Thread by @stand_for_all

The #NationalityAndBordersBill is back in the @UKHouseofLords. The Lords have to retain their previous stance and replace the amendments the commons stripped out. This bill is illegal and inhumane. It will only increase risks to refugees.

parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/76…

I have a lot of respect for Lord Paddick, but "no-one in their right mind would push back a dinghy" is not a strong enough safeguard against proposed pushbacks to warrant not standing against this policy.

A reminder that the #AntiRefugeeBill, if it becomes law, isn't just down to what this government would do, but what the next and the next. It is never enough in legislation to just say "we won't do that", because even if you won't the next government might.

If the government knew, absolutely knew, that, contrary to all the evidence and criticism from legal experts on this, the #BordersBill did not, will not and could not violate the Refugee Convention, then why have an issue with expressly saying that?

Lord Coaker's comments may provide a sliver of hope that the @UKHouseofLords won't sit back and let the bill continue without further scrutiny, and will instead continue with the ping pong between the two houses.

Coaker now setting out issues with the two tier system for refugees, which would see those trying to seek safety in the UK criminalised for doing so. It's a clear contravention of Article 31 of the Refugee Convention, the convention the government claims it isn't contravening.

Baroness Williams of Trafford doing her best, but still spectacularly failing to defend the government's position that it is okay not to clarify points or include safeguards, because, essentially, "We wouldn't use it again some people".

Baroness Williams of Trafford now arguing that the bill should not need an amendment specifically saying it will abide by international refugee law, because the government believes it already is...

If the government is so certain that, again despite evidence to the contrary, including from UNHCR, the bill does not violate international law why not just allow the amendment, and take the legs out from under those like myself who advocate against the #AntiRefugeeBill?

The government's refusal to allow a clause which would bind it to abide by international refugee law speaks volumes, namely that it knows this bill violates it, it intends to violate it and it is happy to violate it.

Likewise now making the claim that it should not need an amendment to guarantee measures in the bill would not put lives at sea at risk for the same reason. If you aren't going to put lives at risk why not allow a clause specifying that?

Ding ding ding "economic migrants" argument. There is no evidence that the right to work, as provided in a number of EU countries, would create a "pull factor". There is evidence though that it would reduce the risk of people being re-trafficked after seeking asylum

FYI, if you are going to cite academic studies it is always worth reading them and not trying to take selective points from them. Just a helpful piece of advice from someone who has studied international refugee law at length.

Quite remarkable to claim that you don't need to wait until you have agreements with other countries before you start removing people from the UK. Normally it is taken as read that you can't just drop someone off in another country without their permission.

Here's a question. So, say you actually manage to set up offshoring, how does that prevent people from trying to seek asylum in UK unless you plan on denying them that safety from the start, which is kind of massively illegal? You need to send them offshore and bring them back.

Still refusing to provide an official government estimate on cost for offshoring asylum seekers, currently predicted to be in the region of £1.4billion per year. You'd have though that would be the kind of thing you would work out before asking people to agree to it.

I would personally have more faith in Baroness Williams' claims that unaccompanied minors already have routes into the UK if the government hadn't shelved some of those schemes and left hundreds in camps and homeless in EU states.

Lord Judge exactly summing it up. If the commons are right and the bill doesn't contravene international law then so be it, but surely having the protection in place therefore to ensure it doesn't makes no difference in that case.

Lord Brown raising a point which really more people, including myself, should make more often, most asylum seekers don't know the asylum laws of the countries they are going to, so unless they somehow read the bill it doesn't act as a "deterrent" in the slightest.

Lord Kerr who gave such a sterling speech during the last debate, holding to form and highlighting the very basic principle that are we, as in the UK government, seriously suggesting denying safety to those fleeing war and persecution?

https://twitter.com/ZoeJardiniere/status/1498400452148436992?s=20&t=jpXZqW_D8-iWBjpUBFQizg

YES. YES. The only way to undermine trafficking gangs is to ensure more people can reach UK safely, through safer routes, humanitarian visas etc, not by stealing their rights under the refugee convention and driving them into the hands of traffickers, as the #AntiRefugeeBill does

I will respect someone like Lord Cormack who will stand up and say " I didn't vote previously, but I have seen what is happening and now feel obligated to stand against this bill", to paraphrase. The bill has received cross-party condemnation because it is so hideous.

"Don't give powers to your government you wouldn't want and opposition government to have". Lord Cormack, a Conservative peer, summing up why you can't implement legislation on basis "you can be trusted to ensure it won't be misused". You don't know what future governments may do

The Lord Bishop of Durham calls Clause 11, which creates a two tier system for refugees, "the most inhumane part of the bill". For a bill which includes so much inhumanity this is a pretty striking, and accurate, statement. This clause will see asylum seekers criminalised.

The Lord Bishop of Durham now highlighting the low number of refugees accepted through resettlement routes from obvious asylum creating situations. This is why just using resettlement routes does not work and must not be relied on.

Lord Dubs now destroying the Common's arguments in a systematic way and showing how flimsy they are. Brings up the government withdrawing previously agreed provisions under Dubs amendment to ensure unaccompanied children could be reunited through "family provision".

Flags that an Home Office has refused family reunification under multiple dire pretexts, including seeing no reason why an unaccompanied child in France staying in a shelter wasn't safe enough there to necessitate being placed with family in the UK

Lord Alton of Liverpool addressing the limitations of "resettlement routes" through the cases of the Yazidis and Uighurs who have no such scheme, yet are undeniably persecuted. "bespoke schemes" are, by their nature, limited and inevitably don't provide asylum to all who need it.

Baroness Meacher has done her reading. 29 academic papers on the right to work for asylum seekers and 29 showed providing it wasn't a pull factor. thought it was more to be honest, but accept her figures on this. Definitely no serious paper as shown it to be a pull factor.

Lord Hodgson now making out that the British public do not want to take asylum seekers and that their views should inform the debate. Problem is majority of the public actually support taking refugees'.

Baroness Bennett succinctly, and witheringly, destroys Lord Hodgson's comparison of number of people per km between Canada and UK by flagging the not insubstantial matter of climate differentials.

Taking a break for my own sanity

Calling it a night, but highly recommend following this thread from @safepassageuk, who have more staying power than I do.

https://twitter.com/safepassageuk/status/1510999894244352003?t=fTK1QI-va2Z6hZj03EQH5w&s=19

One final note. The #NationalityAndBordersBill is so fundamentally flawed it can't be fixed with tweaks. I would urge everyone to support organisations like @Love146UK which are working on the ground with those who will be most affected by it to counter it

https://twitter.com/Love146UK/status/1511039395230588931?t=sxBN4wzpTfzu2HYusROFog&s=19