The UK has a new plan for illegal immigrants: Send them to Rwanda  

Why not send them to Rwanda?

that's the solution British Conservative Prime Minister Rishi Sunak has endorsed the issue of illegal immigration to the UK.

Granted, Britain's problems are nowhere near as serious as America's, but the government's proposal to send in as many of its 100,000 or so “illegal immigrants” (so-called “illegal immigrants”) as it can find is bizarre. In fact, it sounds like a campaign from before the War of the Atlantic.for the civil war Sending American slaves back to Africa.

Mr Sunak, who is fighting to maintain a conservative majority in the House of Commons in elections later this year, wants about 1,000 people a month to fly to Rwanda, where 14.4 million people make their living mainly from agriculture. .Opposition Labor Party shouted That whole idea is cruel and inhumane.

The House of Commons has just passed a bill declaring Rwanda a safe enough place for the government to approve a treaty with the landlocked East African nation, but the House of Lords, under pressure from Labor, has delay action At least until March. Instead, lords opposed to the plan are calling for elaborate measures to guarantee the safety and rights of those unfortunate enough to be sent there.

“The only question today is whether we can honestly say that Rwanda is a safe country,” said Sir David Alton of Liverpool. declared Debate began in the House of Lords on Monday.evoke memories of massacre Referring to the murder of at least 500,000 members of the Tutsi minority by the country's Hutu majority 30 years ago, Orton spoke out against the country's current human rights situation, including the “political repression and treatment of LGBT people.” I cited the situation.

Rationale for sending illegal immigrants to Rwanda according to This is to “stop people who are already transiting through safe third countries from making the dangerous journey to claim asylum, facilitated by criminal smugglers,” according to a University of Oxford study. An editorial in the conservative newspaper The Daily Telegraph echoed the same broader concerns of US governors and mayors.

“Net immigration is at an all-time high.” Said paper. “It is becoming increasingly clear that the UK's current policy places an intolerable strain on public services, infrastructure and the housing market, not to mention the social fabric that holds our democracy together.”

Even though Sunak begged for his plan, there may not have been a prayer that it would actually work.

“Only one in five voters think Rishi Sunak would send asylum seekers to Rwanda.” i said on the weekend, a leading British tabloid headlined. “Right-wing conservatives believe that the plan is critical to electoral prospects, but a majority of the public argues that the plan will not change their vote and will make them more likely to support their rival. ing.”

Now, the concept of sending “illegal immigrants” to Rwanda differs in one important respect from the US proposal to send millions of illegal immigrants back to their countries of origin. This means that no country considers Rwanda to be their home country. Until recently, many people may have never heard of this place.

They never crossed the borders of neighboring countries. They must all have arrived in Britain through often dangerous crossings in small boats or vehicles ferried across the English Channel from France. Most of them are from Middle East countries It is plagued by insurgency and domestic opposition led by Iran, Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan.

Rwanda has been chosen as a dumping ground for illegal immigrants to Britain after taking in thousands of people from the troubled North African nation.The plan is a bonanza for President Paul Kagame, who has ruled the country for many years, and the country's government has already Over $300 million from the United Kingdom for this program and is set to win an additional $64 million this year.

Remained in power for over 20 years, has a reputation as a corrupt dictatorMr. Kagame has vowed that the UK will please return the money But if the plan is not carried out, aides told Rwanda There is no obligation to give anything back. No one is betting that the British will ever have money again.

Since Britain's Supreme Court ruled in November that the original plan was illegal, Sunak has used much of his political power to force a vote on his new Rwanda Security (Asylum and Immigration) Bill. I'm betting. illegal. The court agreed with a lower court's ruling that if refugees were sent to Rwanda, they risked being returned to their home country, where they could face harsh penalties.

The new bill provides for a more rigorous vetting process, with the option that those rejected by Rwanda could be sent back to the UK. Lord Goldsmith of the opposition Labor Party called for this. stricter guaranteeIt began with Rwanda's adoption of an asylum law and the appointment of independent experts, judges, and advisors to ensure that all people caught up in the government's attempts to crack down on illegal immigration are treated fairly.

Although the proposed system is subject to review, there is no doubt that Britons are just as wary of illegal immigration as nationals of other countries (particularly the US).British leaders may not be able to do that. Capturing illegal immigrants and busing them to another locationAmerican governors as well, but they definitely want to send them a package.

The final tally of approval of the amended bill in the House of Representatives is 320-276, It was seen as a victory for Sunak. Despite the prospects of delay In the House of Lords, a spokesperson said the government should start sending refugees to Rwanda before warmer weather leads to more people trying to cross the English Channel.

When former British Prime Minister Boris Johnson introduced what is sacredly called “ Migration and Economic Development Partnership The bill said that from Jan. 1, 2022, that means “illegal immigrant.”He may now be relocating to Rwanda.”

Over 40,000 He crossed the English Channel illegally last year.

Donald Kirk has been a journalist for more than 60 years, focusing much of his career on conflicts in Asia and the Middle East, including as a correspondent for the Washington Star and Chicago Tribune. He is currently a freelance correspondent covering North and South Korea and is the author of several books on Asian affairs.