Is it too much to ask that just once @uklabour don't try and out Tory the Tories on immigration and actually take a stand in defence of asylum seekers? Just once, you know, just to test the water, so to speak, on what opposing the government feels like. bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politi…
The framing of asylum seekers as a "problem". Focusing on "deterrence". Constantly invoking "criminal gangs", which just reinforces the government's own narrative of criminalising asylum seekers themselves. Talking about what other countries can do to stop people moving...
Seriously, at what point are they going to talk about the need to provide protection for, an actually fairly small number in the grand scheme, asylum seekers instead of constantly making out that they are a "problem" to be "solved".
No-one wants to see people risking their lives crossing the channel, but all this talk of working with the French to stop crossings inevitably just means people are forced into making longer more dangerous routes.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
LONG THREAD: I wouldn't normally quote tweet a response mid conversation, but this is quite important. This is a BBC journalist defending a lack of context in a story about asylum seekers, in part because a Home Office Minister has said something might happen. 1/
Now, it's quite possible that when new figures on asylum seekers are released they may show an increase, or at least are on par with pre-pandemic levels, but there is quite a lot of context to look at in regards to that and the current situation with channel crossings. 2/
Many moons, and a number of different roles, ago I was a journalist, a newspaper editor and hosted TV news programmes. I know what it is like to be up against a deadline for a story, but context still remained important. Context is missing from a lot of the current reporting. 3/
One of the main reasons asylum seekers can be forced into exploitation, and that's what this talk of "informal work" is for the most part, is because asylum allowances are so low and they are denied the right to work. It isn't a "pull factor" for people seeking safety #r4today
Home Office is standing against cross party support for providing asylum seekers with the right to work claiming it would be a "pull factor", despite other countries allowing them to do so already. It deliberately keeps asylum allowances ridiculously low for the same reason.
You can't force people to live in poverty and then have the gall to claim that when they are forced into exploitation due to the very poverty you have caused that it is still a "pull factor". No-one is crossing the channel for the fun of being exploited.
THREAD: Seeing as @thetimes has decided to publish a "helpful" Q&A on asylum seekers and channel crossings it's probably a good idea to look at the answers in more depth, because they seem to be missing a few things. 1/ thetimes.co.uk/article/only-f…
Yes, channel crossings have increased, but importantly other routes, including the much lauded government resettlement routes, have been closed. Overall for much of the pandemic asylum applications have been down on previous years. 2/ thetimes.co.uk/article/only-f…
Even should asylum applications hit par though, which is possible with recent crossings, or even exceed pre-pandemic levels, the UK would still be taking far fewer asylum seekers than majority of EU states, ranking about 17th per head of population. 3/ unhcr.org/uk/asylum-in-t…
Still not "record" numbers crossing channel and very much not record numbers overall. Channel crossings may be more high profile, but overall numbers have been down during pandemic and vast majority of those crossing channel seek asylum, with most applications granted. #r4today
Channel crossings make for nice pics for the media, and yes, while not by any stretch being "record" numbers, they are up on average, mainly due to other routes being closed. All it shows though is that when other routes are closed people are forced to take more dangerous ones.
The UK still ranks 14th in comparison to EU states and takes far fewer refugees than say France. It also has lower benefits and more restrictions on asylum than France, Germany et al. People are crossing for good reasons. Reasons which don't end because you close routes.
How many lives are going to be lost for some ridiculous concept of "borders". How many men, women and children will be left to freeze so the EU can say it is "touch on migration"? It's all so utterly fucking pointless and all those supporting it need to rethink their life choices
In Greece they are putting human rights defenders on trial for saving refugee lives, while doing their utmost to cause harm to refugees through pushbacks. In Poland they are leaving children to freeze. In France they have criminalised providing food and water to asylum seekers.
In Italy they prosecuted people for rescuing refugees at sea. On and on it goes, with not just the knowledge of the EU, but its support. Von Der Lyen has praised Greece for being a "shield" despite it violating international law and putting lives at risk. bbc.co.uk/news/world-eur…
There is currently no hard and fast legal protections for those forced to cross international borders due to climate change. The term "climate refugee" may be catchy, but it isn't a legal term, and in some contexts is misleading and unhelpful. 1/
All too often, for example, we see environmental activists using the "threat" of "climate refugees" as a stick with which to beat developed nations. This only reinforces the idea that migration is something to be avoided though. 2/
Nation states, across the world, are becoming increasingly focused on policies of deterrence and exclusion. International law is routinely ignored because states know that even if they are prosecuted, unlikely in majority of cases, they tend to only get a slap on the wrist. 3/