Illegal Migration Bill / Rwanda Policy

• The Government’s so-called  Rwanda Plan is legally, morally and practically unworkable. It is clear that it is more about grabbing headlines than stopping dangerous crossings.
• Ineffective: A lifetime ban is unlikely to deter any people already risking their lives and provides no detail on  how they will address the key driver of these crossings; that the government has closed safe and established routes for asylum seekers.
• As with threats to break international law over the Northern Ireland Protocol, this does little to improve Britain’s standing in the world and emboldens authoritarian regimes (E.g China cited the NI Protocol when responding to British criticism of their treatment of Hong Kong)
• Even if you want to  ignore our moral duty to help people fleeing war, famine and persecution, it’s madness that we aren’t welcoming more people into our workforce, as the UK struggles with Brexit induced Labour shortages. It’s also more expensive to keep them in hotels for years rather than allow them to work, pay taxes and contribute to society.
• What we need 1. End the demonisation to asylum seekers and refugees 2. Safe routes for people to apply for asylum without needing to undertake dangerous sea crossings 3. Humane treatment and quick processing for those that do

Supportive stats 

• When Suella Braverman’s appearance at the home affairs committee she and her staff could not name how a person fleeing persecution in Africa could reach family in the UK
• UK has very low number of asylum seekers compared to other European countries 8 per 10,000 people compared to 23 in Germany or 43 in Austria
• Large majority (76%) of UK asylum applications are approved, demonstrating that talk of illegitimate claimants is overblown. Indeed the government all but admitted this with their blanket approvals to clear the backlog
• Over 40,000 asylum seekers have been waiting 1-3 years for claims to be processed; that is the fault of the Home Office – (The Guardian, Nov 2022)
• Two thirds of those who crossed the channel last year would qualify for asylum and half were from Afghanistan, Eritrea, Sudan or Syria. Arrivals from these countries are 98% successful in their applications for asylum. – Refugee Council
• Many of those arriving are from Afghanistan who were abandoned by the UK after they helped us. They can’t apply for this route in Afghanistan, they have to escape the country and find a country with a UN camp. We must not turn our backs on them again.

Previous reactive lines: 

Naomi Smith on the Illegal Migration Act:  “Today is a dark day. This cruel bill will now give the Government the green light to flout international law and mistreat refugees to distract from their own failure to fix the problems they created when ministers closed safe routes to asylum. This policy is not only morally repugnant, it is totally unworkable; with no agreement with a safe third country it simply creates the need for the government to detain a growing pool of people at great cost to the taxpayer rather than allowing them to rebuild their lives here.”

Naomi Smith on the Rwanda Plan: “This cruel and unworkable  scheme has already cost the taxpayer millions. And for what? It has failed as a deterrent. The Government must reopen safe routes as the only way to address dangerous channel crossings and help people fleeing death, torture and persecution.”

Naomi Smith on immigration generally: “Immigration is good for our economy and our society and should be part of any effective economic plan alongside investment in skills. It’s baffling that some demand that we cut immigration while our economy is still stunted by chronic labour shortages that Brexit has made worse.”