Thread by @stand_for_all

Christ on a bike, there is some weapon's grade tone policing from the Conservative benches here. Seems a bit rich considering some of the statements that the government has made in favour of the #AntiRefugeeBill

I'd sit this one out if I was a Conservative MP claiming that because the #AntiRefugeeBill doesn't specifically say that it is racist that it won't discriminate based upon race, particularly when government's own impact assessment warns of risks it will.
gov.uk/government/pub…

Weird how so many of the people who claim "citizenship is a privilege not a right" are the ones who know that they couldn't possibly have it removed without significant issues and violations of international law in the first place isn't it?

Oh right, we're back on equating refugees with terrorists again, but sure sure @Alex_Stafford, it's the people opposing this hideous, illegal and discriminatory bill who are stocking fear and hatred.

Just as an aside, fees have pretty much always been a money pot for the Home Office. UK fees are, objectively speaking, excruciatingly expensive and entirely beyond any defence.

After some of the comments during this debate this is worth reading, the written evidence provided to the Joint Committee on Human Rights by @Love146UK as to the fundamental dangers presented by the #BordersBill to child protection.
love146.org.uk/blog/love146-u…

After a pretty heated debate it would have been nice if the Minister had actually engaged with the substance of the arguments instead of reading what appeared to be a pre-pared speech ignoring most of what was just said.

While we wait, here's a fun little thread* on how Home Office comms have been, shall we say, arguably somewhat disingenuous in how they are trying to justify the bill,

*Still not actually fun no matter how many times I try and say it is.

https://twitter.com/stand_for_all/status/1468236626182742026?s=20

I'm probably going to have some wine while watching the rest of this. So this seems like a good time to remind everyone I am tweeting in a personal capacity and nothing I say should be seen as a reflection on my employer.

I do love @Bambos_MP "This bill is a sham"

Going to link to this again. It is fundamentally wrong to say that this bill, or this government, are doing anything to protect unaccompanied children. If anything it will place them at more risk.
love146.org.uk/blog/love146-u…

We don't have reciprocal arrangements, so why would France, which already hosts far more asylum seekers, take even more just so the UK can take fewer. It's not exactly a fair argument to say they should automatically take returns.

Absolutely right by @Bambos_MP that without more safe routes people are forced to rely on smugglers. We still don't have an Afghan resettlement route, and we are currently leaving unaccompanied children abandoned in France. The bill fails to address this.

Now discussing Clause 11. This would create a two tier system and risks criminalising asylum seekers, in direct contravention to the Refugee Convention. Majority of refugees cannot rely on resettlement routes, even when they do exist.

Good line from @JohnnyMercerUK "The money is meaningless". I disagree with him on many things, but he's right. Fees as they stand, for those who have worked with the UK or served in the armed forces just can't be justified. Makes no sense for government to not support removal.

Personally I'd remove all fees for everyone, tends to make sense when you realise that people are going to be paying taxes anyway, so get charged twice. I know that is not something which will happen at the moment though, so at least remove them for those who have worked with UK.

God bless @Stuart_McDonald. He's good. Bill forces more people to use smugglers and traffickers, and it fails to propose any new "safe and legal routes" which is the only way to tackle gangs.

Ah, the maritime pushback clauses. Not only illegal, but also risk life. Would see asylum seekers imprisoned. Totally unworkable. They are purely inhumane, and have no impact, as shown by use elsewhere, as a "deterrence".

Pointing out that under the new bill people who have obvious claims to asylum risk being denied it by the bill now from @Stuart_McDonald. Rightly points out that it is "extraordinary" that we are debating whether to make the act of seeking asylum a crime.

As mentioned before, provisions within the bill pose a serious, and prolonged, risk to child protection. It risks putting them through increased trauma, treating them as adults, and putting them at more risk of being exploited, among other things.

Cash might want to look at the government's own figures which show that 98% of those who cross the channel seek asylum, and majority receive asylum. He's specifically talking about violating international law to prevent people in danger seeking safety.

I mean, at least Cash and Redwood aren't seeming to hide the fact that they want to contravene multiple international refugee laws. This is a singularly disgusting speech to hear from an elected official.

Cash continues to attack human rights and appears to claim that the bill, which has been shown to be illegal, doesn't go far enough. Bloody hell. That was...something. I need more wine.

Good advice from @HarrietHarman to @VotePursglove not to vote down amendments which would protect lives just because they come from the opposition, basically.

Awkward for the government to argue that @DavidDavisMP is a "leftwing wokie". This is what makes it so important that he is a prominent figure standing against offshoring. I disagree with him on a lot, but we absolutely need to prevent offshoring.

Now @DavidDavisMP highlighting that offshoring would allow child trafficking survivors, among so many others, and outside of UK law and oversight, including the abuse and harm it has caused children in Australia.

@DavidDavisMP Important to note at this point, under current policies, including use of hotels to accommodate child trafficking survivors, we are already seeing unaccompanied children facing serious mental health issues, and suicide, as well as being re-trafficked. Offshoring makes it worse.

Good spot, "we will not send unaccompanied minors to offshore facilities. We will not split up families" does not mean that the government wouldn't send whole families to an offshore facility. Essential that offshoring, in its entirety, is ruled out.

Interesting to hear the former Minister of Immigration @carolinenokes pointing out that she rejected the idea of pushbacks because of the risk to life. Strong argument in favour of unaccompanied children as well. Cross party support to ensure they are protected in the bill.

Sorry, it's been a long day and hearing Christopher Chope effectively saying that we should end asylum and calling asylum seekers "illegal migrants" despite their internationally recognised legal rights is enough for me. Utterly abhorrent, and factually incorrect.