Immigration Changes: changing national legislation and adherence to international treaties?

 

Changing national legislation and adherence to international treaties?

Statements have been made: legislation is going to be changed to allow Britain to overcome legal obstacles to deal with migration.

After the judgement issued by the Supreme Court regarding government agreements with Rwanda about migration management, questions have been raised in terms of how the British government is going to manage to overcome legal obstacles.

We await the texts of new bills that will have to be produced by Parliament to achieve declared aims so that the idea of sending migrants to Rwanda does not become a kind of round trip with people sent to Rwanda being returned by Rwanda to the United Kingdom in order to comply with legislation.

Declaring that Rwanda is a safe country might not be nearly enough if for any reason Rwanda decides to deport migrants back to the United Kingdom. What would be the point of accepting migrants back in Britain? Is this yet another plan destined to fail?

Can anybody come up with a viable plan, instead of proposing yet another gimmick?

In past months, hotels and recreational facilities have been filled up with illegal migrants. Even a barge was acquired to accommodate illegal migrants. Monies were paid to Rwanda for a plan that the Supreme Court declared illegal.

Another political embarrassment? We await with impatience the text of legislation promised by the government that will have to deal with the issue of illegal migration effectively.  

Failure to deliver in this particular scenario when the Prime Minister and Cabinet members have committed themselves so publicly is political suicide.

 

Rwanda: A culturally enriching experience

 

For decades, the Labour Party and others have told us that the arrival of people from Africa, the Middle East, Asia and from other parts of the world was 'a culturally enriching experience' and that we in Europe should consider ourselves fortunate for having the privilege of welcoming people from other parts of the world as a way to improve our own lives and living standards.

But... oh, surprise, as soon as the Conservative government reaches an agreement with Rwanda to channel asylum seekers to Rwanda, the Labour Party and others raise their voices saying that 'sending asylum seekers to Rwanda is the ultimate act of cruelty and an example of barbarity'. What has happened? What happened to the enriching experiences they so much talked about? To me, it sounds like the best example of sheer hypocrisy and not only that. The Labour Party's comments against the idea of sending asylum seekers to Rwanda is absolute racism against Rwanda. Rwanda is an African country. And so what? Aren't the Rwandan peoples' entitled to be treated with respect? I am sure that asylum seekers will have a wonderful experience in one of the most developed African countries.

But then again, criticism is coming from a political organisation riddled with anti-Semites. Having changed a leader does not change the fact that anti-Semitism is very much what charaterizes a Labour Party that hates those who have something as long as they are not members or supporters of the Labour Party and this also speaks volumes about the nature of the Labour Party.