Germany Could Adopt Rwanda Plan Paid for by U.K.
Germany is considering deporting migrants to Rwanda, where it could use asylum facilities paid for by the U.K., after Keir Starmer scrapped the scheme on which the U.K. has already spent at least £318 million. The Telegraph has the story.
Joachim Stamp, Germany’s Migration Commissioner, proposed using Rwanda as a third party country for migrants amid growing pressure on the coalition Government to restrict and deter asylum seekers from entering the EU.
He suggested it could be part of a wider move by the EU to use existing asylum facilities in Rwanda, initially intended for Rishi Sunak’s scheme to deport illegal migrants to the East African nation.
Sir Keir Starmer scrapped the Rwanda scheme immediately after winning the election in July, with the money saved by doing so switched to creating a new Border Security Command with the intention of smashing people-smuggling gangs using anti-terror style powers.
The U.K. has already spent at least £318 million to pay for asylum facilities and boost economic development in Rwanda, which cannot be recouped.
Under Mr. Stamp’s proposal, the asylum procedures in Rwanda would be conducted under the supervision of the United Nations. “We currently have no third country that has come forward, with the exception of Rwanda,” he said in a podcast by Table Media, published on Thursday. …
Members of the opposition CDU party visited Rwanda nine months ago as part of their new policy to process migrants offshore in third party countries.
Leading CDU figures claimed the plans would deter migrants from attempting to cross the Mediterranean and argued that countries such as Rwanda would be willing to make deals.
A spokesman for Rwanda told the Telegraph the country would be open to discussing an asylum deal with Germany, saying: “Rwanda has been very public that they are happy to work with anyone on this who shares their desire to find a long-term solution to the migration issue.”
The German move has, however, sparked a backlash from senior Tory MPs involved in the Rwanda scheme while in Government.
James Cleverly, the Shadow Home Secretary, said: “Labour’s first move in Government was to scrap the Rwanda plan. Now Germany want to use the facilities we built. The only people who benefit from Labour’s reckless immigration policies are people-smugglers and the EU.”
Worth reading in full.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
England 0 – 1 Germany
Starmer threw away our property, folks. And the Germans whip it up. Can’t say I blame em.
Arrogant, ignorant jerk, that Starmer.
I don’t think this will actually be happening. Germany is full of people whose claims for asylum were rejected but whom the German goverment(s) allow to stay nevertheless using a variety of pretexts as German official don’t do deportations and even if they try, the courts usually block this, eg, because deportees could face economic hardship without access to the German welfare system¹.
¹ A bunch of people, many with criminal records, were reportedly recently deported to Afghanistan but given €1000 each in order to accept that. That’s probably quite a bit of money in Afghanistan (guess, I have absolutely no clue if it is).
But they put German nationals in gaol for ‘insulting’ the government or officials.
????????????????
Do remember the Rwanda Agreement states that the UK will accept taking ‘a portion’ of Rwandas own ‘vulnerable refugees’! The Rwanda plan was a ruse to kick the can down the road rather than leave the ECHR or turn the boats back as Reform UK claim was a perfectly legal option. No way would the Rwanda plan stop illegal immigration to the UK and it seems, despite the best attempts by the Tory administration, the public were not taken in.
There is no stoppint it. It is like saying that you can stop the forces of capital. Capitalism will always find a way it is like water. Gaddafi said that if he was vanquished then Europe would be overrun with African migrants within a few years, I am not sure if that was the plan but I suspect it lurked in the lower depths of the overlords minds. Kill off the fattened natives who expect certain standards. Replace them with ya know and Bob’s your uncle.
I won’t be getting my hopes up, that’s for sure. It appears the NGOs, partnering with the people-smugglers, will keep bringing the illegals in way faster than Germany can deport them. And we’ve all seen just how reluctant they are to do that. Anyone would think they don’t want rid of the criminal scumbags;
”Italian authorities have blocked the SeaWatch5 ship of the German NGO Sea-Watch for 20 days. The reason? They picked up a total of 288 illegal immigrants barely 40 nautical miles off the Libyan coast without prior coordination with the Libyan authorities.
Here is the evidence, once again the German NGO goes directly to the south of the Central Mediterranean to position itself in front of the Libyan smugglers’ triangle between Zuara and Tripoli.
From his route it could even be deduced that he tried to make time until the Libyan smugglers chartered a boat with illegal immigrants which they then picked up directly.
Once again it is evident how they continue to create a pull factor and a pull effect in the area. Why only a 20-day blockade? Facilitation of illegal immigration is a crime prosecuted by EUROPOL.”
https://x.com/rubnpulido/status/1831749942672560247
In Germany, even the churches have their own “rescue ships” in the Mediterranean and anyone openly opposed to illegal immigration via this route is routinely smeared as murderer who desires to kill helpless refugees by letting them drown. Since people smuggling is done by organized crime gangs, the suggestion that they also arrange for people pickups by European vessels doesn’t seem far fetched to me.
318 million ! Our Tax Money ! Gross Negligence !
