There are some interesting points raised by @publiclawcentre which I think are definitely worth considering. For my part I agree in principle that creating the narrative distinction between "migrants" and "refugees" is problematic, however, at this current moment.... 1/
I do also think it is necessary, provided, and this is the crucial part, that it is made clear that the distinction is not to imply any negative connotation to "migrants". In the UK, currently, the asylum and immigration systems are effectively separate, and for good reason. 2/
Take the whole "jumping the queue" line so beloved of the Home Office at present. Refugees, by the very nature of their circumstances, are protected under international law against being penalised for their manner of entry. There is no "queue" for them to jump. 3/
Sadly, however, the government has conflated asylum seekers with migrants who already have a tough enough time as it is getting visas and everything else to live and work in the UK. This makes it easier for the government to portray refugees negatively. 4/
To put it another way. When the government tells people all the hoops which migrants have to jump through to live and work in the UK, you can see why some may think that asylum seekers don't have to go through the same when they are also being told that they are "illegal". 5/
Refugees are however de facto migrants. Anyone who moves from their place of birth to live and work somewhere else is a migrant. We think of migration in terms of crossing international borders, something a refugee has to do, but it just means people move. 6/
We need to counter the, let's be honest, "negative" impression that certain groups have created surrounding it. That is essential. It's just the same as the whole "Good/bad migrant" narrative we have seen between EU and non-EU migrants. 7/
Refugees do have different rights, and are governed by some very specific laws, which makes them as a practical sense different from other migrants though, and with the current narrative that is important to acknowledge. 8/
So what's the answer? Simultaneously promote migrants rights while explaining how refugee rights work and the ways asylum and immigration systems differ, without adding to a negative impression of the term "migrant" and ensuring everyone's rights are defended. 9/
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
LONG THREAD: There have been quite a few things flying around recently about asylum seekers, the Borders Bill, rescues at sea, channel crossings and just general related bits and bobs which it might help clearing up some misconceptions about. 1/
First off #channelcrossings. Yes they are up in numbers, but, and this is really quite important, they are down at the moment in overall terms. This makes it quite hard to seriously argue, as some have, that the asylum system is "overwhelmed". 2/ commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-brief…
As I said though, they are up, but if you look at the timeline of the increase it really isn't that surprising. With other routes closed, including effectively resettlement routes, asylum seekers are left with little other choice than to use them. 3/
Overlooking the fact that the majority of those crossing the channel are in need. Paying smugglers is a sign of need. You aren't risking your life just for fun. It's time that likes of @CPhilpOfficial stopped politicising those seeking safety and started providing that safety.
The argument that if you can afford to pay smugglers you aren't a "genuine refugee" is blatantly ludicrous and collapses under even the most cursory scrutiny, yet likes of @CPhilpOfficial and @pritipatel keep churning it out as if it is unquestionable fact.
Do you know why the vast majority of people displaced in the world are "internally displaced"? Because crossing borders is expensive. The poorest are often left to die. Until they cross that border though they aren't classed as a refugee.
Being forced to risk your life on a dinghy crossing one of the busiest shipping lanes in the world is not a "pull factor" for people seeking asylum. That's why overall numbers are down. Those crossing have no other options. Making it harder just makes it more dangerous. #r4today
There's been a drop in number of people seeking asylum in UK. Those crossing channel are those for whom all other options have been removed. The measures being proposed, and currently implemented, merely place them at increased risk rather than act as a "deterrent". #r4today
Blocking one section of the route just makes smuggling gangs move their operations. They, shockingly, have even less regard for the lives of asylum seekers than the British government. They won't stop and people needing safety won't stop having to rely on them.
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/
Ah, the "queue jump" line. No-one is jumping the queue by crossing the channel. Solution lies with ensuring that asylum seekers are provided with safe options to cross, not denying them safety. Returning them to France just forces them back into the hands of the gangs #r4today
There was so much wrong in that #r4today interview with @timloughton, but his complete lack of compassion for asylum seekers was probably the main thing for me. Continued use of "genuine", as if people crossing the channel are doing it for fun rather than desperation for example.
The UK takes a fraction of the number of asylum seekers that France does, but we have blowhard MPs making out that they have some kind of responsibility to take more so the UK can take fewer, despite applications being already low.
It isn't illegal to cross channel or seek asylum. Ironically for @pritipatel it is illegal to penalise asylum seekers for their manner of entry. While studying the Australian system did @ukhomeoffice miss part where some of those policies are illegal? 1/
The reality of @pritipatel's #NewPlanforImmigration is that it will increase the very issues which she claims she wants to solve. It doesn't tackle smugglers or traffickers. Quite the opposite. It creates a never ending supply for them of people with no chance of seeking help. 2/
People aren't crossing the channel for fun. They are doing it because they have no other options left. As recognised in law, safety is fairly subjective and there are very good reasons why asylum, and it is only a small minority nonetheless, may not feel safe in EU countries. 3/