The UK’s wild version of our ‘Remain in Mexico’ policy for asylum seekers

0

Australia, I believe, has initiated a policy of making asylum seekers wait in a third country while their case is being considered, a deliberately lengthy process. It used the tiny island republic of Nauru, once more or less Australian territory, and an island off neighboring New Guinea, a former British colony.

We have done the same with illegal aliens seeking asylum in the United States, recently detaining them in neighboring Mexico, a nation through which they traveled. We have been known in the past to use our naval base at Guantanamo for processing Haitians.

Now the UK is doing something similar with asylum seekers caught crossing the Channel illegally, but its program is far more drastic than anything the US or Australia has done.

The UK sends asylum seekers to a third country, but not to a neighboring country. The location is Rwanda, in Central Africa, across the equator. Additionally, Rwanda is not on the sea, as other nations are, and it was never a British colony, having respectively had pre-WWI Germany and later Belgium as colonial powers. The distance between London and Rwanda is over 6,000 miles.

Nobody can claim in this case that the asylum seekers passed through Rwanda on their way to the United Kingdom.

I guess Rwanda was the closest country to the UK to accept some sort of cash offer to take in asylum seekers. The process by which the UK reached this agreement must have been interesting. Loads of former British colonies had to say ‘no thanks’ to this.

The decision for a “temporary” location for asylum seekers was, of course, designed to discourage people from taking small boats from Europe to the UK. He was greeted with contempt by pro-migration forces and, according to the Guardian some Interior Ministry staff have threatened to strike over the issue.

Share.

About Author

Comments are closed.