As Patel's still claiming 70% of those crossing channel are young men who aren't refugees, it's worth revisiting something I wrote for @washingtonpost on why young men tend to be the ones who have to make the longer journeys. Spoiler, they're #refugees. 1/ washingtonpost.com/outlook/2021/0…
Patel is completely unable to back up her assertion that 70% of those making #channelcrossings aren't refugees, whether they are young men or not. 91% of those crossing come from 10 major refugee producing countries. 2/ refugeecouncil.org.uk/latest/news/ne…
98% of people who cross channel seek asylum, with majority of claims found to be legitimate, either on first instance or appeal. Channel crossings have increased, but only as other routes, including government resettlement ones, have been closed. 3/ standard.co.uk/news/uk/englis…
So the whole "economic migrant" is blatantly false, There are good, if unfortunate, reasons, why men may make up a larger proportion of refugees reaching the UK, but that is a failure of the government to provide means for women to get here safely. 4/ independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-n…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Victoria Atkins admitting that Afghanistan resettlement scheme no closer to be being set up. So how can the government claim that refugees should take "safe and legal routes", as per the Minister's words, when those routes don't exist.
If I hear Atkins respond to concerns about the number of people who have been abandoned in Afghanistan with the verbal equivalent of a shrug I may just lose it.
"First safe country" everybody drink. Someone really needs to sit @VotePursglove down and explain in very small words how it doesn't exist. Not that he will give a damn
Patel avoiding answering why the Home Office has failed in its legal responsibilities to ensure child protection by placing unaccompanied children, often without notifying local authorities ahead of time. @Stuart_McDonald doing a good job holding her to account.
We have seen adult and child asylum seekers placed in hotels, despite clear safety concerns as highlighted through multiple reports. Only last week it was revealed that rather than reducing use of hotels the @ukhomeoffice had placed separated children in another one in Brighton
This was done without the prior knowledge of the local authority and in contravention of the Home Secretary @pritipatel's responsibilities under section 55 of the Immigration act and section 20 of the Children's Act, placing these children at increased risk.
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.
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".
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…