It’s time for the people who are opposed to the Rwanda asylum scheme to come up with a workable alternative or shut up and get on board with it.
This weekend we saw an astonishing intervention from the Archbishop of Canterbury who essentially branded the scheme un-Godly.
I personally think that continuing with a system that turns people smugglers into multi, multi-millionaires and leads to women and children drowning in the busiest shipping lane in the world is un-Godly.
British Home Secretary Priti Patel shakes hands with Rwandan Foreign Minister Vincent Birutaare after signing the partnership agreement at a joint news conference in Kigali.
JEAN BIZIMANA
Where in the Bible does it say that we must have open borders?
The fact is our current approach isn’t working. It’s unsustainable and changes had to be made.
If the Archbishop is being honest, I suspect he actually doesn’t really believe in borders and would happily welcome anybody who wanted to move to the UK and allow them to stay here forever.
But there appears to be a bit of a mental block when it comes to the reality of the situation.
Those calling this inhumane and unethical seem to all have the view that every one of the people coming across the Channel are fleeing war and are genuine asylum seekers.
Archbishop of Canterbury.
Stefan Rousseau
In reality, many of them deliberately destroy their passports so we can’t tell where they’re from and have travelled through numerous safe countries before paying a people smuggler thousands of pounds to come to England – i.e. many are economic migrants.
The people who claim this new policy is unethical should consider the ethics of the current situation. In the middle of a cost of living crisis the taxpayer is forking out £4.6m-a-day to put these people up in hotels.
The Home Office is going to start commandeering private rental properties across the country, meaning that people who’ve been on housing waiting lists could find themselves homeless for longer, and low income families will be priced out of the market. Is that ethical?
People will mention the cost of the Rwanda scheme, but I think that misses the point – it’s supposed to be a deterrent. It’s an initial outlay that is designed to save us a lot of money in the future.
It’s not just Boris Johnson and Priti Patel who have to take responsibility for this policy, frankly, it’s those on the opposition benches as well. Keir Starmer hasn’t got a solution, has he? He hasn’t suggested an alternative. Why? Because he hasn’t got one, and neither does anyone else.
It’s always easier to make somebody else make a decision and then criticise it afterwards. But that’s not leadership.
I think people criticising this scheme need to be honest with us: a) in their heart of hearts do they actually believe in complete open borders and unlimited migration. Because if so, then they’d criticise any policy and, frankly, their idea is unworkable. Or b) Have they got a better idea? If the answer to the first question is yes and the second question is no, then they should just pipe down.
