On the face of it, fast tracking the recognition of 12,000 asylum applications from people pretty much bound to be refugees in need of protection is a blindingly obvious & overdue proposal.
Trust this govt to propose doing it in a way that raises questions of fairness #r4today
One of the major problems in our asylum system is refugees are housed in dispersed, poor quality accommodation around the country, including in isolated areas & legal aid deserts.
Legal aid cuts since 2012 means free, competent assistance is hard to come by for refugees #r4today
Proposal is that they fill out a questionnaire, in English & potentially without access to legal support, within a tight time frame.
A questionnaire that their lives - quite literally - depend on.
It’s obviously potentially problematic for the most vulnerable #r4today
Sunak can say if forms aren’t filled within the timeframe claims will be dismissed, but the thing about refugees is you don’t decide they are one through a form: they are regardless.
They can’t be sent to danger, questionnaire or not, so this may just clog up appeals #r4today
Overall proposal just highlights long term failures.
The only “quick fix” for refugees caught for long periods in limbo would be automatic grants.
More bureaucratic hurdles create risks in a dysfunctional system where safeguards have been systematically stripped away. #r4today
I’ll try not to be too much of a negative Nancy: with access to legal support & if the questionnaire is straightforward & reasonable, speeding up the process for people fleeing obvious danger so they can get out of hotels & start rebuilding their lives is very good, ofc #r4today
Jon is always the one to hear out about fairness in the asylum system
Interesting. While it obviously relies on a false binary between people crossing the Channel and genuine refugees, worth responding to seriously I think:
Essentially a 1-for-1 swap with France. Anyone crossing the Channel is returned, with one resettled here safely in exchange…
It’s unnecessarily complicated, however:
If you’re willing to take in as many refugees as want to cross here from France (good!) & willing to provide that many with safe passage to UK (great!)
Why not just offer legal travel documents to the people trying to cross straight away?
Of course, the answer is, for Malthouse the UK must get to pick & choose who are “genuine refugees” before they get here.
Essentially, he wants us not to have to have an asylum system that fairly assesses claims - why bother? Let’s outsource it to France!
“If they really are refugees, why don’t they have to stay in the first safe country they reach?”
“Why don’t they just claim asylum in France?”
Here is my answer, once & for all. To Jonathan Gullis, and to everyone else who ever wondered. #RefugeesWelcome
The 3 things you need to know:
1. Most refugees never come to rich countries like the UK, more go to other countries.
2. Those coming to the UK have ties to this country.
3. Geography is no excuse to shirk responsibility & leads to a race to the bottom with disastrous results.
For those asking how he responded, I don't remember any response at all.
The full video is available here.
I & a witness from Border Force answered questions on why the government's plans would not solve the problems in our asylum system... & they haven't.
So, let’s see if I’ve got this straight: this new report’s big shiny new proposal for how to finally make those pesky refugees disappear is…?
Oh no, it’s still just the Rwanda scheme.
But we’ll also leave the ECHR, like Russia did this year cause it invaded Ukraine… #r4today
Laughed out loud at Timothy’s response to questions on his magical thinking for how he expects to have everyone deported either to their country of origin or Rwanda “within days”
“These are high level proposals and we’d have to see about the operational details” I BET #r4today
Completely seriously, though, this document seems to be a mad, extremist, dangerous fantasy & shouldn’t be being given a plum spot on #r4today to spread completely unsupportable, authoritarian rubbish, especially with no expert there to give the other side (that of basic sanity).
Actual (qualified) good news! Of course the government desperately trying to dress it up as bad, though.
This policy-proposal-as-press-release sent out to test the waters on how to get back on top of massive backlogs they’ve created in the asylum system. Let’s take a look…🪡
The proposal is ostensibly a “two tier” asylum system, but that doesn’t seem quite right to me…
First, the good:
Most people crossing the Channel come from countries where there is a very clear risk of danger & persecution - Syria, Iran, Afghanistan, Sudan & Eritrea
These people forced to wait months/years in crap asylum accommodation without right to work or support is cruel & also useless: their claims are almost all accepted in the end.
Urgently fast-tracking (or just granting) their applications to get them out of the backlog makes sense
Every politician ever scoring points claiming both that we need to train Brits to do high paid jobs, & also only bring in migrants trained to do high paid jobs...
You only want “highly skilled” migrants? So… you’re reserving low-paid work for Brits?
Oh no we’re meant to also be training more Brits to take the “high skilled” jobs, right?
In this scenario who serves food? Who makes deliveries? Who provides care?
Just raise wages. For all.
Whether someone from UK or not does it, we need clean workplaces & food on supermarket shelves.
These jobs aren’t considered “high skilled” but they are highly necessary & politicians with the old lines on “importing cheap Labour” ignore them because the answer is to RAISE WAGES.
On Thursday 24th we will gather to remember the people who died trying to reach the lives we take for granted in the UK.
At 6pm we will stand on either side of the Channel, at Sunny Sands beach in Folkestone, and across the water Dunkirk, to say: Not one more death at our border