Share this page!

Daniel Sohege 🧡 Profile picture
Twitter logo
30 Jul, 5 tweets, 2 min read
One of most flawed arguments I get thrown at me on a regular basis is "why don't you take them in" when it comes to refugees. I would on this note recommend @RefugeesAtHome if you do have space and can. It's not exactly a realistic argument though as a wider policy proposal. 1/
Unless you have the resources of a nation state the argument itself is spurious at best. A state has resources which the average person doesn't have, and currently the UK is spending about £392million p/a of those resources on immigration enforcement. 2/
nao.org.uk/wp-content/upl…
That's £392 million on measures which just end up benefitting the criminal gangs by creating the circumstances which force asylum seekers into their hands. It's also predicted that amount will rise to about £412 million under Patel's new plan. 3/
thetimes.co.uk/article/priti-…
So that's £412 million being put into policies which just don't work. It's what's called a "sunk cost fallacy". So back to the point. Imagine if that £412 million, or even part of it so you maintain general necessary security, was invested into local communities? 4/
It's a bit pie in the sky I grant you, but let's be honest it makes more sense than saying that we can only take in asylum seekers if they live in "lefty do-gooders homes". There's money there which could be used to help both local communities and asylum seekers. 5/

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
　

Keep Current with Daniel Sohege 🧡

Daniel Sohege 🧡 Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @stand_for_all

Daniel Sohege 🧡 Profile picture
29 Jul
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…
Read 25 tweets
Daniel Sohege 🧡 Profile picture
29 Jul
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.
Read 6 tweets
Daniel Sohege 🧡 Profile picture
27 Jul
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/
Read 9 tweets
Daniel Sohege 🧡 Profile picture
22 Jul
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. Image
Read 6 tweets
Daniel Sohege 🧡 Profile picture
6 Jul
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/
Read 11 tweets
Daniel Sohege 🧡 Profile picture
5 Jul
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.
Read 4 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

Like this author's thread?

Get emails when @stand_for_all has new unrolls!

Check out other threads from @stand_for_all!

Read all threads by @stand_for_all

:(