Thread: It is #WorldRefugeeDay and the end of #RefugeeWeek2021 today, so seems like a good time to break down some myths about refugees and asylum seekers, particularly in the UK but also globally, regarding how they may or may not enter a country. 1/
There are roughly 82.4 million people displaced in the world at the moment. Most of them (about 48 millions) are trapped within their countries of displacement. They are known as "internally displaced persons" (IDPs) and routinely denied support. 2/
If they are "lucky" enough to be able to cross an international border they may be classed as refugees. 86% of the world's 20.7 million refugees live in developing countries. 73% live in countries neighbouring those that they fled. 3/
Not all refugees are asylum seekers though. To become an asylum seekers you need, as the name suggests, to be seeking asylum. Of the 20.7 million refugees in the world "only" 4.1 million are asylum seekers. 4/ unhcr.org/figures-at-a-g…
Now you may have seen people talking about "resettlement routes" recently. Particularly in the UK the Home Secretary Priti Patel, and Home Office in general. Here's the problem. "Resettlement" sounds good, but there is a major issue which they keep skating over. 5/
Last year 34,400 people were resettled globally, only 353 in the UK. So we have gone down from 80 million displaced persons, nearly half of whom are children by the way, to 20.7 million refugees, to 4.1 million asylum seekers, to 34,400 of them being resettled. 6/
Resettlement, if implemented effectively, could obviously help improve the situation, but so long as governments use it to deflect from obligations to provide safety to refugees it loses a lot of efficacy, and will never be a complete solution. 7/
It is pretty obvious though why resettlement numbers are low, beyond just State's denying them, and why it can never be a full solution. People fleeing for their lives don't often have the luxury of waiting around filling in forms etc. 8/
The UK government, among others, likes to make a big deal of how it "resettles more refugees than any other country in Europe. Even so though it's existing schemes are fairly limited, particularly when you look at where majority of refugees come from. 9/
This is why international law makes it clear that refugees meeting the definition set out in the refugee convention should not be penalised for their manner of entry into a country. It recognises that people may not have the ability to enter a country by more "legal" means. 10/
That term "directly" has caused some confusion, such as saying people who travelled through "safe countries" could be denied asylum. It's been made clear "directly" allows for transit across other countries, and there are good reasons some may find those countries unsafe. 11/
People aren't seeking asylum "from" likes of France, but there are good reasons, such as level of attacks against them, that they may not feel safe in seeking it "in" those countries. This is something which can be addressed during a fair hearing of their asylum application. 12/
So, what about those applications. You may have seen people talking about channel crossings over the last year. They have undeniably increased, despite overall applications dropping to lowest levels since 2014. Thing is majority of those crossings result in an application. 13/
Of these the majority were successful, either on first application or appeal, although to be fair this number could change as delays in processing applications, despite lower numbers, now mean that the number of people waiting more than 6 months for a decision. 14/
Despite Home Office claims about "resettling more refugees" than any other European country, we've seen how few places resettlement actually accounts for. It's a nice bit of obfuscation, but it doesn't show reality of how few refugees UK actually takes in the grand scheme. 15/
We obviously need more resettlement routes, but those routes need to be effective which without at least a target of 10,000 they won't be, and those routes cannot be used to discriminate against asylum seekers who don't use them for a myriad of reasons. 16/
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
THREAD: Much as I personally believe Nigel Farage is a racist and revels in spreading hate, I have some issues with the way people are saying the far-right riots we are seeing right now are the #FarageRiot. It's too simplistic and ignores decades of hostile rhetoric. 1/
Last time I brought this topic up I was accused of "both siding" things, so let's quickly clarify this. Both siding would be if I was trying to say there are "good people' on the far-right. I am not. Sorry, "legitimate concerns" went out the window when violent attacks started 2/
I am not defending, or deflecting, from what Farage has done, The point here is that when you make him the focus you risk ignoring the decades of hostile, and racist, anti-migrant, rhetoric which have embedded this scapegoating of migrants in public consciousness. 3/
Long thread; A lot of the violence we have seen over the last few days has been stoked by years of misinformation about migration, often from many of the politicians condemning it now. So, let's address some of that misinformation. 1/
Crime: In Britain, there is no correlation between higher levels of immigration and increased violent crime. Migrants are statistically, and proportionally, less likely to report crime though, and more likely to face hate crimes. 2/
Now, I know that people have bought into the whole "grooming gangs" line, but, again, this is a myth. It's the "frequency illusion" in action. The reality is that grooming gangs are far more likely to be white, British, men. 3/
. ucl.ac.uk/news/2020/dec/…
Since I wrote this thread on @UKLabour's Asylum and Immigration policies several things have been depressingly clear. First off, things are going to get worse. Cooper's announcement of increased immigration raids, and the blinkered defence of them by some, shows this. 1/
The second is how much harder it is going to be for organisations and individuals fighting for migrants' rights. A lot of support over the last 14 years wasn't "pro-migrants rights". It was "anti-conservative". Obviously this isn't new though. 2/
We saw shades of it after the Brexit referendum. People who claimed to be progressive pushing a "good/bad migrants" narrative dividing EU and non-EU migrants. I saw first hand a lot of the hypocrisy of those individuals then, and see it repeating on an even larger scale now. 3/
Okay, a, very, long thread on @UKLabour's asylum and border policies announced today in the #KingSpeech. The short version to start though is that they are, aside from processing applications and cancelling the Rwanda plan, overwhelmingly harmful. 1/ assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6697ac9c…
First off, this isn't new. Anyone remember the Clandestine Channel Threat Commander for example. Secondly, as explained in the linked thread, and as strange as this may sound, increased border security actually strengthens smuggling gangs. 2/
Look, I get it, people like the sound of "Border Security". Thing is, barring a headline grabbing minority, people crossing the channel are't a threat. If Labour are going to re-use Conservative policies I may as well re-use threads debunking them👇 3/
The stories about "gangs" grab headlines, but the reality is that the majority of convictions for smuggling are of people actually making the crossing themselves. All the evidence shows that harsher border policies force more people into the hands of gangs though. 1/
Globally, most smugglers are small groups or independent operators. For example we were seeing a significant increase in "self- facilitated" crossings in the channel, by groups who arrange things themselves without relying on gangs. 2/
As border controls become more focused on criminalising those seeking safety and using "securitised" language, such as making out channel crossings are a national security threat, it makes it harder for these independent crossings, which forces people into the hands of gangs. 3/
Strawman argument from Hodges here. No-one is pretending that immigration didn't play a part in Reform's wins, just that it was the rhetoric and misinformation about immigration they spread rather than migration itself. 1/
Look at Essex for example, where Reform won two of its five seats. It has substantially lower immigration than the UK average, yet higher than average levels of deprivation in parts. This makes people an easy target for messages which scapegoat migrants. 2/
The key thing here is to differentiate between the reality of migration, which is repeatedly shown to have little to no real world impact on people's lives, and where it does it shown to be predominately positive, and the rhetoric around migration, which is highly negative. 3/