I'm getting really, really fed up of the asylum nonsense this last week. It is like a broken record from the Britpop era. I have some questions people should be asking Priti Patel: (thread)

1. The number of asylum claims has fallen over the last year and nearly 3/4 are now genuine refugees according to Home Office stats. Why are extreme measures needed at all? https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/immigration-statistics-year-ending-june-2020/how-many-people-do-we-grant-asylum-or-protection-to#asylum-applications

2. Why has the asylum backlog been allowed to build up over the last few years, even before the pandemic began? Why is it now taking over 6 months to decide claims and why can the Home Office not make decisions more quickly, like it used to? https://www.freemovement.org.uk/asylum-backlog-continues-to-rise/

3. If removing failed asylum seekers is so important, why are enforced removals at an all time low, having fallen every year since 2012? This at a time when the the number of appeals has fallen considerably - this is nothing to do with ‘activist lawyers’.

4. Given most asylum seekers will build new lives here and become citizens, why are we treating them so horrendously when they first arrive, with delays, squalid accommodation and minimal support? It makes it harder not easier for them to settle and integrate.

But in the Oasis heyday there were over twice as many asylum claims, far fewer were ultimately found to be refugees and removals were actually much higher than today, peaking at over 21,000 in 2004.

Removals are now at an all time low of around 6,000 per year (pre pandemic). Nothing to do with legal challenges or not using ferries to warehouse people offshore...

It’s because strategy shifted to relying on hostile environment instead of enforced removals. But there’s no evidence it forces anyone out, only that it increases the size of unauthorised population and drives them into extreme poverty *within the UK.*