You don’t stand a chance. These people are hungrier and more conditioned to a life of slave labour. That’s all that really matters. Obviously they are conditioned to a harder more radical way of life. Believe me with the current state of physical condition in western countries they will have your guts for garters and it won’t take long. Too late to reverse or stop it now. You can fight and you will find pockets of resistance but the battle is long lost.
You sat back and watched as your country was turned into a toilet. Now you are so debased that you have a lanyard around your neck saying ‘I will be YOUR toilet so use me accordingly’. You have to snap out of this state,.
Was Rwanda ever anything other than a very silly idea? Transportation of any large numbers means hiring aircraft – at great expense – and asylum seekers have always been very successful in avoiding deportation by air, sometimes kicking up such a fuss that fare-paying passengers also demanded they should not be forcefully held on board.
Why on earth should it be so difficult to stop illegal immigration? We are, after all, on an island surrounded by water, akin to a castle surrounded by a deep moat.
The solution is to get out of the grips of the EU’s legal system, which is why we voted for Brexit, and get our diplomats to work on having the EU’s refugees being held within the EU!
It was meant to be a deterrent and it would have worked had it been implemented. No question. All deterrents work by being unpleasant and robustly enforced. That way, they seldom have to be enforced, and are cheap.
Personally I have no problem with the Royal Navy dealing with the small boats robustly as a deterrent. Dead cheap and more becoming of a proper country.
However, even sending the ‘refugees’ to Rwanda proved too much for our lilly livered establishment. But if they had followed through it would have worked and would have been cheap.
Fair comment but why should we dump our problems on Rwanda – apart from the fact we are paying whatever amount was agreed? I would be happy supporting Rwanda financially in a more positive way. But simply transporting people there would always be difficult and expensive.
If people leave France, for example, without proper travel documentation then surely that is France’s problem – why should we pay for it? I would prefer the millions given to Rwanda to be spent on supplying the Royal Navy with sufficient small vessels to intercept all the illegal crossings, whereby the French navy would be requested to escort the people back to their shores. The latter point would require a degree of diplomacy (and probably coercion!) but that is why we have a Foreign Office.
But I agree: whether any politician has the strength or desire to enforce a solution is highly questionable.
It wouldn’t be a problem because we only need to send enough for the boat people to see that we were serious about implementing the policy. If the policy was implemented robustly hardly anybody would end up in Rwanda. It’s a brilliant policy that only failed due to our legal establishment and weak politicians.
Personally I have no problem with the Royal Navy dealing with the small boats robustly as a deterrent. Dead cheap and more becoming of a proper country.
The Coastal Forces Squadron of the RN consists of 17 vessels, three of which are seegoing (River-class offshore patrol vessels) and the remaining 14 (Archer-class fast patrol vessels) only suitable for coastal service. That’s far too little to control even just the English Channel effectively. And there’s still nothing these can legally do unless they’re being attacked.
Change the law and do what it takes.
Considering that the overwhelming majority of immigrants arrive legally, investing a massive amount of money into the RN to stop those relatively few who don’t is very likely not the most sensible course of action.
Assuming this was done, and suitable surveillance system were put into place (AI-assisted evaluation of images taken by geostationary satellites could work), boats could be stopped and searched once they enter British waters. But this still leaves the problem what to do with the people on them. They can only be returned to France if the French authorities are willing to take them which they’re probably not, rather happy to got rid of them. Unless a country of origin can be identified which is willing to take them back, they can’t be deported. They can’t be imprisoned because there’s no space for them and this would only postpone the problem, anyway. They probably absolutely wouldn’t mind to be setteld somewhere where they had to work for a living. The only realistic option is really capital punishment. That’s certainly possible but the UK would probably have to leave the UN first.
I don’t think any of this is going to happen soon, if at all.
You are overthinking this.
Prison would also be a good option. Again, if the deterrent is credible and severe nobody will come and it will cost nothing.
Completely agreed on legal immigration being a bigger issue, though.
The ECHR is not part of the EU and a castle with an unmanned wall and unguarded doors is always easily taken.
Good points!
In an interview on GBNews a few weeks ago Robert Jenrick said the would reintroduce the Rwanda plan when he becomes Prime Minister. In his campaign launch speech last Monday James Cleverley said the same thing. They seem to think that when they win the campaign to become Leader of the Conservative Party they automatically become PM!!
The earliest they will be PM will be if the Conservatives win the election in 2029, 5 years from now. That means they expect that nothing will be done to ‘stop the boats’ during that time and at say 40,000 per year, by then UK will have taken in 200,000 of ’em.
Earlier this year the EU passed its ‘Pact for Migration’ which requires ALL EU Member States to share out the migrants crossing the EU’s external borders. Several sensible states in eastern Europe have refused to participate in this idiocy but the Government of Ireland has signed up to it. So migration into Ireland will continue with many predictable results – one of which is that criminal trafficking gangs will set themselves up to transport migrants across the border into Northern Ireland. The UK therefore gets invaded from two directions.