Immigration Watch International (2): Britain divided as first group of illegal immigrants sent to Rwanda

Tuesday, June 14, 2022

Britain divided as first group of illegal immigrants sent to Rwanda

Britain is attempting to mirror aspects of Australia’s offshore migrant processing policy, with the country’s first plane load of illegal immigrants scheduled to be transferred to Rwanda on Tuesday.

Under a $200m deal with the East African nation, the British government is to expel a first tranche of illegal migrants, mainly single men who have transited through multiple “safe countries”, before arriving in the United Kingdom, to Rwanda for assessment.

A High Court legal challenge to try and stop the removals was dismissed last week, paving the way for the first planeload to leave this week amid planned protests.

The offshore policy, designed to stem a flood of illegal arrivals by small boats into the UK, was reportedly described by Prince Charles as “appalling” in overheard private comments, The Times reported. Clarence House later insisted that Charles, who will attend the Commonwealth heads of Government meeting in Kigali, the Rwandan capital later this month, remains politically neutral.

In papers submitted to the High Court, the Home Office said removals under the deal with Rwanda were “intended to deter people from making dangerous journeys to the UK to claim asylum, which are facilitated by criminal smugglers, when they have already travelled through safe third countries”.

They added: “In particular, but not exclusively, this is aimed at deterring arrivals by small boats.”

In 2021 more than 28,000 people crossed the Channel to claim asylum in Britain and this year there have already been more than 10,000 illegal arrivals.

British prime minister Boris Johnson adopted many aspects of Australia’s points based immigration model for post-Brexit Britain, and two months ago on a day when 600 illegal migrants landed in Calais, he said: “We cannot sustain a parallel illegal system, our compassion may be infinite, but our capacity to help people is not.”

The illegal immigrants tend to come from Iran, Iraq and Sudan and three quarters of them are single men aged under 40.

Denmark has been in discussions to send illegal migrants to Rwanda for more than a year, while Israel has a scheme for refugees from Sudan and Eritrea to be resettled in Uganda and Rwanda.

Under the British scheme, the asylum seekers will be given accommodation and support in Rwanda and would be free to come and go from their lodgings. Those who have their asylum claims accepted will be assisted to build a new life in Rwanda with five years of education and support. Those who are rejected will be returned to their country of origin.

But the plan has divided the country. The Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby said Britain cannot subcontract out its moral responsibilities and said the plan was “the opposite of the nature of God”. Football pundit, Gary Lineker, has spoken against the plan as have other high profile identities.

The failed court challenge had been initiated by the Public and Commercial Services union, which represents most Border Force staff, and ws supported by refugee campaign and charity groups such as Care4Calais, Asylum Aid and Detention Action.

Kerry Smith, chief executive of Asylum Aid, said Rwanda was not a safe country for asylum seekers, particularly for survivors of trafficking, torture and LGBTQ+ people.

“If the flight goes ahead it will put all those targeted in danger and will expose vulnerable individuals to devastating harm and risks,” she said.

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/world/britain-divided-as-first-group-of-illegal-immigrants-sent-to-rwanda/news-story/edc952527e1122f03496454b18f6d078

***********************************

My other blogs. Main ones below:

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com/ (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://awesternheart.blogspot.com.au/ (THE PSYCHOLOGIST)

https://heofen.blogspot.com/ (MY OTHER BLOGS)

*******************************

No comments:

Post a Comment

Background

Postings from Brisbane, Australia by John Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.) -- former member of the Australia-Soviet Friendship Society, former anarcho-capitalist and former member of the British Conservative party.

Why is "La Raza" the one Spanish term that is NEVER translated in the American mass media? Because translating it would make it a lot less respectable. It means "THE RACE" -- The mixed Hispanic "race" of Mexico. Racism is fine South of the Rio Grande only, apparently.

The "line" of this blog is that immigration should be SELECTIVE. That means that:

1). A national government should be in control of it. The U.S. and U.K. governments are not but the Australian government has shown that the government of a prosperous Western country can be. Up until its loss of office in 2007, the conservative Howard government had all but eliminated illegal immigration. The present Leftist government has however restarted the flow of illegals by repealing many of the Howard government regulations.

2). Selectivity should be based on "the content of a man's character, not on the color of his skin", as MLK said. To expand that a little: Immigrants should only be accepted if they as individuals seem likely to make a positive net contribution to the country. Many "refugees" would fail that test: Muslims and Africans particularly. Educational level should usually be a pretty fair proxy for the individual's likely value to the receiving country. There will, of course, be exceptions but it is nonetheless unlikely that a person who has not successfully completed High School will make a net positive contribution to a modern Western society.

3). Immigrants should be neither barred NOR ACCEPTED solely because they are of some particular ethnic origin. Blacks are vastly more likely to be criminal than are whites or Chinese, for instance, but some whites and some Chinese are criminal. It is the criminality that should matter, not the race.

4). The above ideas are not particularly blue-sky. They roughly describe the policies of the country where I live -- Australia. I am critical of Australian policy only insofar as the "refugee" category for admission is concerned. All governments have tended to admit as refugees many undesirables. It seems to me that more should be required of them before refugees are admitted -- for instance a higher level of education or a business background.

5). Perhaps the most amusing assertion in the immigration debate is that high-income countries like the USA and Britain NEED illegal immigrants to do low-paid menial work. "Who will pick our crops?" (etc.) is the cry. How odd it is then that Australians get all the normal services of a modern economy WITHOUT illegal immigrants! Yes: Before the pandemic, you usually COULD buy a lettuce in Australia for a dollar or thereabouts. And Australia IS a major exporter of primary products.

6). I am a libertarian conservative so I reject the "open door" policy favoured by many libertarians and many Leftists. Both those groups tend to have a love of simplistic generalizations that fail to deal with the complexity of the real world. It seems to me that if a person has the right to say whom he/she will have living with him/her in his/her own house, so a nation has the right to admit to living among them only those individuals whom they choose.

I can be reached on jonjayray@hotmail.com -- or leave a comment on any post. Abusive comments will be deleted.

Immigration Watch International (2)

Tuesday, June 14, 2022

Britain divided as first group of illegal immigrants sent to Rwanda

No comments:

Post a Comment

Background

Other blogs

Blog Archive

Contributors