The #NationalityAndBordersBill has been shown repeatedly not to be compliant with international law, but if @VotePursglove is so confident it does not, why not clarify that in the bill itself. If you don't do that what's to stop someone else using it to break the law later?
Please, for the love of God, could MP's this far into the debate about the #NationalityAndBordersBill learn who constitutes as being a refugee? I don't think that it too much to ask when you are planning on destroying their lives.
Our current "family reunion" routes aren't working. We have unaccompanied children, with family members in UK, abandoned elsewhere. I would also argue that "we may have to provide children with care and don't want to" kind of undermines the "we want to protect lives" argument.
I see Andrew Mitchell is channelling his inner Shakespeare by suggesting that we need to do away with lawyers to speed up the asylum system. Denying people legal advice is not exactly a way to show you care about their safety.
As @VotePursglove has just basically reiterated @pritipatel's line that no-one has put forward alternatives to the #NationalityAndBordersBill which would tackle trafficking perhaps this may be of some help to him to show why that is wrong.
https://twitter.com/stand_for_all/status/1516667476494491648?s=20&t=-eNFAWH-aNXAT6Zvayp2Kw
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
