Thread by @stand_for_all

A somewhat disingenuous argument from Dan here, but not entirely surprising from someone who seemingly equates arguments which put refugee rights first with "wanting them to drown". The thing is that, if you do want to focus the debate on returns then safe routes benefit you. 1/

https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1467442238326194179

First off though, the UK does not have "significant numbers" of asylum claims being rejected. I would firstly argue that you can't have significant numbers of rejections when you don't have significant numbers of applications to start with. 2/
unhcr.org/uk/asylum-in-t…

Even in relation to the relatively low numbers of applications the UK does receive though, it still doesn't have a "significant" number of rejections". IN fact the vast majority of claims are found to be "genuine", either on first instance or appeal. 3/
gov.uk/government/sta…

Now to the meat of the matter, so to speak, before Mr Hodges gets lost in his fictional tumbleweed. Returns if they are to happen can already happen. What I suspect that he and others would bring up at this point is the drop in returns which has already occurred. 4/

There are a number of factors in this, none of which affected by the implementation of safer routes for people to access the asylum system. First off there is a lack of return agreements with other countries, not overly surprisingly. 5/

If you would like to imagine for a second that you are a country which already hosts more asylum seekers and you are being asked to take even more just so the UK can take even fewer. Not exactly the sale of the century. 6/

If, however, you took just one of the proposed "safe route" solutions being made, actually by Conservative MP's, that asylum applications should be allowed to be processed through British embassies, something entirely within the power of the state to do 7/
independent.co.uk/voices/migrant…

You see an immediate and obvious benefit for those people whose default state is "well how can we get rid of the ones we don't want faster". For those who are more inclined to worry about actually providing safety it also cuts the risk of needing to cross the channel. 8/

It would also not necessarily require specific agreements with other states in order to enact. An asylum claim has to be made on the territory of the state within which the individual is seeking asylum, so an embassy could potentially count. 9/

There's a myth that the vast majority of asylum seekers in the world want to head to the UK. The UK has never been the destination of primacy for asylum seekers, but those who do seek do so for good reasons, primarily language and family ties. 10/
inews.co.uk/news/migrants-…

Obviously these factors aren't changed by policies of deterrence. So effectively anything you do to limit access just forces people into making more dangerous routes, thereby increasing risk to life. 11/
unhcr.org/blogs/creating…

They also don't change if you return someone to another country. In fact, what you are most likely to see happen is that person try to reach the UK again, and as the routes become more limited the higher the chance they will actually be forced into the hands of traffickers. 12/

But, back to the point. Current legislation allows for returns. Where we have seen a significant issue though isn't in numbers, but in Home Office failings. During the pandemic overall asylum applications dropped, but processing times rocketed. 13/ independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-n…

Now, I am sure that the esteemed Mr Hodges can recognise that when numbers of applications drop, but processing of them increases, then it isn't down to the number of asylum seekers or their means of entry. the @IndependentCI definitely did in its recent report. 14/

In the report the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration found significant failings within Home Office, which directly and indirectly have helped lead to the delays in processing we are seeing now. It had nothing to do with numbers. 15/
gov.uk/government/new…

So, to summarise for @DPJHodges. We already have mechanisms for the removals he seems so keen to focus on, as well as certain forms of safe routes actually make it easier for the UK not have to concern itself with returns in the first place. 16/

We also see how numbers of applications are irrelevant, even though creating safer means for people to seek asylum is unlikely to create a noticeable in increase in applications anyway, when the issue is coming from inside the Home Office itself. 17/

Yes, we have seen a decrease in returns, but we have seen an increase in Home Office delays. After a drop in overall asylum applications we have seen an increase in the most recent ones as those who were unable to seek it during the pandemic now start to be able to try. 18/

What does that show? It shows that numbers don't change by closing routes down, you just force people to take different, longer and, inevitably, more dangerous ones. So, how do safe routes work with returns? They help prevent the need for them in the first place Dan. 19/