Thread by @stand_for_all

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/

statista.com/statistics/117…

But why do they need to cross at all I hear the cries? Well firstly let's put this in a little perspective. The number of people seeking asylum in UK, even on a per capita basis, is a fraction of those seeking it in some EU countries, including France. 4/
unhcr.org/uk/asylum-in-t…

For the relatively small proportion who do come there are good reasons why they may view EU countries as unsafe. Substandard living accommodation, including forced homelessness, denial of rights, abuse from police, lack of food and water etc. 5/
hrw.org/world-report/2…

Remember, where may be safe for you and I may not be safe for an asylum seeker, and they aren't seeking asylum "from" countries like France. They just aren't required to seek asylum "in" those countries. That whole "first safe country" thing? Not true. Doesn't exist in law. 6/

The most likely source of the confusion with "first safe country" myth comes from what are known as the Dublin Regulations. These were something UK left when it left the EU and give the hierarchical criteria for which member states process applications. 7/ ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/w…

So we have covered that there has been an overall drop in asylum applications, that the UK takes fewer than other states, why people may not feel safe in those states and why asylum seekers aren't required to stay in the "first safe country". 8/

Obviously none of that will matter to the type of person who abuses the #RNLI for rescuing them at sea though. So let's look at some of the practical and legal issues shall we? You know just for fun. 9/

Under international maritime laws vessels are required to provide assistance to those at sea, and yes that includes refugees. So straight off the bat there is a legal consideration as well as humanitarian one to take into account. 10/
law.ox.ac.uk/research-subje…

Couldn't they just take them back to French waters though? Well, no. You see that would be what is called a "pushback" and it violates international law. It also places lives at risk, as seen with countries like Greece who are alleged to use them. 11/
ecchr.eu/en/glossary/pu…

Increasing the risk of loss of life isn't actually the major deterrent for people who feel they have no other options to reach safety that you would think it was. There have been more than 1000 deaths in the Med this year, yet people still cross. 12/ missingmigrants.iom.int/region/mediter…

Why don't they use "legal routes"? First off seeking asylum is never illegal. Neither is crossing the channel. No honestly it really isn't. What is illegal is penalising an asylum seeker for their manner of entry. 13/ unhcr.org/3bcfdf164.pdf

Setting aside the not so minor matter that in any case UK resettlement routes have been effectively stopped for the last year and half, only a handful were granted asylum through them last year, they are also highly limited normally. 14/ unhcr.org/40ee6fc04.pdf

Globally they account for a fraction of all asylum places, in the region normally of about 4%, and last year around the world only 34,400 were granted asylum through one of them, out of 26.4 million refugees. 15/ unhcr.org/refugee-statis…

But, and here there is a big but, everyone does want to combat the criminal gangs which exploit asylum seekers. People don't pay smugglers thousands for the pleasure of risking their lives in one of the world's busiest shipping lanes because they have other options though. 16/

When routes close the smugglers and traffickers just shift their operations further down the coast, making the journey longer and more dangerous. They don't care who dies. It's all about profit for them. 17/ theguardian.com/global-develop…

So, for example pouring another £50 million into France, or making it more likely that refugees will die in the channel by criminalising rescue operations is hardly likely to deter them. Let's say hypothetically that we do return asylum seekers to France though. What then? 18/

The factors which have caused people to feel unsafe enough to risk the crossing in the first place haven't been addressed. As for those "pull factors", £39.63, less than France or Germany, or the chance of being stuck in a camp aren't exactly a draw. 19/ gov.uk/asylum-support…

More likely, when an asylum seeker even knows which country they will end up, many don't and just have to hope it is better than where they left, "pull factors" include things like family and language. So they are likely to try again. 20/

Here's where you start to get a big issue. Smugglers are "transactional", they tend to charge upfront. Traffickers take "payment" afterwards, usually via exploiting those who they have transported. 21/ stopthetraffik.org/smuggling-traf….

For those who have spent their money on smugglers first time round there aren't refunds for a failed journey. They can be forced into the hands of traffickers, or forced to wrack up significant debt, usually from criminal gangs, in their attempt to seek safety again. 22/

So in effect closing routes, making them more dangerous etc, just let's smugglers drive up prices and puts asylum seekers at greater risk of being trafficked. All of which benefits the very gangs which those saying we need tougher border controls claim to want to combat. 23/

And as for prosecuting those who steer the boats. That does nothing, because it's often asylum seekers who are forced to do so by the gangs, in order that actual criminals can keep themselves at arms length. So you are effectively prosecuting victims. 24/ theguardian.com/global-develop…

We need to combat gangs, but it isn't going to be done by denying people safety, putting more lives at risk, creating a never ending supply of people to exploit or prosecuting victims. It is done by making the UK asylum system more not less accessible. 25/