Yeah lads, spending half a mill to deport eight people is really going to "disrupt" gangs who have already brought them here. Do you think the gangs give a damn? Particularly as by shipping people to Rwanda the government makes them even more vulnerable to traffickers #r4today 
Anyone using the whole it's to "save lives" or it "breaks the business model of gangs" lines about the #RwandaMigrationPlan is either lying or doesn't know/understand it enough to comment on it. The outcome of this policy is that it will increase trafficking and loss of life.
Most people who cross the channel seek asylum, 98%, and more than 3/4s receive it. So we're talking about "genuine refugees" no matter what pundits like to claim. That means they are guaranteed the right to enter a country by any means without penalty under international law.
They're also not required to seek asylum in "First Safe Country". Not only does this not feature in international law, it doesn't feature in commonsense. 86% of world's refugees are in developed nations. If everyone said they should stay in different countries it would be 100%
Proportionally the UK takes a tiny number of refugees. Not only because of its location, but because it isn't actually a prime destination for majority. Those who come tend to do so because of language and family ties, two key things which feature on perceptions of safety.
Asylum seekers also don't tend to have an in-depth knowledge of immigration laws. Many who cross the channel don't use gangs, as they self-facilitate their own crossings, so deporting them doesn't break the model, and those who do use gangs get their information from the gangs.
Gangs lie to them. They don't care what happens to asylum seekers. They either get their money up front if they are smugglers and if they are traffickers' they will just find more people to exploit. Many trafficking victims don't even know which country they are heading to.
Sorry that should have been "86% in developing". Shouldn't type threads before coffee
So none of this "breaks the model" of gangs. What shipping vulnerable people 4,000 miles away to a country with known human rights abuses is to make them an easy target for traffickers to prey on and exploit, unsurprisingly.
So it doesn't act as a "deterrent" because people coming to the UK tend to do so for one of two reasons which don't change, family and language. It doesn't act as a "deterrent" because most people coming to the UK don't know about it.
It doesn't act as a "break the model of gangs" because the gangs do not care one way or the other. It doesn't "break the model of gangs" because it creates a never ending cycle of people seeking safety for them to exploit.
It doesn't "save lives" because those who are inevitably trafficked from Rwanda are at more risk. It doesn't "save lives" because it increases the chances of people killing themselves. It doesn't "save lives" because it puts people at risk of more abuse.
Alternative means of tackling gangs have been put forward for years. Not only are they more humane, but they are workable, and cheaper. Things like opening up more accessible routes to seek asylum in the UK. Ending carrier liability fines so people can fly or catch Eurostar.
Workable solutions are ignored by the politicians and pundits who say Rwanda "is the only option, to save lives" because they require providing people with asylum, and all they want is for UK to take no-one. It isn't about "saving lives". The Rwanda plan is about racism. #r4today
You see, the UK has pretty much closed down the "legal routes" the government claims people should be taking. Those routes were always highly limited anyway. We're an island. The only way many of those seeking safety here can get here is via irregular routes.
No-one wants to pay a smuggler. No-one wants to be exploited by a trafficker. No-one wants to risk their life crossing the channel. Without genuine alternatives though they have no choice. Most refugees can't wait for visas, even if they stood a chance of getting one.
Just look at the situation with Ukrainian citizens effectively still abandoned by this government, including families with children, while they wait for visas. They are people who can apply for a visas though. Most asylum seekers don't even have that chance.
So the only way, and it is the only way, you actually reduce channel crossings is by ensuring that people have safer, more accessible means, to seek asylum in the UK without using them. If you take away the need for people to use gangs, that's when you "break the model of gangs".
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
