So here it is. Not a lot to be shocked by in the Nationality and Borders Bill which hasn't already been reported on, but now we have it there are some elements which definitely need addressing. 1/
First and foremost there is a very clear differentiation between refugees, ostensibly based on primarily their manner of entry. Despite the refugee convention prohibiting penalties for manner of entry it seems like they are being imposed across the board. 2/
There's also quite a bit which is seemingly unworkable. Without agreements in place with other countries, which it doesn't currently have, the UK can't remove someone to that country. So this seems liable to just leave asylum seekers stuck in detention and living in limbo. 3/
So far there's nothing new which we hadn't already been told countless times before in the press, but this section raises some very serious issues with once again violating international law, notably by potentially conducting what are commonly referred to as "pushback's". 4/
The UN has already condemned other states for conducting pushback operations, which aren't only illegal but also place asylum seekers lives in even greater jeopardy. 5/
There's a lot of horrendous stuff in the bill, a lot which seems on the surface of it to directly contravene international law. The thing is also a lot which is already covered by existing law, which makes it seem even more like a political stunt than a practical measure. 6/
Some of it, such as Clause 29 here, seems almost deliberately worded to guarantee additional litigation by seemingly creating different standards of proof and relying on a lot of subjectivity on the part of the individual processing the claim. 7/
The bill is a mix of existing law with some added nastiness thrown in and a hefty mix of illegality and unworkability to boot. Overall does nothing to address issues within the system, which are primarily down to Home Office delays and incompetence rather than asylum seekers. 8/
For a better analysis, along with a link to the actual bill, this thread and article by @ColinYeo1 are definitely worth reading. 9/
And another good addition from @BIDdetention on the bill seemingly making it harder for individuals to get bail, which seems an odd decision when if they're looking to increase prosecutions while simultaneously reducing costs to taxpayer of detention. 10/
This is also a good piece putting a human face on the reality of what Patel's bill, and the rhetoric being used to promote it, actually means for people by @AlasdairMack66 11/
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/
Deep breath. Oookay then. Seeing as an earlier thread of mine has generated, shall we say some unfortunate abuse. Let's have a little deep dive into why criticism of Badenoch, Rowling etc is not misogynistic and just reality. 1/
Firstly, let's address the "oh look a man telling women what they think". No, absolutely not. There are numerous issues I will not ever try and talk about because I recognise that I do not have the knowledge or life experience to do so. 2/
I will comment on things such as the gender pay gap, way in which the right to choose with regards to abortion is being criminalised, terrifyingly high rates of sexual offences, and equally terrifyingly low rates of prosecutions etc, because they are things we can all see. 2/
It's #WorldRefugeeDay, so, let's have some facts about those seeking asylum, not more divisive hatemongering. Firstly, most of those seeking asylum in the UK do so because they have existing ties here. That's why arguments such as "France is a safe country" are meaningless. 1/
If you have fled from war or persecution your concept of "safety" is going to be very different from someone going on holiday. You want to be somewhere you know people, have a community, and speak the language. That's why no amount of "deterrents" will stop people coming. 2/
They may not be able to receive asylum, but that is secondary to feeling safe within communities they know. With what are known as "family reunification routes" being all but shut down, people are left with no option but to make dangerous crossings. 3/ ein.org.uk/news/reports-s…