“Our immigration system is broken, and we have to be honest about that. Whether you believe that migration should be high or low, we can all agree that it should be legal and controlled.
“Right now, the system is chaotic, with law-abiding citizens seeing boats full of illegal immigrants coming from the safe country of France, with our sailors and coastguards seemingly powerless to stop them.
“It must stop, and if I am prime minister, I will stop it,” he said.
With Truss gone and Sunak in charge, he will likely revisit his to-do list, sending a clear message as he has done with the reinstatement of Suella Braverman as home secretary.
READ | ‘Permanent interference’: DRC, Rwanda again at loggerheads over claims that Kigali aids M23 rebels
Braverman had, in leaked emails, described the Rwanda deal as her “dream and obsession”.
Anti-deportation activists last week got a reprieve after Privilege Style, a Spanish airline, pulled out of its contract with the UK government to fly deportees to Rwanda.
This happened after an incident at the World Aviation Festival in Amsterdam during the first week of October.
During one of the panel discussions, refugee activists jumped on stage to protest against the airline’s involvement in the Rwanda deportation deal.
A letter shared by the UK Guardian, attributed to the airline, and addressed to the charity Freedom from Torture, reads, “[The airline] wishes to communicate the following: that it will not operate flights to Rwanda in the future. That it has never flown to Rwanda since the one flight scheduled for June 2022 [which is the reason for this controversy] was suspended.”
The flight, which cost the UK government about R10.4 million was cancelled at the last minute following a decision by the European Court of Human Rights.
“We will never operate the flight to Rwanda since the one scheduled in June 2022, the reason for this controversy, was suspended and never flew,” the airline stated.
That means the UK should look for another airline if the deportation plan resumes.
How the UK public feel about immigration
A report titled Shifting views: Tracking attitudes to immigration in 2022 released by Ipsos Group and British Future, two organisations that work to understand public attitudes, noted that “while four in 10 people (42%) want immigration to be reduced, more people would prefer it not to be reduced – either remaining at current levels (26%) or increasing (24%)”.
The report also indicates that “more than twice as many people would increase rather than decrease migration for people coming to the UK to work as seasonal fruit and vegetable pickers, care workers, doctors, and nurses.
“More than half the public wants more doctors and nurses from overseas; 45% want more fruit-pickers and 44% more care workers. Fewer than one in five support reducing immigration to any of these roles.”
Regarding the Rwanda deal, the public was divided over the government’s controversial Rwanda asylum scheme, with 21% strongly opposed and 21% strongly supportive. Overall, 40% say they support the scheme and 33% say they are opposed.
However, the majority of the public (52%), including 43% of Conservative supporters, do not believe the Rwanda scheme will reduce the number of people coming to the UK without permission to seek asylum.
Just over a third of the public (36%) believes the scheme will reduce the number of people coming to the UK without permission to seek asylum.
Only a quarter of the public (25%) and a minority of Conservative supporters (38%) believe the Rwanda scheme will be cost-effective. The majority of the public (55%) believes it is unlikely to provide good value for money.
“The debate about asylum and Channel crossings is more polarised. Most people want something to be done about Channel crossings. But there is no public majority in support of the Rwanda scheme as the answer: most people think it will be ineffective and a waste of money,” said Sunder Katwala, director of British Future.
The News24 Africa Desk is supported by the Hanns Seidel Foundation. The stories produced through the Africa Desk and the opinions and statements that may be contained herein do not reflect those of the Hanns Seidel Foundation.