Share this page!

Daniel Sohege 🧡 Profile picture
Twitter logo
2 Nov, 4 tweets, 1 min read
It's all well and good to say migrant's rights advocates "need to work with the Home Office". Does anyone really think that the Home Office are sitting there saying "we need to work with migrants' rights advocates"? 1/
We see it time and time again. As soon as an organisation engages with them they can use it as cover. Just look at Patel saying they had "worked with UNHCR" on the Borders Bill when UNHCR was specifically telling them it was illegal and inhumane. 2/
We have also seen how often concerted pressure can force this government into making U-turns. What we need is for organisations to work together to create a coordinated approach and stop undermining each other's messages. 3/
That's why initiatives such as this highlighted by @ZoeJardiniere are essential. Because right now we are getting our arses handed to us by being mainly reactive and playing into the Home Office's hands over and over again. 4/

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
　

Keep Current with Daniel Sohege 🧡

Daniel Sohege 🧡 Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @stand_for_all

Daniel Sohege 🧡 Profile picture
29 Oct
THREAD: There's a lot going on with the government's current rhetoric towards asylum seekers which possibly needs a little analysis and explanation. First and foremost though it is important to note that none of it is particularly new. 1/
The aim, of the Nationality and Borders Bill and the wider rhetoric in general is pretty clearly to deny asylum to as many people as possible, as demonstrated aptly by Patel claiming that people with "too much documentation" couldn't be refugees. 2/
mirror.co.uk/news/politics/…
Compare and contrast to the usual line that those arriving without documents are trying to "game the system" by throwing documents overboard, particularly in regard to age assessments. So essentially they are in a catch 22 of damned if they have them, damned if they don't. 3/
Read 16 tweets
Daniel Sohege 🧡 Profile picture
23 Oct
#AssistedDying is an emotional subject, and undeniably if brought in needs serious checks and balances, but my personal view is that we urgently need a mechanism for providing people who want the choice with the choice. 1/ #r4today
Today marks 27 years since my mum died from cancer. My memories of her are limited, I was only young, and the main one I have is of the radio alarm clock's red digits reading 7:54 when I was told she had gone while I was holding her hand. 2/
Unfortunately, one of my other memories is of her begging to be allowed to die as the tumours consumed her. She had been so full of energy and so intelligent. She was a law lecturer who taught herself economics over one particular summer holiday period so she could...3/
Read 9 tweets
Daniel Sohege 🧡 Profile picture
21 Oct
Ding ding ding, "First safe country" brought up in Nationality and Borders Bill Committee, everyone drink. Doesn't exist in international law, never has existed in international law.
Just an fyi folks "the other side were also bad" is not a defence for you breaking the law. Yes, you know what the last Labour government was crap as well and caused untold misery to asylum seekers and migrants. That's not an excuse to violate international law and hurt more now.
Australia's policies didn't act as a deterrent. They did kill people, but they didn't act as a deterrent, and smuggling and trafficking are not the same thing. Trafficking victims can't be "deterred". They don't get a f**king say where they are being taken.
Read 9 tweets
Daniel Sohege 🧡 Profile picture
19 Oct
"Migrants are a burden on the taxpayer, due to any money over and above the massive profits made by exorbitant charges on them going towards detaining and preventing other migrants" is a weapon's grade level obscene excuse for charging yet more fees for children. #BordersBill
Oh, and now we're onto arguing that as "citizenship is not necessary", it's absolutely fine to just provide limited leave to remain for children. This just puts more stress and trauma and leaves them in a precarious position.
Why am I even bothering to have this on in the background? Could have predicted word for word the excuses from the Home Office.
Read 4 tweets
Daniel Sohege 🧡 Profile picture
19 Oct
The #bordersbill is back being discussed this week. Not only does it break multiple laws, but is also puts people's lives at risk. As shown below, child trafficking survivors are already being effectively abandoned by the Home Office. This risks making it worse. 1/
Even the government's own Equality and Impact Statement on the #AntiRefugeeBill shows that it is discriminatory, increases risk to life, increases risk of people being further traumatized or harmed, and that it won't actually reduce arrivals. 2/ gov.uk/government/pub… ImageImageImageImage
Despite Priti Patel's claims that the UNHCR for Refugees had been consulted, it has come out repeatedly against the bill, highlighting numerous ways in which it puts people's lives at risk, breaks the law, and undermines the international refugee regime 3/
unhcr.org/uk/news/press/…
Read 11 tweets
Daniel Sohege 🧡 Profile picture
17 Oct
Good thread on flaws with the regular "remove anonymity from social media" argument. We absolutely need better safeguards on social media, however removing anonymity isn't just impractical, it also risks quite a number of very dangerous negative effects. 1/
We tend to look at the debate from our own positionality, which means we forget the impact on such calls in countries far more illiberal than in the UK, and have no mistake if we remove anonymity others will follow. 2/
That risks human rights activists, the LGBTQ+ community, victims of domestic violence, and so on and so on. It's also unlikely to make a drastic impact on abuse, just look at how many people who aren't anonymous engage in it. 3/
Read 7 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

Like this author's thread?

Get emails when @stand_for_all has new unrolls!

Check out other threads from @stand_for_all!

Read all threads by @stand_for_all

:(