←

Diary of a (Maybe) Retired Pastor

Tag: rwanda

  • Migrants – Who Are the Real Criminals?

    mayberetiredpastor

    Migrants – Who Are the Real Criminals?

    28 Every third year you shall bring out the full tithe of your produce for that year, and store it within your towns; 29 the Levites, because they have no allotment or inheritance with you, as well as the resident aliens, the orphans, and the widows in your towns, may come and eat their fill so that the Lord your God may bless you in all the work that you undertake.

    Deuteronomy 14:28-29

    Last week, the BBC featured an article in which they tracked down the person who provided the boat in which a young girl was suffocated as her family tried (with scores of others) to reach the UK from Calais. This was but one tragic story amongst the many as desperate people risk all to reach the UK. This particular story stood out because video footage was captured of the little girl with her father  getting into the boat. They had been living in Sweden and the children had been happily settled there for years but then they were deported (1). The moving interviews of the distraught father were a illustration of just how badly wrong our immigration system (or lack of it!) is.

    The identification and running down of the smuggler (2) was an impressive piece of investigative journalism but one was left wondering what was the point?  It would not solve the family’s problems or the sadness of the siblings. It would not alter the fact that people will continue to attempt the hazardous journey across the Channel. Unquestionably, the smuggler and others like him are exploiting a situation where they offer hope to desperate people, but the smugglers have not created the situation – they merely exploit it.

    The language which is used of irregular migrants frames the issue as a legal matter. So, people providing the means of transport across the Channel are smugglers, migrants adopting irregular means of entry are illegal, and – under legislation proposed and carried out under the now last UK government – such migrants run the risk of immediate deportation to a third country (the Rwanda plan) and are treated effectively as criminals such that they are detained, denied work, and potentially, permanently denied the right to apply for entry to the UK. Making this a matter of criminal law conveniently provides a framework for justifying the exclusion of migrants regardless of circumstances and avoiding our moral responsibility to another human being. They are criminals and so they are at fault. We, on the other hand, have no fault and so are free of moral obligation.

    The UK, of course, is not alone in this approach. Europe and the US, bastions of the liberal, democratic order, take the same approach. It is a convenient washing of the hands, an excuse for refusing to develop decent, humane, well thought-out immigration policies that address the desperate circumstances of migrants and fairness to the resident population. It enables us to turn a blind eye to the underlying causes of international poverty, inequality and the impact of power politics by the self-same nations and their rivals.

    Returning to the specific issue of the Calais migrants, it baffles me that we (the UK) do not simply set-up a visa processing unit close to the migrant camps. Surely that would be cheaper than deploying boats to police the Channel, paying the French police to monitor (not very effectively) the beaches, and building a big fence! This would remove the need for migrants to make the hazardous crossing and eliminate the opportunity for the smugglers and, perhaps, no more little girls will need to suffocate at the bottom of an overcrowded small boat.

    1. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-68930088 acc. 6 Jul 24 13:26
    2. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx77l5ej2yyo acc. 6 Jul 24 13:28

  • Abolish the House of Commons and not the House of Lords!

    mayberetiredpastor

    Abolish the House of Commons and not the House of Lords!

    So, surprise, surprise, the Rwanda Bill has become law with none of the amendments proposed by the House of Lords having been incorporated. The amendments inserted by the Lords sought to ensure that our country respects international law and protect fundamental matters of individual justice. The Lords pushed the process to the limit of their powers. They were clearly unhappy with the shape of the bill as presented by the government. But the Rwanda Bill has become so much the lynch pin of the government’s immigration policy that no amendments by the House of the Lords which, in their view, will “weaken” (i.e make less unjust!) it could be accepted, and, inevitably, the government has forced it through the House of Commons and it is now law.

    Some people will think “what’s the point of the House of Lords then?” and then think that the Lords needs radical reform even abolition. Certainly, many think that the unelected Lords does not sit well within a democratic society. Such views are mistaken. Of all the institutions  of our democracy the House of the Lords is the one that actually works! In its present form, it is intended to review and revise proposed legislation by the House of Commons. It is appointed and not elected so that it can draw together individuals who have deep experience of the many areas of civic life and expertise in the many areas of our society. It runs an “expert” and “well-informed” eye over proposed legislation and proposes amendments to improve or safeguard important principles. This is exactly what the Lords did with the Rwanda Bill. Just because the Commons decided to reject the amendments by the Lords does not mean that it has failed of its purpose. And, precisely because the Lords is unelected, the Commons always has the last word.

    Contrary to what most people think, the least democratic and least effective institution in our democracy is the House of Commons. We think we are electing MP’s to represent our views. This is false. We are not electing representatives, we are electing voting fodder for the political parties. MPs do not vote on legislation because they think it is good or right, they vote because they are told to vote by their parties. Hence, we have seen that no amendments seriously reducing the arbitrary powers of the Rwanda Bill have passed in the Commons because the Tory MPs were told to vote for it by the government. The House of Commons is not a democratic institution. It is a machine designed to provide a democratic gloss for government legislation.