The UK Has Been Attacked By Globalists But The EU And UN Have Done The Same

Graham Charles Lear
6 min readApr 18, 2022

The hypocrisy of open border globalists knows no bounds

As critics — including the UNHCR — attack Johnson and Patel for planning to use Rwanda to house illegal migrants, the hypocrisy of globalists just keeps growing. It transpires that the United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) has itself used Rwanda and Niger to house refugees.

And it was the EU that funded this operation, using funds from its ‘Emergency Trust Fund for Africa’.

In November 2019 on a visit to Rwanda, the EU’s Commissioner for International Cooperation and Development, Neven Mimica, announced a €10.3 million grant for the UNHCR’s Emergency Transit Mechanism (ETM) in the country, to provide accommodation for migrants.

This Rwanda initiative was built on the example of the earlier ETM grant for Niger, through which more than 2,900 refugees and asylum seekers were sent from Libya starting in 2017.

How the EU has funded the UNHCR transfer of migrants in Africa

The EU’s actions include:

  • Thousands of migrants have been resettled in Rwanda and Niger
  • There were more than 610,100 migrants in Libya in September 2021
  • 9 in 10 migrants left their country of origin primarily for economic reasons
  • The majority of migrants (67%) were from Niger, Egypt, Sudan and Chad
  • The EU part-funded this using its ‘Emergency Trust Fund for Africa’

Despite this, Gillian Triggs, Assistant Secretary-General at the UNHCR, described the UK-Rwanda agreement as “unacceptable” and a “troubling development”. This might strike some readers as surprising, given the support the EU gave to the UN in 2019 and even before this.

Neven Mimica, EU Commissioner, in 2019

“This project will support efforts of the Government of Rwanda to receive and provide protection to about 1,500 refugees and asylum-seekers who are currently being held in detention centres in Libya. Such a remarkable and powerful proof of African solidarity should be further encouraged, replicated and supported.”

- Neven Mimica, EU Commissioner for International Development and Cooperation, speaking on 19 November 2019

The Danish government has backed the UK’s decision

On Thursday last week, Denmark’s immigration minister backed the British Government’s new policy of using a third country to house illegal immigrants.

Danish Immigration Minister, Matthias Tesfaye

“I share the view of the Rwandan and British governments that the current asylum system is unsustainable.”

- Danish Immigration Minister, Mattias Tesfaye, speaking to the BBC, 14 Apr 2022

In August last year he was even more forthright about Denmark’s own policies regarding illegal migrants. He said the following about migrants in Denmark:

“My dream is zero asylum seekers in Denmark, I believe that the existing European asylum system cannot be defended either morally or politically.

“The asylum system is used for migration to an extent that our welfare society cannot absorb, and that challenges cohesion in Denmark. That is why we have to get asylum immigration under control.

“We want to get rid of all expenses for the asylum system with lawyers, accommodation, interpreters, and travel home for those who have had their application rejected.”

- Danish Immigration Minister, Mattias Tesfaye, quoted in Swedish journal, Bulletin, 25 Aug 2021

What do other countries do?

DENMARK’s left-of-centre Social Democrat Government passed a law last year allowing it to move asylum seekers to a country outside the EU for processing. It then entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Rwandan Government for cooperation on the issue but has yet to announce anything specific coming out of that agreement.

Last year Denmark also began to revoke the residence permits of hundreds of Syrians, arguing it was now safe for them to return.

ISRAEL announced a scheme back in 2015 that involves deals with a third country “safe havens” which are believed to be Uganda and Rwanda — although the exact countries involved have not been confirmed by the Israeli Government. Illegal immigrants are given the choice of accepting a payment of $3,500 and a plane ticket to one of the third countries, returning to their country of origin or being put in jail if they stay in Israel.

AUSTRALIA started using offshore detention centres in 2001, but in 2013 it toughened its immigration law by denying resettlement visas to asylum seekers arriving by boat. Australia’s Border Force reports more than 4,000 asylum seekers were relocated between 2012 and 2019.

OBSERVATIONS

Double standards are being applied by critics of Priti Patel’s attempt to stop the boat migrants

Four years ago there were fewer than 300 illegal migrants arriving in Britain by boat. Last year it was over 28,000. Something has to be done, as the UK Government's payments to France to stop them from setting off from their shores and apprehending the human traffickers have not prevented the migrant numbers from increasing. Nor has it prevented the appalling deaths at sea.

It’s necessary to be clear: this is a French and EU problem

In all the outrage expressed by people such as the Archbishop of Canterbury, one essential fact is missing. The tens of thousands of illegal migrants are coming from France — a safe country.

In order to reach France, illegal migrants have to enter the EU and then cross internal borders. Some travel through Spain, and many come up through Greece and Italy. All of these countries are safe havens for genuine refugees.

The Rwanda deterrent

The concept of moving the predominantly young, single, male ‘boat people’ to Rwanda is a technical solution that might offer some success in stopping the traffickers. It means the illegal immigrants can, at last, be deported even if they have destroyed their identity documents. Without identity documents, it is practically impossible to get the countries of origin to accept the illegal immigrants are theirs.

It worked for Australia, why not for the UK?

Typically the scheme has come in for a great deal of criticism and yet it enjoys popular support from the public — 47% for versus 26% against, according to a Savanta Com Res poll.

The scheme did not require Brexit to be possible — as the development of a similar scheme by the left-wing Danish Government has shown. It is, however unlikely the UK would have shown the political will to go ahead with the scheme were the UK still in the EU.

It remains to be seen whether it will work but no one else seems to have any workable and legal ideas. Simply turning inflatable craft around risks more fatalities as well as an international incident and possible national humiliation.

In the main, the most vociferous critics are believers of completely open borders and should be disregarded as an extreme minority. Then we have the lawyers who have benefited hugely from the public purse. Once the “refugees” see they are spending money on a one-way ticket to Rwanda, the traffickers may have a problem selling seats on their boats.

Only time will tell — if the whole enterprise isn’t scuppered by our courts and the EU’s Convention on Human Rights, of course…

Sources: EU Commission | UNHCR

--

--

Graham Charles Lear

What is life without a little controversy in it? Quite boring and sterile would be my answer.