Thread by @stand_for_all

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/

https://twitter.com/RefugeesinLibya/status/1445808009511374849?s=20

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…

But even the government knows it can't just play to its base and there's a certain amount of "face" to be maintained. France is already getting antsy about UK plans regarding asylum seekers, and Albania called out Home Office for its offshoring proposal 4/
euronews.com/2021/09/09/fra…

So, how do you placate a base who you have spent months/years riling up about asylum seekers, to avoid scrutiny of your policies elsewhere, while also maintaining some illusion of sticking to your international obligations? 5/

You can't just fall back on the whole "channel crossings are illegal", they should stay in the "first safe" country lines which you've been churning out relentlessly. I mean, even UNHCR who tend to be quite reserved, have called this one out forcefully. 6/ unhcr.org/uk/news/press/…

You need an excuse which keeps the base raging, other countries can't argue with and which, for an added bonus, makes anyone opposing your measures look like they are actively trying to make the country less safe. Welcome to the world of "securitisation" ladies and gentlemen. 7/

Earlier this week the Times broke a story, later picked up elsewhere, that the Home Office was going to use the army to go round hotels where asylum seekers are accommodated to collect more data, because apparently they didn't have enough. 8/ thetimes.co.uk/article/b66d17…

This seemed an odd choice. Even if, big big "if", you needed to get more data, which in itself is really only likely to be used to try and deny claims, why use the army. Why not immigration enforcement? For people who have fled conflict its only likely to upset them. 9/

But then comes Priti Patel's speech where she talks about how she's received briefings from "intelligence and security agencies that there are people who attempt to come into our country to do us harm, plotting to strike at our very way of life." 10/ freemovement.org.uk/priti-patel-co…

Now, thing is, and Patel's intelligence and security services know this, refugees are among the least likely group to be a terrorist, for instance, chance of an American being murdered in a terrorist attack by a refugee is about 1 in 3.86 billion p/a 11/ cato.org/publications/p…

It's pretty hard to be a refugee. You have to cross multiple international borders among other things, and let's be honest some of those border guards and police aren't exactly welcoming you with open arms. There are easier ways for terrorists. 12/

https://twitter.com/LHreports/status/1445811911816323073?s=20

By embedding idea asylum seekers "could be" terrorists though, and then sending the military round to interview them, which is pretty much guaranteed to get you at least one nice press shot of someone getting mouthy at a soldier, you've created an instant security threat. 13/

Doesn't matter if it would hold up in court or not, and chances are it would be blown out in half a heartbeat, you've created enough public facing reasons to return who you like to where you like. Anyone opposing you obviously just hates Britain or international security. 14/

Immigration lawyers are tarred again with "activist" line and are "undermining safety. Nation states are either going to keep quiet, because they're pulling similar tricks, or those that don't are shouted down for "defending terrorists", which won't play well at home for them 15/

And anyone campaigning for human rights are condemned for backing terrorists. Doesn't matter that chances are people being returned are innocent and will be killed once they land in Afghanistan. On a comms front it's pretty good. On a humanity front its bloody horrendous. 16/