"Pushbacks" are illegal under international law. Any deaths caused by Border Force while carrying them out would violate international law, and, as much as this government repeatedly ignores this fact, international law trumps domestic. 1/ amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/o…
The very fact Patel is looking to try and get immunity from prosecution demonstrates a clear knowledge that the #bordersbill will inevitably lead to deaths at sea, and have no mistake that will include children. It is an abhorrent piece of legislation which will kill people. 2/
Not only those attempting to enter the UK though. What is frequently overlooked is that it will give cover, perceived if not practical, for other states to conduct operations which kill refugees. 3/
We are already seeing authorities in EU border nations beating and abusing asylum seekers who attempt to cross, as well as conducting their own pushback operations. The entire international refugee regime is being placed at risk by the #antirefugeebill. 4/
The argument which Patel et al will put forward though is "it's their fault for trying to cross". Absolutely guaranteed that the second a child drowns because of pushbacks their parents will be blamed". 5/
There's a huge amount wrong here, not least ways of which it automatically assumes that the children aren't unaccompanied, which due to the UK scrapping a lot of family reunification for separated children there's a reasonable chance they will be. 6/
People make the crossing for a multitude of reasons, and "benefits" really aren't one of them as not only can they get more in France, but also they often don't even know what they can get in the UK. 7/
People cross because they have ties here language, friends, family, and again because the government has limited family reunification they have few other options on that one. They also may not feel safe in France, Germany, Spain, Italy etc. 8/
There are good reasons for that, reasons which don't tend to apply to you or I if we visit those countries. Authorities attacking asylum seekers, being forced to sleep rough, far right attacks, etc. 9/
UK takes a tiny fraction of asylum seekers other countries do, yet is looking to pass legislation it knows will kill them. Imagine being so desperate you will cross one of the busiest shipping routes to reach a place you feel is safe, and that place passing laws to kill you. 10/
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
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/
There is a discussion in the replies to this tweet which I think it is worth exploring in more depth, can the Home Office be changed from within, and as such should we be nicer about some of the people who work there, or not. I fall on the "not" side of the argument. 1/
Nothing in life is as simple as saying "if you don't like your job just quit". People have responsibilities, needs etc etc. Just quitting isn't practical for a lot of people. There are times though when it is necessary, otherwise you become complicit in some hideous things. 2/
It's not on the scale of Home Office abuses, but I've been there myself and had to leave a position because I knew what was happening at the place of business was fundamentally wrong and I couldn't be part of it. 3/
"A facilitator of illegal immigration". Look, this isn't complex #r4today. Yes, they are both run by gangs, but there is a difference between "trafficking" and "smuggling", which might not be important to some, but damn sure is to those affected. 1/
Smugglers tend to take an upfront fee and facilitate entry. Traffickers often exploit people after they have transported them. The changes of trafficked victims not knowing where they are heading is also far higher. 2/
In no way defending either, both prey on vulnerable asylum seekers, but conflating the two confuses an already layered and complex issue. It also won't be tackled by closing routes, penalising victims or picking up individuals. 3/
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…
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/
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/