The British human rights decision led to unwarranted calls

In the UK, a bill has passed which would allow asylum seekers to be sent to Rwanda while awaiting a decision on their asylum application. However, this hasn't been put into practice just yet, as it requires approval from King Charles first, followed by what are known as human rights activists organizing a trial farce, and then there must be a court decision on the matter.

In the future, we will likely see mass deportations of asylum seekers from Europe to Africa. Additionally, according to the new British law, a potential asylum would only entitle the applicant to stay in Rwanda—not to unsettle British society.

What's particularly interesting about the case is that Prime Minister Rishi Sunak has directly stated that the purpose of enacting the law was to create a deterrent effect on asylum seekers heading to Britain. On the other hand, there has been skepticism in the opposition about its impact on the numbers of people attempting to cross the Channel.

It remains to be seen how the law will impact the numbers of asylum seekers attempting to cross the English Channel. Will it achieve its goal of redirecting the flow of people, or will the previous trend continue, with the difference being that British taxpayer money is used for the nearly 6,500-kilometer flights of arrivals?

The question is pertinent, as according to Britain's own parliamentary institution, the Rwanda program costs nearly two million pounds per asylum seeker sent to Africa. If this estimate holds true, the bill for combating modern-day migration will be considerable.

On the other hand, if the flows of migrants seeking to exploit European social welfare were indeed effectively redirected elsewhere as a result of the decision, London's administration would save significantly more money. Moreover, the process of demographic change in Britain, sometimes referred to as population replacement, would slow down significantly from its current pace. Consequently, Britain's population would remain predominantly European well into the future.

* * *

Today I got to read an article where it was reported that the United Nations and the EU are urging the island nation to reject the bill.

According to the story, Michael O'Flaherty, the director of the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA), expressed that he is "concerned that the Rwanda bill enables the implementation of a policy of removing people to Rwanda without any prior assessment of their asylum claims by the UK authorities in the majority of cases.

The statement raises the question of whether there is a misunderstanding among influential figures in the UN and EU. The explicit intention of the British bill is that the assessment of the spontaneous asylum seekers' protection will be conducted in Rwanda, and thus there is no rational basis for conducting it first in the UK.

According to the same article, Rwanda has expressed satisfaction with Britain's decision and welcomes any potential entrants. This way, they can find a safe place to build their lives, which is ultimately what the international asylum system is about. It's not about the subjective right of all people in the world to settle in Europe and burden its inhabitants' economy or change its culture.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
A white family does not represent real Londoners
Finnish journalist called for British Prime Minister´s head to be placed on London bridge to dry
The arrival of caliphate citizens must be prevented