Priti Patel has announced that all those identified by the security services as ‘socialists’ are to be deported to Rwanda next year. RAF Brize Norton is to be re-purposed as the exit point, and the Government intends to begin the process by vetting all known members of the Labour Party before flying out any confirmed reds in redesignated Airbus A400M troop transporters.
A Labour Party spokesperson is quoted as saying, “There’s only a few socialists left in the Party, so that won’t take them very long. I doubt they’ll fill more than one transporter aircraft.”.
It is understood that, on arrival, each deportee will be given a copy of ‘Teach Yourself Kinyarwanda’ and RWF 100,000 (about 75 quid).
Well, we’re safe at the Afterword at least.
Surely Priti would do better by deporting convicted felons?
Can anyone think of anyone who has been caught by the Fuzz recently?
No, but I was seized by the Peelers.
Better than being grabbed by the rozzers.
Or seized by the bouncers.
Supergrass. Oh my God, that was last century. I feel so old.
I am really confused by this processing refugees in Rwanda thing. Why Rwanda?
OK I have had a bit of a read.
People smugglers say- “pay me $$$ and I will get you on a boat to the UK where you can start a new life”. They take a big risk, could possibly die as they try to get there.
Now the people in the boats will be intercepted by the military, sent off to Rwanda for processing where they can settle, live and work “if they choose to”. I assume that they are still entitled to claim asylum in the UK even though they are now in Rwanda.
So the thinking is that refugees wanting to live in the UK will now pursue the official channels only, rather than the unofficial, English Channel route via people smugglers. I am not sure what offical channels are open to desperate families escaping from Ukraine/Syria/Yemen. It doesn’t sound like it’s easy.
Right. So. They settle in Rwanda and save up for a flight to London. They arrive in London and don’t go back to Rwanda. To combat this, perhaps visas to these families will not be issued to even allow them to visit the UK.
So the UK govt is basically saying fuck off and not pulling their weight in rehousing the desperate.
My understanding is that Johnson & Patel are fully aware that the proposals will face legal challenges & are highly likely to be declared unlawful- assuming that they are passed in the Lords in the first place.
This is why the announcement was accompanied by swipes in advance at ‘lefty lawyers’ & the usual bleeding hearts concerned with human rights.
In the event that it fails to fly, they can blame those mythical ‘Islington types’ & hand wringing cultural Marxists ( i.e. those who understand the principles of the rule of law) & commence another round of hysteria from the non-dom proprietors of their favourite rags. More grist for Farage & GB News.
It’s with immediate effect though – doesn’t sound like approval is being sought.
Currently it needs to be nodded though by both Houses, which the government will likely amend when they kick off, meaning the Lords assent won’t be required.
However, the Labour peer Alf Dubs who has an interesting personal history in such matters was essentially asked if they would ‘get away with making it work’ replied ‘ I think it’s unlikely. as soon as try & remove one person I’m sure there’ll be a legal challenge & I’m not sure the government will win it’.
The basis for t such a view ( already endorsed by the UN) is that it runs directly contrary to the pesky Geneva Convention, which the UK can’t really wriggle out of.
Aside from the morality of this, how does it make sense financially?
From what I read the initial deal is for $120m and that Rwanda can handle up to 100 people at any one time – assuming the asylum seekers in question spend reasonable time being “processed” then isn’t that going to be up to $1m per head.
Comparatively, most data suggests that most immigrants are net positive to a countries economy (ie they appreciate the opportunity they have been given and work hard etc etc), but even if all of these had to be supported by the government at the current UK weekly benefit amount, it would be much less than $120m.
Am I looking at this too simplistically?
The $120m is just to set up the facilities in Rwanda. There are no figures for the operating costs so far.
Also it’s from 1st Jan not immediate effect.
I just listened to the FT politics podcast where they talked about it.
Hope the phrase ‘facilities in Rwanda’ isn’t a phemism? Maybe for lime pits or something. It can’t be a euphemism any more.
“I am not sure what offical channels are open to desperate families escaping from Ukraine/Syria/Yemen. It doesn’t sound like it’s easy.”
Short answer: none.
Slightly longer answer: practically none. The UK Resettlement Scheme operators via referrals from UNHCR, and the numbers are pitifully small. The scheme isn’t open to anybody who has already made it to a EU country – you have to be in a camp, I presume.
Exactly this.
Refugees can not apply for asylum in the UK from an overseas embassy.
Refugees can only enter the UK legally if they have already applied for, and been granted, asylum.
Refugees can only legally apply for asylum in… London.
My pal’s wife works for a refugee rehoming charity in Glasgow and was in meltdown yesterday. She’s one of those Lefty types BoJo was warning us about.
Some friends of ours are taking in Ukrainian refugees. They have had three sets of inspectors in their home with a long list of improvements that have to be made.
I assume the facilities in Rwanda will be subject to the same standards. After all, it’s not as if in the UK these people would end up in damp, rat-ridden hovels operated by unscrupulous landlords.