The media is lying: Channel crossings are not comparable to Ukrainian refugees
An offshore facility is a logical move that other nations in our unique position would also consider.
Channel 4, Sky News, the BBC and Good Morning Britain (collectively the Labour Party’s press wing) have found a new drum of moral outrage to beat until your ears are deafened.
The Government, after an apparent nine-month negotiation, have secured a deal with Rwanda for an offshore processing facility. There are legitimate questions regarding human rights and costs to be raised, and the pressure will be on to maintain standards that the UK Government agreed upon in principle. However, there have been legion amounts of false equivalence to get the UK public up in arms about this new move, and the issue of border control altogether. The open border liberal zeitgeist has successfully deployed misinformation to shift your thinking, and according to YouGov, it may have worked for the average TV viewer (although polls are never to be fully believed).
For a start, Adil Ray of GMB and others have bleated that we are hypocritical in claiming to be welcoming to Ukrainian refugees but sending people to Rwanda on arrival. However Ukrainian refugees are fleeing a warzone and are automatically registered as genuine refugees, with processing taking place after their arrival. The speed of processing can often be an unfortunate hurdle, however they are not on the same level as an adult male and economic migrant who had enough money in their pockets to pay a people smuggler to cart them over – with a likely promise of a below minimum wage off-the-books job on the other end.
It’s tragic to see such desperation, and criminal gangs exploiting people to make an unsafe journey. Although, we cannot continue accommodating hundreds (and sometimes even thousands) of people a day, plus any disincentive to making that unsafe journey could go a long way to stopping Channel tragedies that we have already seen before. Everyone working in border force will tell you the current situation is utterly unworkable. 28,000 plus crossed last year alone, and not from a war-torn country but instead from a safe country: France. France being the nation that has violated its agreements and failed to assist Britain in the heavy burden of accommodating illegal migrants, another cog in the wheel of dumping a moral responsibility on the UK and bleating when we do not burden that responsibility entirely.
Furthermore, not everyone will be sent to Rwanda. That is simply false. Deterrence is a genuine tool that other nations such as Denmark and Australia have used to reduce the flow, the UK is simply following suit with an established precedent.
To accuse the Government of cackling evilly and not caring about refugees when we have accepted thousands of Hong Kongers, 25,000 Syrians and an increasing number of Ukrainians, is an argument that does not hold water against the facts. We all should be holding their feet to the fire on this policy endeavour, but on the surface an offshore facility is a logical move that other nations in our unique position would also consider.
