Thread: As yes the "liberal" defence of illegal and inhumane actions against people seeking safety. First off those "inconstestable" facts are indeed contested, by, uhm, the Home Office. Awkward. 1/ thetimes.co.uk/article/91c153…
Rejecting human rights is unlikely to make a significant difference, unless that is you support removing people to countries where they face torture or inhumane treatment, in which case I would personally argue you cannot call yourself "liberal". 2/
Ah yes, the "liberal" argument of detaining people indefinitely. Keeping in mind you still cannot send them off to countries which you don't have a returns agreement with, at a cost of about £100 per day, so yeah, that works to save money Matt. 3/ migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/brie….
Okay, so first off there are more reasons that people need to seek asylum from persecution other than fleeing conflicts. Secondly, resettlement routes only work when they operate, and as the Afghan scheme has taken no-one this year, they don't. 4/ theguardian.com/world/2022/dec…
But I guess you can always fall back on shouting "RWANDA IS THE SOLUTION", despite Rwanda not having close to capacity for everyone anyway, or the government's own analysis showing it is unsafe for refugees. 5/ google.com/url?sa=t&sourc…
That's not to mention how the report which Parris is so happily pushing from a "liberal" position is based in large part on a falsehood with the way it defines refugees, as explained by @StevePeers here. 6/
Oh yes, and the Home Affairs Committee report which found that the threat of removals to Rwanda is not a "deterrent". Other than that though Matthew, fine crack on with your "liberal" argument for denying safety to people seeking it. 8/ committees.parliament.uk/committee/83/h…
On a separate, and more personal note, that Matthew Parris decided to publish a column ostensibly supporting a report which has been condemned by no less than UNHCR for pushing illegal policies on #HumanRightsDay2022 is just sickening. 9/ theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/d…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Since I wrote this thread on @UKLabour's Asylum and Immigration policies several things have been depressingly clear. First off, things are going to get worse. Cooper's announcement of increased immigration raids, and the blinkered defence of them by some, shows this. 1/
The second is how much harder it is going to be for organisations and individuals fighting for migrants' rights. A lot of support over the last 14 years wasn't "pro-migrants rights". It was "anti-conservative". Obviously this isn't new though. 2/
We saw shades of it after the Brexit referendum. People who claimed to be progressive pushing a "good/bad migrants" narrative dividing EU and non-EU migrants. I saw first hand a lot of the hypocrisy of those individuals then, and see it repeating on an even larger scale now. 3/
Okay, a, very, long thread on @UKLabour's asylum and border policies announced today in the #KingSpeech. The short version to start though is that they are, aside from processing applications and cancelling the Rwanda plan, overwhelmingly harmful. 1/ assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6697ac9c…
First off, this isn't new. Anyone remember the Clandestine Channel Threat Commander for example. Secondly, as explained in the linked thread, and as strange as this may sound, increased border security actually strengthens smuggling gangs. 2/
Look, I get it, people like the sound of "Border Security". Thing is, barring a headline grabbing minority, people crossing the channel are't a threat. If Labour are going to re-use Conservative policies I may as well re-use threads debunking them👇 3/
The stories about "gangs" grab headlines, but the reality is that the majority of convictions for smuggling are of people actually making the crossing themselves. All the evidence shows that harsher border policies force more people into the hands of gangs though. 1/
Globally, most smugglers are small groups or independent operators. For example we were seeing a significant increase in "self- facilitated" crossings in the channel, by groups who arrange things themselves without relying on gangs. 2/
As border controls become more focused on criminalising those seeking safety and using "securitised" language, such as making out channel crossings are a national security threat, it makes it harder for these independent crossings, which forces people into the hands of gangs. 3/
Strawman argument from Hodges here. No-one is pretending that immigration didn't play a part in Reform's wins, just that it was the rhetoric and misinformation about immigration they spread rather than migration itself. 1/
Look at Essex for example, where Reform won two of its five seats. It has substantially lower immigration than the UK average, yet higher than average levels of deprivation in parts. This makes people an easy target for messages which scapegoat migrants. 2/
The key thing here is to differentiate between the reality of migration, which is repeatedly shown to have little to no real world impact on people's lives, and where it does it shown to be predominately positive, and the rhetoric around migration, which is highly negative. 3/
Deep breath. Oookay then. Seeing as an earlier thread of mine has generated, shall we say some unfortunate abuse. Let's have a little deep dive into why criticism of Badenoch, Rowling etc is not misogynistic and just reality. 1/
Firstly, let's address the "oh look a man telling women what they think". No, absolutely not. There are numerous issues I will not ever try and talk about because I recognise that I do not have the knowledge or life experience to do so. 2/
I will comment on things such as the gender pay gap, way in which the right to choose with regards to abortion is being criminalised, terrifyingly high rates of sexual offences, and equally terrifyingly low rates of prosecutions etc, because they are things we can all see. 2/
It's #WorldRefugeeDay, so, let's have some facts about those seeking asylum, not more divisive hatemongering. Firstly, most of those seeking asylum in the UK do so because they have existing ties here. That's why arguments such as "France is a safe country" are meaningless. 1/
If you have fled from war or persecution your concept of "safety" is going to be very different from someone going on holiday. You want to be somewhere you know people, have a community, and speak the language. That's why no amount of "deterrents" will stop people coming. 2/
They may not be able to receive asylum, but that is secondary to feeling safe within communities they know. With what are known as "family reunification routes" being all but shut down, people are left with no option but to make dangerous crossings. 3/ ein.org.uk/news/reports-s…