Thread: Refugees don't need visas. Under international refugee law they cannot be penalised for their manner of entry, which is just one way in which the government's proposals for #NationalityAndBordersBill would violate international law. It isn't so simple though. 1/ #r4today
You know all those stories you see about "small boat crossings"? The politicians and pundits who claim that anyone crossing the channel is an "economic migrant"? Yeah, now you see with the failure of the UK to support those fleeing the #UkraineRussianWar why it was never true. 2/
It doesn't matter where someone is fleeing, the basic reasons for trying to reach the UK remain the same, language and family/friendship ties. Most refugees do remain in their regions of origin, not always by choice, but some don't. 3/
Let's be honest, you have just fled across the border, the thing you are fleeing is still right there in the neighboring country. Personally, I may be inclined to move a little further away to be honest, and this is what the minority of refugees do. 4/
I say minority. To give you an idea, and yes these figures are from 2021, there were about 84 million displaced people in the world, those who had fled their home. Of these "only" 26.4 million people were refugees, they crossed an international border. 5/ unhcr.org/refugee-statis…
Of these only 4.4 million were asylum seekers. You see an asylum seeker is different from a refugee. A refugee is someone who has crossed an international border and meets certain criteria. It's a "declarative term", basically states don't get to say who is or is not a refugee 6/
An asylum seeker on the other hand is someone, drum roll please, who actively seeks asylum, something which can only be done in the territory of the state you're seeking it in, hence why people have to use "irregular methods of entry" if they don't have visas when seeking it. 7/
That's one of the reasons why 85% of refugees are hosted in developing countries, yeah sorry the "West" takes bugger all in the grand scheme, they UK taking a tiny fraction of even that. It's pretty hard, and expensive, to get across borders without visas. 8/
Why don't people just get the visas though? Well, when fleeing a warzone for example you might not have the luxury of sticking around to fill in forms. You might not be able to even pick up the documents you need to fill in the forms. 9/
If you have seen the pictures of crowds at the Ukrainian border you also start to see why, and how easy, it is for documents to be lost or stolen on route. All of which makes it nigh on impossible to obtain a visa. 10/
Even if you have the paperwork, how many of us, particularly having fled a war, can wait around in a foreign country, not knowing anyone, scared and without anything, for weeks/months, to have a visa processed. 11/
Carrier liability fines mean that planes, ferries, Eurostar etc cannot transport people without the correct visas, so we're back to why those fleeing, not just from #Ukraine️, may end up being forced into using small boats to cross the channel. 12/
The UK needs to scrap the #BordersBill, that's beyond doubt at this moment, but even more importantly it must scrap visa requirements for refugees and halt carrier liability fines, to ensure those who do seek asylum in the UK can reach here safely. 13/ #r4today
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Lord's debating age assessments in the #NationalityAndBordersBill, and in an entirely predictable turn of events Lord Green, of Migration Watch, misrepresents data to try and push an amendment which would see anyone who "looks 18+" automatically treated as an adult. 1/
This would obviously mean that inevitably more children would be held in adult facilities and denied their legal rights to protection. It would also increase the number of age disputes, which he uses to justify his argument. 2/
What his use of figures fails to take into account are, the number of those age disputes overturned, that many were conducted using "short assessments, which have been found to be unlawful, and the increase in use of age assessments by Home Office to attempt to deny asylum. 3/
THREAD: There is a persistent narrative that the UK has always had a "welcoming attitude to #refugees". There's a problem with this though, it is a nostalgic myth. In reality there are few differences in the way the UK acts now, and how it did in the past. Little of it good. 1/
It generally seems to be accepted that by the outbreak of World War two the UK had taken approximately 70,000 Jewish refugees, which sounds a lot until you realise that it is estimated that they rejected about half a million. 2/ theguardian.com/uk/2002/jun/08…
Overall it's estimated about 80,000 people were offered refuge in UK, including nearly 10,000 through the Kinderstransport. Good huh. Well there were approximately 60 million displaced people, including 12 million Germans, so not brilliant to be honest 3/ gale.com/intl/essays/ra…
Before anyone gets too optimistic about this, Patel plays semantics. Just look at the language for one thing. "Look at", "investigating". That's a far cry from doing anything. "Ten thousand applications" doesn't mean "granted ten thousand visas". #r4today
Aaaand there we have it. The UK is far too focused on denying refugees safety, for example the #NationalityAndBordersBill being pushed through at the moment would criminalise Ukrainian refugees. It was highly unlikely it would genuinely do something to help. 2/ #r4today
It is hardly shocking given Patel's, and the UK government as a whole's, track record that they aren't actually talking about providing support for refugees, and instead are just alluding to one of the already woefully poor routes they have created. 3/
Thread: That's a mighty fine semantic argument between "turning someone back" and "not allowing them in". It's a distinction which is lost on those being denied access to the UK asylum system I would imagine. 1/
If the government successfully passes its #NationalityAndBordersBill then any Ukrainian refugee who crossed the channel without a visa would risk being criminalised and deported, along with all others seeking asylum. 2/
When people are fleeing a conflict though they, fairly obviously, rarely have time to fill in all the paperwork needed for a visa. Even if, as with many Ukrainian refugees, they make it to a country where an application can be processed...3/
With the #AntiRefugeeBill now being debated in the @UKHouseofLords it's worth re-upping this thread. The #BordersBill does nothing to make the asylum system "fairer". It denies refugees their guaranteed rights under international law. It will only make things worse.
There is no question that the #NationalityAndBordersBill violates multiple international laws. This isn't just about abstract elements of law though. It is about humanity. This bill will criminalise some of the most vulnerable people in the world.
We are seeing the need for UK to provide asylum to Ukrainian citizens right now, and UK failing at this. This isn't new though. Syrians, Iraqis, Afghans, Eritreans, Yemenis, etc etc, people just trying to find a place they feel safe having lost everything, will be criminalised.
THREAD: With so much going on, partly to do with #Ukraine, but also related to the #NationalityandBordersBill, and no small amount of confusion and misinformation, I thought it may be helpful to do a thread explaining some bits and bobs. 1/
First off, the primary piece of legislation in international law governing refugee rights the the United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, and it is fairly clear a refugee may not be penalised for their manner of entry into a state. 2/ unhcr.org/uk/3b66c2aa10
In essence this means someone seeking asylum doesn't need a visa for the country they seek it in. Obviously things aren't so clear cut. Visas make it a lot easier to reach a country in the first place for one thing. Problem is they are hard to get when fleeing for your life. 3/