They were desperate humans compelled to make the dangerous
journey to the UK for reasons that many don’t seem to understand.
The BBC calls them “migrants”; the Prime Minister, Boris
Johnson, and some other media call them “illegal”; some Tory MPs and Nigel
Farage call them “invaders”.
Home Secretary, Priti Patel, calls most of them “economic
migrants”.
They are none of those.
They are mostly desperate, destitute, often stateless men,
women and children fleeing from war, torture, oppression and persecution.
Many of them are escaping from countries that the UK was complicit
in bombing in the first place, helping to create a world-wide refugee
catastrophe.
They are people in genuine need of protection.
Nobody risks their lives across treacherous waters in
unsuitable and unsafe boats unless they are deeply distressed and determined,
with nothing left to lose.
THE FIRST SAFE COUNTRY
Why don’t they seek asylum in the first safe country they reach? Because it isn’t that simple. You may think it is, but it isn’t.
For one thing, some countries don’t want them. They really
don’t.
For another, escaping from danger – genuine, terrifying,
deadly danger – is just part of it.
Then what?
Your country has been lost to you. The place you grew up,
had family, memories, possessions, your home, your career. Now unsafe, maybe
never safe to return.
You have to start again, either alone, or whoever you
managed to bring with you.
Just a few want to get to the UK. Really, by comparison,
it’s a tiny number. But the ones who tenaciously want to make it to our shores
against all odds often have compelling reasons.
The number one reason refugees are desperate to continue
their journey from France to the UK is that they have family ties here. In
fact, this covers at least 50% of cases in the experience of the charity,
Care4Calais.
As the charity points out, ‘Family ties run deep, especially
when you have lost everything else.’
THEY ARE NOT MIGRANTS; THEY ARE NOT ILLEGAL
Some politicians and media call refugees “migrants”. That’s entirely wrong.
The term migrant means a person who moves from one place to
another in order to find work or better living conditions. Migrants voluntarily
leave their home countries for another and can voluntarily return home at any
time.
That’s not the case for refugees.
The term refugee means a person who has been forced to leave
their country in order to escape war, persecution or natural disaster. They
must leave their homes involuntarily and they cannot return.
Boris Johnson has said those who get here illegally are illegal
and will be treated accordingly. It’s beyond bloody nasty.
It’s not asylum seekers who are illegal; it’s Mr Johnson and
his government for planning to shun asylum seekers arriving here and instead
forcibly flying them 4,000 miles away to Rwanda.
All at far greater expense than the cost of providing asylum
to genuine refugees in the first place.
What other way is there for an asylum seeker to reach the UK
unless by so-called illegal means?
Asylum can only usually be sought in the UK once in the UK.
What a conundrum.
If the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary really cared
about the plight, and safety, of desperate refugees (yes, most, but not all,
are genuine refugees) then they would make the criminally induced hazardous
journey across the English Channel entirely unnecessary.
The UK only takes a relatively low number of asylum seekers.
We’re yet another so-called civilised country that doesn’t really want them.
If we wanted to help, we could allow refugees to apply for
asylum without first having to endure a perilous voyage across the Channel to
get here.
By making such a chancy crossing the only way to seek asylum
here, the Prime Minister and Home Secretary are complicit in aiding and
abetting odious gangsters who are making millions out of desolate people.
The language and actions of our current government are
beyond despicable.
Like some of our media, they are advocating sheer hate
against people who, in many cases, have been devastated as a direct result of
our country’s violent interventions of their homes.
INTERNATIONAL LAW
Let’s be clear. Refugees are innocent.
▪ Under international law – signed up to by the UK – there is no such entity as an illegal asylum seeker
or refugee.
▪ Under international law – signed up to by the UK – it is accepted that asylum seekers may often need to
use irregular and illegal routes and cross many borders before applying for
asylum.
▪ Under international law – signed up to by the UK – there is no legal obligation for an asylum seeker to
seek asylum or to stay in the first safe country they reach.
▪ Under international law – signed up to by the UK – there is an absolute obligation to accept and offer
refuge to asylum seekers who have genuinely had to escape from war and danger
in their home countries.
WHAT'S THE ANSWER?
Ms Patel has claimed that 70% of those making the crossing are “…economic migrants. They are not genuine asylum seekers.”
Statements like that have helped to create severe animosity
in the UK towards those arriving here across the Channel.
But in-depth research published by the RefugeeCouncil has brought into question the claims made by the Home Secretary.
Their research covered the period January 2020 to June 2021.
The Refugee Council's analysis, using UK Home Office data
and Freedom of Information requests, found that 91% of people who travelled by
boat across the Channel came from 10 countries where human rights abuses and persecution
were common.
These were Afghanistan, Iran, Syria, Iraq, Sudan, Vietnam,
Kuwait, Ethiopia, Eritrea and Yemen
The charity’s investigation revealed that overall, nearly
two-thirds of people arriving here in small boats are deemed to be genuine refugees
and allowed to remain.
Of those arriving from Syria, 88% were granted asylum at the
initial decision stage. From Eritrea, 84%.
And, for example, of those from Syria not granted asylum at
first, 73% were granted asylum on appeal.
Enver Solomon, the chief executive of the Refugee Council,
said:
“The analysis contradicts the government’s narrative that people coming across the Channel are not refugees.
“The reality is that people who come to the UK by taking terrifying journeys in small boats across the Channel do so because they are desperately seeking safety having fled persecution, terror and oppression.”
The Refugee Council urges the government to abandon its
current approach which, ‘is destined to fail by simply forcing people, who
through no fault of their own are in search of safety, to take even greater
risks.'
SAFE PASSAGE
The answer? The Refugee Council proposes this:
‘The only way to save lives on these dangerous routes is to stop people believing that these journeys are the only way to have a claim for asylum heard in the UK.
‘If the Government want to truly stop people smugglers, for example, then we must create safe routes and remove their trade.
‘We understand this is a challenging and complex issue – but there are solutions that can be put in place.’
***********************
Nobody should be losing their lives trying to reach our
shores to claim asylum. Once here, nobody should then be forcibly jettisoned
4,000 miles away to Rwanda.
Refugees are innocent. They should not be treated as if they
are criminals. Home Secretary, Priti Patel, says Rwanda will treat our refugees
with “fairness and compassion”.
Why can’t we?
___________________________________________________
- Share this post Twitter and Facebook:
#Refugees are innocent. They should not be treated as if they are criminals. Read why. On Facebook: https://t.co/IyQABRNqCH On my blog: https://t.co/7QhiLeMbaa #Rwanda #asylum pic.twitter.com/pVy2P5dqaC
— Jon Danzig #FBPE (@Jon_Danzig) June 14, 2022
No comments:
New comments are not allowed.