Everyone has the right to seek, in another country, asylum from persecution in their own. There’s no requirement that this be in the nearest country or any particular country. This comes from Article 14 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. 1/5
It is not permitted to penalise someone, still less punish them, simply for exercising that right by crossing one or more borders without prior permission. This comes from Article 31 of the Refugee Convention. 2/5
It is especially absurd to complain at this while pretending to take pride in providing or having provided asylum to some people & yet make no provision at all for anyone to be given permission to come to seek asylum. In fact, it’s plain disingenuous. 3/5
No amount of pretending that other countries have sole responsibility for the asylum you refuse to give can disguise that. Worse, when the countries you most point to are already doing far more than you in providing asylum, you’re only exposing more how disingenuous you are. 4/5
So rather than bemoaning unsafe journeys & exploitation to which UK Government has abandoned people, who are entitled to seek asylum here, better would be focus on providing people alternatives & demanding our asylum system fairly, efficiently & properly decides their claims. 5/5
Official immigration & asylum data published today.
Once again shows critical importance of asylum system to any meaningful contribution by UK to global responsibility of providing asylum. 1/5 gov.uk/government/sta…
Of 15,451 people permitted to stay in UK because of risk of persecution or similar harm, 13,827 of them were required to reach UK first & claim asylum.
Another 5,290 people were granted visa to reunite with someone granted asylum (they needed that someone to get here first). 2/5
For those still obsessing over Albanian nationals, once again Home Office decisions on their asylum claims found more to be refugees (153) than not (104) over most recent three months of data. See more here 👇3/5
There is no question that expulsion to Rwanda under this Arrangement is not lawful since it is plainly contrary to vital principle & purpose of the legal agreement into which the UK voluntarily entered in making & adopting the Refugee Convention. 1/7 theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/j…
Oddly, the Rwanda Arrangement expressly recognises some of that principle & purpose in its Preamble while expressly undermining that by its content & intention. 2/7
It is plainly not an exercise in #SharingResponsibility for UK to cast off its asylum responsibilities onto Rwanda & is generally destructive of that principle for UK to encourage or licence other relatively rich countries to do likewise. 3/7
1. It isn’t about UK outsourcing the processing of people’s asylum claims. It is about UK discarding asylum responsibilities altogether. Anyone subjected to it is intended to be made entirely Rwandan responsibility.
2. It’s unclear how it relates to anything in current or proposed legislation or rules. But one way or another, if UK is able to apply it to anyone it will be refusing to admit or retain responsibility for that person’s asylum claim.
3. The MOU itself is very light on substance except in firmly stipulating that it & anything in it isn’t to be regarded as legally enforceable by anyone, not even the respective Governments.
It was August 2020, when Home Secretary announced she would make crossing Channel by boat to seek asylum “unviable”.
20 months later, as she was warned, her policies have only sustained the very conditions that lead to these journeys. 2/7 independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-n…
Last August, she hinted that a “Warm Welcome” for Afghan refugees might be expanded to double the number being provided for.
And yet, after over 7 months, that welcome remains to be fulfilled even for people who had by then been emergency evacuated. 3/7 itv.com/news/2021-08-3…
Tomorrow & Wednesday will be last two days for MPs to scrutinise & vote on this Bill. To how much of following can they possibly give proper scrutiny, let alone meaningfully vote upon given Government will ‘whip’ to require its majority wins out? 1/15
Clause 9 will empower Home Secretary to strip British citizens of their citizenship in secret.
Stripping people of their citizenship is already a draconian power. Seeking power to do so secretly shows contempt for British citizenship & the rights of every British person. 2/15
Clause 10 will empower Home Sec to refuse to register right of a stateless child, born in UK & lived here at least five years, to British citizenship.
Leaving kids born & growing up here without British citizenship & stateless shows contempt for children & their rights. 3/15
People crossing the Channel by boat to seek asylum are visible in a way that people making different journeys to UK to do so are not. Ministers & others have exploited this visibility to excite some sense of national emergency. But what is the reality… 1/11
Firstly, there were more asylum claims made in UK in 2019 than 2020. In first half of 2021, there were more claims than in first half of 2020 but still fewer than same period in 2019. So, over period of heightened attention to boat crossings, asylum claims haven’t gone up. 2/11
Secondly, backlogs & delays in asylum system have significantly increased over this period. Pandemic certainly had an impact as did @ukhomeoffice response to it. And Ministers have added to this by delaying consideration of many claims. 3/11