Some very basic, common-sense about the illegal migration crisis facing the UK

I do not have all the answers, but some of these issues have clearly not been treated to any basic reasoning:

Rwanda – how can it ever work? Surely, for it to be an effectively deterrent, then it will need to fail and Rwanda will need to be an absolute hell-hole of a destination right? Because if it works, and people trying to enter the UK illegally without just cause get deported to Rwanda and end up with an awesome life and do well there, then many more will be happy to make the journey to the UK illegally, to get deported to Rwanda. Now, if Rwanda doesn’t work and it becomes a hellish nightmare for anyone sent there, then, you do have an effective deterrent BUT, is that what we would want to spend taxpayers money on? But if assuming Rwanda works, we have already seen what happens in African countries where newcomers thrive e.g. Liberia, Sierra Leone; it riles the locals and you could end up with genocide or wars due to the discontent of those locals. As such, to make this Rwanda thing work, you would first have to lift all Rwandans out of poverty so that they do not risk getting jealous of what the UK-deportees get. But the minute you succeed in improving life for existing Rwandans, surely, they will then not be interested in their country being the dumping ground for migrants deported from the U.K. right? So, I simply cannot see any positive outcome here…

What do migrants come to the UK for? surely not the weather! So, safety, and for some (economic migrants, which is nothing illegal) to make quick cash. Many of those in government today, have parents who came to the UK for either of those reasons. So, what can reduce migrants coming here? Could it be that perhaps if they find safety elsewhere and are able to make money elsewhere? —— could that “elsewhere” be where they are from? ——- I think sooner or later, it will be clear to the whole world, that the only way to deal with illegal migration, people smuggling etc., same as dealing with drugs, is to address the source; address the reasons behind it. With drugs, we do not wish to address the source of ‘demand’, but spend effort trying to address the supply. Similarly, with illegal migration, or migration in general, we know that if we make wars illegal and totally unacceptable and if we can help the whole world develop and progress, more people will be happy where they are and won’t get displaced etc. But hey! Nobody wants to hear that. It’s too leftish! It’s socialist thinking. Let them fend for themselves. Let the markets dictate. Let the strongest survive etc.

One thing is clear, it undermines the UK, if people can just cross in via boats across the channel. It is a breach that must be addressed. Could technology be the answer? There must be a way to secure our borders, perhaps a mid-sea or mid-channel floating processing centre and drones with cameras and other gadgets that detect entry and we can get people duly processed at floating centres (safe, secure and healthy conditions) on the channel. Or come up wi5 a global satellite that remotely maps and collects all our details remotely (so we don’t have to tag people) and as such, can remotely confirm where each individual have been and where they have come from etc. (so that applications can me processed accurately and quickly). While in parallel, we try to resolve the wider issues.

There must be humane options to address this, without us losing our humanity. Afterall, these are people too. The terms ‘migrant’, ‘illegal migrants’ etc., need not strip their humanity away. Yes, it has been a headache and there doesn’t appear to be a solution, but we must try to find a humane solution…