“Migration Watch” the immigration don’t-think tank lying about immigration law again. +
Lie 1: Immigration Act 1971 makes it “illegal to come to the UK without permission”

Straight up lie. There’s nothing in that Act which says that. Migration Watch don’t even point to a section that does. +
Lie 2: Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants) Act 2004 makes it illegal to seek asylum without identity documentation. Of course it doesn’t. Section 3(4) (c) makes it a defence to have a reasonable excuse for not having one +
(d) makes it a defence to produce a false immigration document and to prove that you used that document as an immigration document for all purposes in connection with his journey to the United Kingdom +
(e) makes it a defence to prove that you travelled to the United Kingdom without, at any stage since you set out on the journey, having possession of an immigration document.
It’s right there in the 2004 Act.
Here are the *Home Office* examples of a reasonable excuse for not having a travel document
Here’s the book we (Doughty Street barristers) wrote about the 2004 Act when it came out. Take a break from lying, @migrationwatch and read it. It’s only £5.99.

• • •

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

Keep Current with Simon Cox

Simon Cox 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 @SimonFRCox

13 Nov
lawmaking as a similacrum, a superficial appearance of what a lawmaker does, while the operative force is not the law’s words but the political menace for which the words are a vehicle.
this clause is intended to allow Govt lawyers to pressure judges to accept that a statute means what politicians say it means, not what it says and its meaning as discerned *in the context of our constitutional tradition*.
Read 4 tweets
4 Nov
NGOs, law firms, chambers - *protect* your caseworkers, lawyers & volunteers from feeling pressure of unmet need. It’s essential! 1/10
THREAD
Good-hearted people want to help. They’ll provide their best help if they *don’t* have to worry about the people they aren’t helping.

Sadness & regret about those they can’t help is *demotivating* and *demoralising* 2/
I know this from years of working in and with front-line NGOs & law firms and listening to some of the smartest people who help them serve their clients. 3/
Read 5 tweets
31 Oct
trick or treat now in full swing. They’re queuing up.
doorbells broken again so I keep opening door just before they ring. It terrifies them
amazed at the self-control of these 7 year olds. “Have 2”. “No thank you”.
Read 4 tweets
23 Oct
Good intro to Stenner’s work on authoritarian personality (33% of people). Useful to understand Twitter discussions +
+ people on here overwhelmed / threatened by complexity, in discussions about covid, gender, Brexit. (Not just one *side* on any of these either.). +
Stenner’s challenge for any of us trying to change minds of others is how to communicate without pushing away all the authoritarian-personality people. +
Read 4 tweets
22 Sep
I'll be live tweeting this for those who can't join, speaking now @JC_Hathaway , the dean of international refugee law. Tune in though, he's fascinating!
Nothing in the Refugee Convention says refugees have to claim asylum in the first country they reach. States can chose how they respect the Convention - refugees can choose their country of asylum - JCH
when the Refugee Convention was being drafted, Australia argued refugees should only used legal routes - so the rest of the states made clear that's wrong in the language of the Convention
Read 82 tweets
27 Aug
Thread by @setoacnna 👇 explaining important U.K. judgement, which rejected long-standing “gender critical” legal arguments as hopeless.

Adding a few comments of mine 1/
‘Legal feminist’ a group / website led by the junior barrister who represented the unsuccessful claimant hopes there’ll be much more litigation by anti-trans people and trans victims of discrimination 2/
I can see why lawyers hope for litigation. AEA took in around £100K from their supporters for legal fees. (The court was told the junior barrister acted for free in this case - so that went to solicitors and the QC) 2/
Read 20 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!

:(