Thread by @stand_for_all

Thread: Without formal returns agreements with those "safe countries" this is meaningless. You cannot "return" anyone to a country which hasn't agreed to take them. The end result therefore is leaving asylum seekers in limbo for even longer. 1/ #r4today

thetimes.co.uk/article/791fea…

Now, ironically, the UK does have an agreement with Albania, but calling it a "safe country" is stretching the definition to breaking point, particularly in relation to the protection of trafficking victims. 2/
state.gov/reports/2022-t…

Pretty certain something has changed in UK's relationship with neighbouring countries since the last Labour Government. Ah, yes, that's it, it left the EU, which means it left the Dublin Regulations, which had formalized mechanisms for returning people. 3/
commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-brief…

The principle of the "safe country" designation has been condemned already in the past by UNHCR as incompatible with international law, not least ways because you cannot guarantee that a country while safe for many is safe for all. 4/
unhcr.org/excom/scip/3ae…

And safety is most definitely not predicated on whether the state is or is not the one conducting the persecution directly. If there are good reasons to feel the state cannot provide protection, such as corruption, then someone can still seek asylum. 5/
unhcr.org/1951-refugee-c…

All of this is publicly available information. It hasn't been hidden away so that journalists can't find it. It would be really helpful if the media stopped just reporting Home Office press releases as if they were the word of God and actually applied some critical thinking. 6/