“Prevented a crossing” doesn’t mean made the Channel safer.
It means “stopped someone crossing *that time*”.
When it was light, or the sea was calm.
So people wait til there’s no spotter planes / boats - when it may be more dangerous. 4/
Claim that “mass migration is on a scale not witnessed before” is a straight up Replacement Theory lie.
International migration (not tourism) is no higher now than 10, 20, 50 or 70 years ago.
About 3% now live long term outside the country they were born in. Same as 1950s. 5/
Patel’s parents witnessed - indeed took part in - a significant international migration. 50 years ago, between 150,000 & 200,000 East African Asians moved to the UK. That was not unprecedented either and has been matched since thenewhumanitarian.org/opinion/2019/1…. 6/
UK asylum laws & processes are *always* being changed. There’s been no fundamental change in the need for these processes - deciding who gets refugee leave and who doesn’t. 7/
That’s not to say asylum laws must stay the same for ever. But the claim that this is a “new” situation *requiring* “new” ideas is utterly false. Patel has the stats and research. She knows this isn’t fundamentally new 8/
2 lies here. First, UK is not “attracting” refugees. It’s *not pulling* them here. They come because they are *pushed* by persecution and war. Home Office own research has told Patel this. 9/
Second lie in these 2 paras is that there are safe and legal routes to UK for refugees who currently come to UK illegally.
There aren’t.
Because Patel’s Govt even closed the (little) Dublin one that existed from EU. 10/
More lies here. Home Office staff are slow to decide asylum claims *because Ministers want them to refuse asylum whenever possible*.Interviewing people to find excuses to refuse, then writing long letters of weak reasons.
Avoidance is what slows the system down. 11/
There is no “merry-go-round”. Legal challenges *succeed* because staff make unrealistic decisions *because Ministers oppose realistic decisions*.
No other Gov department loses as many appeals as the immigration department. They make wrong decisions every day, many times. 12/
It’s not “ironic” that officials making it harder to come by lorry means refugees now try boats.
It’s the obvious, predicted consequence of Government’s choices. Patel has been told this. 13/
Patel lies to distract from two simple facts:
- the people coming are mostly refugees
- she does not want them in UK.
She wants hardline anti-refugee voters to understand this without her saying it.
The lies are to distract everyone else from this hard reality.14/
Finally, almost a truth.
Govt *can* reduce refugees’ demand for smugglers services.
By allowing safe and legal routes.
The Immigration Bill does not do this. It does not create refugee visas, or rights to be resettled.
15/
An impermeable border is the anti-migrant politicians wet dream.
But even Kim Jong Un hasn’t managed it.
People still cross the Mediterranean illegally every day - even though Frontex have made it more and more deathly. 16/
Even after Frontex started working with Greek police to clandestinely, illegally expel refugees to Turkey - refugees keep coming.
It’s not pull, it’s push. 17/
But Patel’s cry for action “now” is justified.
She should *now* open resettlement for Afghans.
She should *now* re-open the Dubs route from EU.
She should *now* create a refugee visa.
She doesn’t need an Act to do any of this.
Her complete inaction tells the truth. 18/18
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
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 +
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*.
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/
+ 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. +
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