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…
The Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees. Being fair the @Conservatives have previously made leaving the treaty which protects refugees' rights a manifesto promise, and subsequently lost that election, but hey ho. 3/
United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, obviously an important one to leave for a country which prides itself on being a maritime nation, but as it prohibits you leaving people to drown it's got to go if you want to prevent crossings. 4/
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Yep, another bit if pesky human rights legislation, we'll just combine all of those shall we as, hell, who needs international human rights protections. So they can all go. 5/ ohchr.org/en/professiona…
Convention on the Rights of the Child. Yeah, we may all say we want to protect children, but the UK is already struggling to keep in line with this and its treatment of unaccompanied minors, so it needs to go as well if we're to stop asylum seekers. 6/ ohchr.org/en/professiona…
I could go on, but you get the idea. Refugees aren't just protected by one act, or one piece of legislation. International human rights, humanitarian and refugee laws all combine to provide different elements of protection. 7/
Dear Tory MP's calling for removal of the Human Rights Act so you can prevent asylum seekers more easily, how far exactly are you willing to go, and in so doing how much of a pariah state are you willing to make the UK, to get what you want and prevent people seeking safety? 8/
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
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/
"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.
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…
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/
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
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…