There are many countries on earth where people wouldn’t so easily tolerate thousands of people a month making a mockery of border security. Britain is one such country, but the government’s efforts to halt “irregular” crossings of the English Channel have run straight into the determination and dauntlessness of the people attempting to make the crossing.
This isn’t a brand-new idea: Rwanda has made similar deals in the past with Denmark and Israel. Conceptually, it’s no different than Canada’s Safe Third Country Agreement with the United States. The only difference is distance: Whereas Canada sends asylum-seekers who arrive at official land border crossings back to America to make their asylum claims — but not those who sneak across, amazingly enough — Britain would put them on a 6,500-kilometre flight to the heart of Africa.
With a comprehensive rethink of how developed nations manage global crises — a shift from “how many people can we bring here?” to “how many people can we help make safer?” – global migration management could conceivably become a lot more coherent and humane.A very diverse crowd of Brits and others are absolutely appalled by the Rwanda plan, of course. The opposition hates it: Shadow home secretary Yvette Cooper called it “unworkable, unethical and extortionate.
Ok.. thats a fake pic... probably virtue signaling journos... most Roxham rd crossers are not well dressed whites. Most are Africans or Jamaicans..
Putin can send Russian agents via Roxham road no problem
They can come in but unvaccinated can’t leave
Diversity strikes again!
How about enforcement of our borders integrity? There’s a bloody idea.
Our immigration affairs are currently a disgrace. Did everyone get two year’s paid vacation?
Most are economic refugees who don't qualify 4 status. That doesn't stop them, working with sympathetic legal counsel, from being a little creative with the stories they plan on telling the Board. And then there's a right to appeal and then seek leave to FC for review. Drags on.
Back to dog whistling