Migrant plan is a costly boondoggle
Home secretary Priti Patel overrode objections from civil servants to press on with her plan to send migrants who seek asylum in Britain to Rwanda, says Sebastian Payne in the Financial Times. She faced criticism from opposition politicians and human-rights groups, and from Justin Welby, the archbishop of Canterbury, who called the plans “ungodly”.
That’s understandable, but misses the point, says David Goodhart on Unherd. The plan is “designed to be a gamechanger”. Whatever the protestations of high-minded people, no democratic country can live with 50,000 people a year entering illegally in “such dramatically visible fashion”. The ongoing influx “undermines faith in government and the whole immigration system”. And Patel’s plan, if implemented successfully, would not have to last long. As soon as asylum seekers coming to the UK see that they will end up in central Africa, not London, they will stop trying to come, and stay in Europe, which is where all of them are coming from. This is what happened when Australia implemented a similar policy.
Perhaps – but how likely is it to be implemented successfully, wonders Stephen Daisley in The Spectator. The plan worked for Australia as it could turn back arrivals to countries that were cooperating with or at least tolerating the policy. France will do neither. That will mean sending lots of people to Rwanda. Costs will escalate. Legal challenges and opposition from the backbenches, the Lords and civil society will further complicate things. Putting the plan into action would require a prime minister dedicated to making it work, spending whatever is needed, whipping his party into line and clearing all practical and legal impediments. A review of Boris Johnson’s record in government and his stated views give us reason to doubt this will happen. This is a “costly boondoggle of a policy” that is likely to flounder due to lack of will on the part of the PM.