Home Secretary Priti Patel, who travelled to Rwandan capital Kigali to sign the deal, said the “vast majority” of those arriving in the UK “illegally” would be considered for relocation to Rwanda.
The Prime Minister says the move is necessary to disrupt the flow of “economic immigrants” and human trafficking gangs who take advantage of them.
As a result, anyone illegally arriving in the U.K., or those that arrived after January 1, will be able to relocate to Rwanda. Our shared humanitarian impulse and Brexit freedoms will allow us to create a new approach that provides legal and safe routes for asylum and disrupts the business model of gangs. This is because it will prevent economic migrants from staying in the U.K. while genuine refugees will be provided with proper protection, such as access to legal services when they arrive in Rwanda. We will also provide funding to help them build new lives in this dynamic country.
Opponents of the policy have called it a “cruel and nasty decision” and “absolutely chilling,” pointing to Rwanda’s past history of human rights abuses and subpar economic conditions.
That sounds dangerously close to calling Rwanda a sh**hole country, but I digress.
Johnson’s administration maintains they are simply trying to deter human trafficking and save the lives of those who make the potentially fatal crossing in the hopes of taking advantage of the U.K.’s lax immigration enforcement. British politics have been discussing small-boat illegal immigration for many decades. Conservative governments made repeated promises that they would address this issue. However, these promises have yet to be fulfilled.
Brexit leader Nigel Farage criticised the plans and called them temporary solutions to a larger problem.
He told BBC Radio 4’s The World At One programme the problem with sending people away to islands or other countries was “it’s not very long before you start to hear tales of abuse” and after that the Human Rights Act could be invoked to stop it.
He suggested the UK should turn boats back – a method that was used by Australia – but Mr Johnson conceded the controversial “pushback” technique would be dangerous except in “extremely limited circumstances”.
We are told by the open border crowd that immigrants make up the backbone for any nation. For a country in the developing world like Rwanda, it would make sense to send hard-working and motivated immigrants to aid them build their economy. The U.K. is sending cash and other resources to aid the process of establishing a new lifestyle for the immigrants. If an immigrant is truly in need of asylum (not simply a better life in a wealthier nation), it shouldn’t matter if they are free in Rwanda or free in the U.K. The new program, much like Trump’s “Remain in Mexico” immigration program, should serve to deter “casual” illegal immigrants, as it did here in America. It would be good for Britain and those most at risk from the cruelty and abuse of the human trafficking cartels.
A representative from The Henry Jackson Society, a policy think tank, told the BBC that the public supports the new plans “overwhelmingly,” and describes it as a “popular measure.”
“The public overwhelmingly supports a tougher line on immigration – particularly on illegal crossings”
Sam Armstong, from the Henry Jackson Society, says he thinks Rwanda asylum plan is a “popular measure that will begin to have some effect”https://t.co/QtVCLVlKy3 pic.twitter.com/jIshOCvPNC
— BBC Politics (@BBCPolitics) April 14, 2022
About Post Author
