Deep breath. Okay, let's run through why this is not the case one more time. Let's say that somehow the planets all align correctly and somehow the government gets a joint returns agreement with a country which takes roughly three times the number of asylum seekers already. 1/
First off, let's quickly clear up the difference between "trafficking" and "smuggling", because this is actually quite important, particularly in regards to people's motivations for coming to the UK, or non-motivations as the case may be. 2/
You see, people who are trafficked may not know where they are going to end up. Actually that can be the case for those who are smuggled as well, just not necessarily to the same extent. that means that "deterrents" are actually pretty irrelevant in these cases. 3/
Okay, so let's focus on those who choose to come to the UK. First question is "why"? I mean, surely France is a lovely country. It's not a war zone. Plenty of people enjoy living there and going on holiday, even moving there. So why wouldn't an asylum seeker stay there? 4/
Here you have to expand your mind slightly and stop thinking as someone living in a safe country, and start thinking as someone who has just had to flee from their home country. Often leaving everything they have known behind. Just imagine the trauma that creates. 5/
So you're going to want to seek asylum somewhere you personally feel safe, not somewhere that a state or Twitteruser5686 thinks is. What do you look for in deciding where that is though? Well, the two main ones are language and family ties. 6/
I know, I know. We keep getting told that it is all the generous benefits, but it really isn't. Asylum allowances are less than say France and Germany. Huge issues with the accommodation they are placed in being effectively condemned. 7/…
But they can work in the "informal economy" we are told. Okay, the "informal economy" actually means "grey" or "black" economies, or to put it another way, exploitation. Reason being because asylum allowances are so low and asylum seekers are barred, in the main, from working. 8/
Don't know about you, but the joys of living in a condemned building where I can be exploited, not exactly the draw you'd think it is. Btw, asylum seekers in France get the right to work after six months, and comparative health/education benefits etc. 9/…
Right, so we are back to language and family ties as the main drivers for people who voluntarily seek asylum in UK. These aren't things which change if you remove someone from the UK, also btw a reason UK received more asylum seekers under the Dublin Regulations than removed. 10/
So what happens if you somehow manage to get an agreement with France to "tackle trafficking gangs" by returning people. Well, they're probably still going to want to get back to UK to be honest. Here's where the difference between smugglers and traffickers becomes important. 11/
Smugglers charge, quite a lot at times. Here's the stitch, once you have paid a smuggler they don't do refunds if you are returned. So you have less money to pay them again, and keep in mind that asylum seekers already may make multiple attempts to cross the channel. 12/
Once you are out of money to pay smugglers you've got a couple of options. Take out significant debt, which risks leading to exploitation, or rely on traffickers, which pretty much guarantees exploitation. Either way, you've just increased the risk of exploitation. 13/
Have no mistake the gangs freaking love this idea. A never ending supply of people for them to prey on and exploit. Wow, it's like Christmas for them. It definitely isn't hindering their operations. 14/…
But wait, there's a cherry on the cake for them. Because the new Nationality and Borders Bill discriminates against victims of trafficking it makes it harder for them to come forward and tightens the gangs grip on them. Win win for the gangs. 15/…
You don't tackle trafficking by creating a supply chain of human misery for them to exploit, and I promise you, no matter what you may hear, pro-asylum advocates desperately want to tackle gangs. How do you though? I mean, we all know channel crossings are deadly. 16/
You might have heard the term "safe and legal routes". It's a bit fluffy though. I mean the government talks about how people should wait for "safe and legal routes" when flagging its resettlement routes. One big problem is that they have pretty much stopped at the moment. 17/
So what about a practical solution. First off, remove carrier liability sanctions. These are the things which can lead to airlines, ferries, Eurostar etc being fined, or even facing criminal charges, if they transport an asylum seeker, even unknowingly. 18/
Removing them doesn't solve everything. As noted on #r4PM, anyone who tells you there's a silver bullet to this either doesn't understand complexities of the situation or is lying. Removing them does mean more people can arrive in UK without needing to rely on gangs though. 19/
Processing claims in France would also help. Asylum applications as standard have to be processed in the country they are made in, but the UK already runs four holding facilities in France, two in Coquilles and one each in Dunkirk and Calais. 20/
It's not beyond the realm of possibility that you could at least start claims and move along what is actually quite a lengthy process, although it isn't meant to be, so that people can be brought over safely and without needing to rely on gangs, again. 21/
Here's the thing. It is not illegal to seek asylum. Provided you make your claim within an acceptably short period of time after arriving. It is illegal to penalise someone for their manner of entry when seeking it though, as per Article 31 of the refugee convention. 22/
The Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc. ) Act 2004, i.e. domestic law, currently already provides for asylum seekers, even if they don't have documentation, because, let's be honest, it's pretty hard to get a visa when you are fleeing for your life. 23/
So you need to accept you're going to have to process applications somewhere if you don't want to massively violate international law. As we see, there are "solutions" to help break up the gangs, but they aren't "soundbite friendly". They're not vote winners basically. 24/
Unlike the current suggestions, they are, legal, humane, cost effective, workable and quite importantly won't result in boosting the very gangs which we're trying to combat. What we need now is politicians to suck it up and make the case for them, because "returns" won't work 25/

