I have been reporting on the illegal immigration invasion and the Rwanda proposal for some time on my own British Patriot substack blog. Here is my most recent article:
Hello - if people can be actually got to Rwanda the total number can be scaled - I have heard more than hundreds suggested. There's uncertainty about how many people would have to go for it to work as a deterrent. I do think we should also do other things, not just have Rwanda as the only option. While the Albania deal is good, I don't see other similar deals out there adding up to "stopping the boats" without a Rwanda like deterrent
I agree with some of what you say but the elephant you haven't dealt with here is that the Rwanda scheme is fundmanetally impractical - even if you disagree with the Supreme Court judgment that it is unsafe ("the Rwandan government definitely isn't perfect" might be the understatement of the year...)
There is only enough capacity in the Rwandan system to take more than a few hundred UK asylum seekers. Your ally in this cause, Nick Timothy, acknowledged in his CPS paper that would not be enough to act as an effective deterrent, especially given how desperate people coming to the UK are.
So putting aside all political, legal, and ethical issues, it still wouldn't resolve the problem, and it would fail to do so at enormous cost (the conservative Home Office estimate being £170k per asylum seeker).
What has worked in the last year is the Albania deal, which has reduced small boat numbers from 2023 by around a third. These kinds of agreements are slow and laborious but they actually have an impact, and that route could be pursued with other countries to which return is at the moment, very difficult.
I have been reporting on the illegal immigration invasion and the Rwanda proposal for some time on my own British Patriot substack blog. Here is my most recent article:
https://britishpatriot.substack.com/p/rwanda-the-supreme-madness
Do come and have a look!
Hello - if people can be actually got to Rwanda the total number can be scaled - I have heard more than hundreds suggested. There's uncertainty about how many people would have to go for it to work as a deterrent. I do think we should also do other things, not just have Rwanda as the only option. While the Albania deal is good, I don't see other similar deals out there adding up to "stopping the boats" without a Rwanda like deterrent
I agree with some of what you say but the elephant you haven't dealt with here is that the Rwanda scheme is fundmanetally impractical - even if you disagree with the Supreme Court judgment that it is unsafe ("the Rwandan government definitely isn't perfect" might be the understatement of the year...)
There is only enough capacity in the Rwandan system to take more than a few hundred UK asylum seekers. Your ally in this cause, Nick Timothy, acknowledged in his CPS paper that would not be enough to act as an effective deterrent, especially given how desperate people coming to the UK are.
So putting aside all political, legal, and ethical issues, it still wouldn't resolve the problem, and it would fail to do so at enormous cost (the conservative Home Office estimate being £170k per asylum seeker).
What has worked in the last year is the Albania deal, which has reduced small boat numbers from 2023 by around a third. These kinds of agreements are slow and laborious but they actually have an impact, and that route could be pursued with other countries to which return is at the moment, very difficult.