THERE are two major aspects of the government’s policy of deporting migrants to Rwanda which have not been fully considered.
Serious doubt has been expressed by people in government about the lack of forethought and research which has gone into the Rwanda project. The Home Office Permanent Secretary has stated: “I do not believe sufficient evidence can be obtained to demonstrate that the policy will have a deterrent effect significant enough to make the policy value for money.” In other words, the whole project may seem like a good idea by Priti Patel but she has not attempted to assemble the evidence to justify that view.
All the cost of this ill-considered “experiment” will be borne by the British taxpayer with an initial costing of £120 million. The ongoing cost will potentially be an open-ended drain on the British economy when its people are already struggling with rapidly spiralling prices.
READ MORE: Wee Ginger Dug: Unionist hypocrisy on indyref2 rule of law is off the scale
Conservative former minister Andrew Mitchell said housing asylum seekers at the Ritz Hotel would be cheaper than sending them offshore, claiming the cost to the British taxpayer would be £2m per person, per year.
Yet remarkably, many European countries actually take TEN times as many asylum seekers as Britain without needing to sending them to African dictatorships!
There are other serious issues – sending hundreds, potentially thousands of migrants to Rwanda, a country best known for the 1994 genocide of up to 800,000 Tutsi people, a country which also still has a mixed human rights record, seems a very risky strategy.
Human Rights Watch reported in 2020 that “the ruling Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF) … regularly threaten those who criticise the government or RPF. Several opposition members and one journalist have disappeared or been found dead in mysterious circumstances”. Amnesty International says there are still concerns over “enforced disappearances, allegations of torture and excessive use of force” in Rwanda.
READ MORE: UK's Ukraine refugee response slammed by SNP MP at global migration conference
Rwanda remains unstable, still scarred by its horrendous genocide. Our government seeks to forcibly funnel hundreds, thousands of migrants, most extremely disaffected, into this environment. A potent recipe for further destabilisation of that country. This is grossly irresponsible!
Charles Moore, former editor of The Telegraph and Johnson’s former boss, observed, “you always knew precisely where you stood with Boris because he always lets you down!” Now he and Priti Patel are letting down the whole country!
Such a neo-colonialist policy for disposing of unwanted individuals has a long history. English social problems (convicts) were first shipped to North America in the 18th century, and then later, after the American War of Independence, to Botany Bay in Australia.
The then inhabitants – first the Native Americans and then later the Australian Aboriginals – had no say in this forced immigration. There was serious friction between the two groups. The parachuting in of migrants into Rwanda allegedly solves a political problem in England but only at the potential expense to Rwanda society. Rwanda is in one of the most densely populated areas in the world and its capital, Kigali, is set to double its population by 2050.
READ MORE: Calls for inquiry into UK asylum system mount as figures show deaths rising in Scotland
But the long-term impact of Johnson and Patel’s ill-considered policies, designed to generate short-term headlines in the UK, has never bothered them. The impact on the migrants and Rwanda does not interest the self-absorbed pair of political chancers. Dragging Britain’s reputation in the dirt does not matter to them!
It is noteworthy that a law-breaking immigrant was sent to Rwanda recently. There is a grave danger he will worm his way back into the country. The majority of people in this country have shown they don’t want this American-born individual in England – Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson! If he thinks Rwanda is such a good idea for migrants, he should stay there!
Andrew Milroy
Trowbridge
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here