• • •

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!


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

27 Nov
THREAD: Okay, because I am in a generous and helpful mood, or just hungover it's hard to tell, here's a quick thread on some of the legal instruments we would need to leave to fulfil some Tory MP's wet dream of denying everyone asylum. 1/
The Human Rights Act, a favourite of likes of Secretary of State for Justice @DominicRaab. The reason for removing it, ostensibly, is because it incorporates the European Convention on Human Rights, and who doesn't want to get rid of fundamental rights 1/…
Which nicely brings us to the ECHR, because who needs human rights after all. This is actually a lot more limited than its critics make out, but it does prevent you sending someone to a country where they can be tortured, which is just not on obviously. 2/…
Read 9 tweets
27 Nov
There is a growing discourse about whether saying we should not use the term "migrant" for those crossing the channel creates a "Good/Bad immigrant" narrative. I have to say, while I understand the argument, I entirely disagree. 1/

Anyone who moves from their place of birth is, technically, a migrant. They have "migrated". The name "Sohege" is hardly a traditional British one. My family history is replete with people who have moved from their countries of origin. "Migrant" is a catch all term. 2/
The problem when we are using it in relation to those crossing the channel is it conflates the "immigration system" with the "asylum system", leading to such arguments as "queue jumpers" and people asking why they don't just "get a visa" 3/
Read 8 tweets
27 Nov
"Hi, my name is Matthew Parris and I am such a liberal that refugees can die somewhere else because frankly they are too poor and foreign for me to care about." ImageImage
The premise of @MatthewParris3's column appears to be that the public are so against asylum seekers that even "liberals" should get on the bandwagon of undermining the entire international refugee regime.…
There's nothing "liberal" about abandoning people or trying to make out the relatively tiny number of asylum seekers the UK takes is a "problem". There is definitely nothing "moral" @MatthewParris3 about calling for the main legal protection of vulnerable people to be removed.
Read 6 tweets
26 Nov
Not going to break down the full article by @davidbarrett , because sometimes there is just too much nonsense to even engage with. Let's look at the headline alone though. 1/ Image
Asylum seekers receive approximately £36.93, with possible adjustments for certain circumstances. Now, first off, I guarantee you no-one is risking their life for that. It's also less than they would receive in France for example though. 2/…
It is also not "cash". It is paid through what is known as an ASPEN card, which aside from being used to track asylum seekers also has caused significant issues with people attempting to buy such luxuries as food to survive on. 3/…
Read 7 tweets
25 Nov
Do you think that people don't know that crossing the channel is a risk? Of course they do, but it is a risk they are willing to take to try and reach a place they feel safe. Making it harder to seek asylum just forces them to make longer more dangerous journeys. #r4today
When are politicians and pundits going to wake up to the fact that "tightening border controls", "increasing patrols" etc just contributes to further loss of life, as well as making asylum seekers more reliant on gangs rather than less?
It isn't just "activist lawyers" and "do-gooders" warning that increased controls risk lives. Government's own impact assessment of the Borders Bill warns it risks forcing people to make more dangerous crossings and costing lives. The Home Office knows its policies kill #r4today
Read 4 tweets
23 Nov
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/…
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/…
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/…
Read 4 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

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!