Share this page!

Daniel Sohege 🧡 Profile picture
Twitter logo
26 Nov, 7 tweets, 3 min read
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/
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/
domasile.info/en/what-social…
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/
theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/j…
Some asylum seekers do receive mobile phones, for good reason. We all need to keep in contact, that is particularly important when you are having your asylum claim processed. We're not exactly talking the latest iPhone here folks, but we are talking about a necessity. 4/
"Four star hotels", yeah, just no. When asylum seekers are placed in hotels they are often the ones which can't be used for any other purpose. We're not talking four star here. We're talking about being crammed into unsuitable accommodation. 5/
express.co.uk/news/uk/152671…
Yes, in theory someone can receive legal aid for their asylum claim. The reality though has been that for years, due to legal aid cuts, many cannot access legal assistance, making a complex process even harder for those seeking safety. 6/
theguardian.com/law/2018/jul/1…
I 100% guarantee you @davidbarrett that no-one is risking their life crossing one of the busiest shipping routes in the world for a fiver a day, a cheap mobile phone and to be stuck three to a room in a dilapidated hell hole, while struggling to access the legal system. 7/

• • •

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
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/
legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/42/…
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/
echr.coe.int/documents/conv…
Read 9 tweets
Daniel Sohege 🧡 Profile picture
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
Daniel Sohege 🧡 Profile picture
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."
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. thetimes.co.uk/article/234a0a…
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 7 tweets
Daniel Sohege 🧡 Profile picture
25 Nov
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/
Read 25 tweets
Daniel Sohege 🧡 Profile picture
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
Daniel Sohege 🧡 Profile picture
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/ 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…
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!

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

:(