Less than a week ago French authorities were shooting asylum seekers in a dinghy with rubber bullets. HRW has now released further degrading treatment against refugees by them. Croatian authorities are beating them and throwing them back across the border. 1/
Greece is conducting pushback operations putting their lives at risk. Italy just prosecuted one of its own mayor's for providing assistance to refugees. Spain forces many to sleep rough. Germany had more than 1,600 attacks against them last year. 2/
And on and on it goes, and on top of all this the EU sends refugees back to Libya where they are known to be kidnapped, sold into slavery, tortured and murdered. You know what, I'm thinking there's some good reasons why asylum seekers may not stay in these "safe countries". 3/
And that's before we get to the not insignificant matter that the concept of "first safe country" is utterly bollocks and falls down when even the most basic elements of commonsense are applied, not to mention it not being a legal term anyway. 4/
Can you imagine what would happen if every country claimed refugees had to seek asylum in the "first safe country". Already 83% are in developing nations. It would mean a handful of countries had to host all of them. It's just not a serious thought for anyone applying logic. 5/
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Thread: Okay, there is a very clear principle in international law called "non-refoulement", which is in theory meant to prevent people being sent back to unsafe countries, you know, like Afghanistan. 1/ independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-n…
Here's the thing, principle and practice in international law don't always marry up as nicely as may be hoped, which is why EU tends to get away with sending asylum seekers back to Libya, where it's well documented they risk being killed or tortured. 2/
So in reality government is unlikely to face substantial legal interference beyond what they are already used to, hence why Patel is happy to keep pushing the "activist lawyers" line, because any legal challenge strengthens their case with their base. 3/ dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8…
It is genuinely hard to see how some of the @Conservatives defending things coming out of #cpc21 can claim to have any semblance of a commitment to "conservativism". Funnily enough, this isn't a "get" at Conservatives though. Some of the biggest issues are apolitical. 1/
When you see the language and attacks from likes of Raab and Patel though, and the cheers which they received, you have to wonder what happened to some of the old school, small state, individual liberties, Conservatives. 2/
I grew up in a household of them. My mum used to collect Margaret Thatcher memorabilia. Pretty much my first memories are of sitting watching her in Council Meetings, where she was a Conservative Councillor. Before she died she was about to run for Parliament. 3/
This is just one unhinged draconian soundbite after another. Ending freedom to protest. Increasing prohibition on drugs, because that's worked so well. None of what she is suggesting is going to make Britain "safer" #CPC21
Jesus, the smirk when saying "ended free movement". Not sure I'd boast about "building back better" and recruiting "skilled migrants" right now to tbh @pritipatel
"Where there is a door there must be a doorkeeper". Give me strength. 98% of those crossing the channel seek asylum so the "majority are economic migrants" line is pure bs
Slightly concerned by the language here. There's a lot going on, but mainly, I'm curious how if they arrived yesterday they've been properly assessed as to eligibility already. "Economic migrants" has also become quite a loaded term which is used by too many to deny protection 1/
In the current globally hostile environment, I would also worry about the phrasing of "asylum management and legal migration pathways". The issue here is how these phrases are picked up on in order to further deny asylum applications from those entering via irregular methods. 2/
I am not blind to the issues which UNHCR has to deal with, including needing to maintain relations with States who may not wish to accept asylum seekers, but choice of words needs to be made with an eye to how they are used in wider context to deny protection for so many. 3/
It is great that more people, particularly women, are able to get an autism diagnosis these days. It was far too stigmatized for far too long. It's still not exactly easy as an adult though #r4today, and it can be incredibly intrusive and distressing when you are diagnosed. 1/
Personally I'm pleased I did get diagnosed and have found it has helped me understand who I am better. For years after being diagnosed though I hid it from myself as much as anyone else. Until then I had always thought if I tried just a little harder to fit in it would happen. 2/
Should be highly interesting to look at the study by University if Exeter, but I am concerned that some reporting on it, such as the negative framing here, is going to fuel claims that "you can't be autistic" if you can communicate or maintain a relationship etc. 3/
And minute UK did carry out pushbacks it would be bogged down in never ending litigation. Even Immigration Services Union admits tactics are "unusable". Just PR meat to the base while waiting for numbers to drop, as they always do around this time of year. thetimes.co.uk/article/f16895…
Here's the thing, yes they've been up on previous years, mainly due to other routes still being more limited, but Channel crossings are basically seasonal. They always increase around this point as people try and make journey before weather turns and it become far too dangerous.
Home Office aren't stupid, they know there is about to be the annual winter drop in crossings. They also know minute they conduct illegal pushbacks they open a can of worms they really don't want to. Hopefully they're playing for time until asylum seekers leave the front pages.