Thread by @stand_for_all

Thread: No matter how loudly certain people shout about "turning boats around in the channel", "send them back to France" etc, the simple fact is that you cannot return people to a country you don't have an agreement to do so with. 1/ #r4today
theguardian.com/world/2023/jan…

The Rwanda plan, which itself is being challenged on its legality, only has capacity for sub-200 even if the government tried it. That means that all this talk about "returning anyone crossing the channel" is meaningless posturing. 2/

All of that is before you factor in how the UK is already not a main destination for asylum seekers, so the, actually pretty small, number who do seek it here are doing so for reasons, primarily family ties or language, which don't change no matter how much you shout. 3/

Government knows deterrents not only don't work, but can't work. Most people, not all but most, have no idea what the asylum laws in the country they're seeking it in are. They're seeking it for personal reasons. You can't deter someone with something they don't know about. 4/

For a fraction of the cost of deals such as Rwanda, or the repeated attempts at agreements with France, the government could invest in the asylum system to properly process claims, thereby cutting the backlog it has deliberately allowed to build up. 5/

That backlog has built up while the actual number of asylum applications haven't really changed that much. Oh yes, channel crossings have increased, but only as other routes have closed. All it shows is that by closing routes you force people into more dangerous ones. 6/

The UK doesn't really have any other options for people to seek asylum here. Asylum seekers cannot seek it outside of the UK. They cannot get a visa and the so called "safe and legal routes" the government talks about have been all but completely closed. 7/

If the government actually wanted to cut channel crossings and, "break the business model of gangs", they would ensure it was safer and simpler to seek asylum here and base policies on looking at why people do so. 8/

Not only are its current proposals unworkable, and potentially illegal, they are only making gangs stronger. Policies such as returns to Albanian create a never ending cycle of exploitation, which only benefits the gangs. 9/

Meanwhile, through the government's soundbite approach to politics, gangs are using its rhetoric to use as another threat to maintain control over their victims, e.g. "if you try to escape you will be sent to Rwanda*. 10/

So, not only is the government doing nothing to cut channel crossings or tackle gangs with these policies, they are in fact forcing more people into making dangerous journeys and increasing the grip of gangs. We need better, more humane, policies now. 11/ #r4today

It isn't even like the government doesn't know this. They know that they can't just turn boats around, and that these idiotic deterrent policies are nonsense. So all Braverman et al have is trying to look tough with meaningless rhetoric. 12/
bbc.co.uk/news/uk-644619…

That is more likely to backfire on them than anything. Constantly attacking those seeking asylum just keeps getting the ever dwindling number of people who oppose humane policies riled up, but by doing nothing which might help the government just angers them more. 13/

If they actually wanted to show people they were tackling channel crossings they could do it, and for a fraction of the amount their current policies cost, money which could be invested into local communities, but then they wouldn't be able to deflect from genuine issues. 14/

You can complain about the costs of the asylum system all you like, but the reality is that it is a lot more expensive to create hostile policies towards those seeking safety than it is to implement humane, and workable, ones for them. 15/
thetimes.co.uk/article/35f40b…

For a fraction of the cost of existing measures, the government could invest in system to process claims more efficiently, which then has the knock on effect of reducing accommodation costs. Providing asylum seekers with the right to work would likewise help with costs. 16/

Removing carrier liability fines would immediately help ensure that asylum seekers didn't need to use gangs to reach the UK, thereby cutting costs associated with tackling them, the list goes on. 17/

So, once again, we need humane, workable asylum policies. Policies which make it safer and easier to seek asylum in the UK. Anything less just puts vulnerable people at risk, costs more, and even loses the Conservatives votes in the long-term. 18/

And yes, you know what, some people crossing the channel are criminals, but the vast majority are not. If you want to "keep Britain safe" then the same principles apply as above. Take Albanians for example, as the government is attacking them regularly. 19/

Albanian young people are among one of the highest at risk groups for being trafficked, yet when so many were kidnapped from Home Office run hotels people, including the media, made them sound as if they are the criminals as opposed to being victims. 20/

If, however, we provided proper protection for them then we could help them feel safer coming forward. That means that not only are you now exacerbating a cycle of exploitation by returning them back to the circumstances which led to their exploitation in the first place... 21/

you are also more likely to be able to get the necessary information for the authorities to tackle the actual criminals, making it easier to break up the whole gangs, and thereby, over time, reduce the number of people needing protection. 22/

Then, having reduced the grip of gangs, as well as reducing channel crossings, by providing people seeking asylum with safer alternatives, you are better able to identify and target the actual criminals. Demonising all asylum seekers only makes everyone more unsafe. 23/

And, as a final note, all of this pales into insignificance when you realise that we are talking about people who, as the @refugeecouncil report here points out, have a deep and well-founded need for asylum and are already being failed by policies. 24/

https://twitter.com/refugeecouncil/status/1620310467511046144?t=B4nAyeRgoDRXPuOVVpMmWA&s=19

Those crossing the channel aren't "illegal". They aren't "fake". The Home Office's own figures show that the vast majority are granted asylum, when their claims are finally processed. Leaving them in limbo is pointless, harmful, and self-defeating as a policy stance. 25/