating international law. It's unworkable. It's inhumane. It's expensive, money which could be used benefiting people in need here. There are zero benefits to it. 7/