Thread by @stand_for_all

THREAD: With both Labour and the Conservatives yet again trotting out the idea that the only way to tackle trafficking is to make it harder for people to come to the UK it's worth looking at the whole issue of "safe routes". 1/

I use "safe routes" a lot, but even I will admit it is a hazy, fluffy term which needs fleshing out. As it stands it sounds like we are advocating for more "resettlement routes", and yes we do need more, but they still only account for a tiny fraction of asylum seekers. 2/

This is not a simple issue with a simple solution though, and boiling it down to two words probably doesn't help the majority of people understand that. First off you need to look at a bit of background. 3/

Despite what you may hear in some quarters, I can guarantee you that no-one is paying smugglers or being forced into the hands of traffickers for the pure enjoyment of risking their lives crossing one of the busiest shipping routes in the world. 4/

Some asylum seekers don't even know where they are going to end up, so there's not a lot of "deterrence" measures which will stop them. For some the reason for crossing comes down to what are known as "push factors", for others it is down to "pull factors". 5/

The thing is that "safety" is a fairly subjective term itself, and there are good reasons why some, and it is a relatively small proportion, of asylum seekers don't feel safe in France. So the whole "safe country" argument is automatically flawed. 6/ hrw.org/news/2021/10/0…

Asylum seekers aren't seeking asylum "from" France, they just aren't required to seek it "in" France, and, as an fyi, there is no requirement in law for them remain in "first safe country". So potentially fear of abuse by French authorities could be a "push factor" for example 7/

Pull factors are also more personal than many make out. France, Germany et al have higher asylum benefits for example, so those aren't, despite government claims to the contrary, a "pull factor". Things which are can include family ties, language etc. 8/

So immediately the reasons why asylum seekers come to the UK can become more personal and are not linked to their manner of entry. This means that by closing routes you just force people to take more dangerous ones, as has been evidenced over the last year and half. 9/

As an aside, it is also important to note the difference between "smugglers" and "traffickers". Smugglers tend to charge an up-front fee, while traffickers will exact payment through exploitation once people have arrived. 10/

One way in which this relates to the whole "make journeys more difficult" spiel is that the more difficult the route the more it costs, as people cease to be able to pay smugglers they get forced into the hands of traffickers. So you're actually creating "supply" for them. 11/

So, how do we tackle this with the vague and hazy "safe routes" term. For preference, yes, I actually have no issue with setting up a ferry service, but that isn't going to happen. One thing which could though is removing fines for airlines who transport asylum seekers. 12/

"Carrier Liability Acts" effectively mean that airline staff become immigration officials. It denies asylum seekers the option of flying safely from A to B, which automatically means they have to seek other routes and we're back on that merry-go-round. 13/
amnesty.org/en/wp-content/…

Another solution is to set up systems to process claims in France, and then bring people over. This could work, but obviously there are still issues in regards to detention, processing etc, and also legal complexities. 14/

It's clear that just making routes harder only puts more lives at risk, and that by returning people to France you just create a never ending cycle of people who risk ending up in the hands of traffickers, who absolutely love these plans btw. 15/
theguardian.com/global-develop…

"Safe routes" therefore means making the asylum system easier to access. Providing more, and more effective, ways for people to have their claims heard. For them to be able to enter the UK without penalties etc. It's not necessarily about setting up specific routes though. 16/

It's time for a complete rethink by policy makers as to asylum. Instead of looking at deterrence and penalisation, it needs to focus on the why's of people moving and a recognition that there are good, personal, reasons for people seeking asylum in the UK. 17/

No amount of penalties will "deter" someone who has no other choice, and keep in mind we are talking about a tiny fraction of asylum seekers who do come to UK, and many of those who do have very good reasons for doing so which they won't be deterred from trying to achieve. 18/