//Is Rwanda all set up and ready to take the men, women, and children by plane to be ‘ processed’.//
A “government spokesman” said last month it was expected that the first flights would be operated in a “matter of weeks or a small number of months”. So the answer is, probably not. As well as that it has been made clear that families will not be split up (though quite why that should be a concern is mysterious as many of those currently in France had no qualms about abandoning their families when they set off for Europe). And just one more point – the facility in Rwanda can cater for just 100 people – i.e. a little under half of yesterday’s arrivals.
//Last I read the was in fact illegal ?//
//it's legal, the act passed last Thursday.//
Alas the government can do what it likes but the proof of the pudding will come when all avenues of appeal both here and in the ECHR in Strasbourg have been exhausted. M’Learned Friends are already sharpening their pencils in preparation for the first challenges.
//That means none of them reached our coast and were not able disappear into the night to work illegally. They were intercepted and taken into custody.//
You seem to be labouring under a misapprehension, Gromit. These people are not “taken into custody.” They have their details taken and are offered board and lodging together with a weekly pocket money allowance. But there is absolutely nothing to prevent them disappearing into the night. They cannot be held in custody because they have committed no crime (though I would argue that they have, but what I think doesn’t matter – after all I’m only one among the millions paying for this fiasco to continue).
//It is about time Patel resigned in shame. A half decent leader would have sacked her months ago.//
It’s pointless laying the blame on successive Home Secretaries. The only way this problem will be solved is to physically prevent illegal migrants landing on these shores. Once they are here there is not a cat in Hell’s chance of them being deported to Rwanda or anywhere else. The Australian scheme worked because most of the migrants were prevented from landing (thus complying properly with the term “intercepts”). They also do not have a Human Rights Act and are not signatories to the ECHR. Here’s a brief description of their process:
“If a person seeking asylum comes to Australia by boat, an Australian navy ship usually stops (or ‘intercepts‘) the boat. The boat is usually required to ‘turn back’ or can be ‘taken back’ to a third country. If the person is taken on board, the government detains the person for checks.
They are then sent to either Nauru or Manus Island in Papua New Guinea. They are detained there until their refugee claims are decided.”
So when asking for the solution to this invasion, the only thing likely to work is to forcibly prevent the landings. I came up with a perfectly simple scheme a couple of weeks ago where large Royal Navy boats would simply pass in close proximity to the rubber boats, at speed and preferably broadside on. That will prevent the landings. No party that is likely to form a government in the UK will countenance such a measure or anything like it so this will go on until there are no more rubber boats left or the UK becomes a worse place to live than the places these chancers have deserted. And I know where my money would go if asked to wager on which of those eventualities would arise first.