Utter nonsense. First off the individuals had already served their sentences, some years previously, so if they still posed a threat than that is a failure of the prison system and presents a fundamental question of why more isn't being invested to reduce recidivism rates. 1/
Secondly, we are talking about a number of people who have no links to the countries they are being removed to, and who left them at young ages. This just places them at risk of being targeted by gangs, which doesn't exactly benefit anyone. 2/
On the most recent flight there were people suffering severe illness, people aged in their 60's who served their sentences seven years previously. People with children who will now grow up without dads. This does nothing to make the streets safer. 3/
Last flight cost more than £40,000 per person. The millions wasted on #deportations could be invested into the prison system to improve rehabilitation and reduce recidivism. Otherwise this is just a discriminatory secondary punishment because people were born elsewhere. 4/
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Interesting display of Home Office's media campaign hitting its target I suspect. Overall attitudes have remained fairly stable, between 25 and 30%, but a more significant issue for Conservative voters. Even there though it has only hit 50% or over twice, this August and last. 1/
Particularly interesting as, despite overall numbers of asylum applications being down, August is one of the months when we typically see an increase in channel crossings and therefore media attention from some sections has been focused on this in the "build up". 2/
The way in which immigration peaks as a concern in August also suggests though, albeit tentatively, that the Home Office's conflation of immigration and asylum systems, e.g. the whole "jumping the queue narrative" is cutting through with its intended audience. 3/
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-…
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.
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/