Daniel Boffey’s account of those desperate souls attempting to cross the Channel – where five people drowned this week – was one of the most powerful pieces of journalism I’ve read for a long time (‘England is hope’: some say they will try again – despite Channel deaths, 23 April). That it was published on the same day as Rafael Behr’s equally incisive take on the matter (Starmer must drain the poison from the immigration debate – it’s what the public wants, 24 April), as viewed through the prism of domestic politics and attitudes towards immigration here in the UK, seemed all too fitting.
These two articles are two sides of the same coin yet worlds apart, reflecting a toxic duality that seems to be the defining characteristic of this issue – both for those who seek to come here and for those in their prospective new home. Hope and horror coexist – intertwined yet strangers to each other. Ditto pragmatism and principle, feelings and facts, hate and humanity.
But instead of a grownup conversation guided by empirical truth, human understanding and an acceptance of cause and effect on a global scale, the UK continues to indulge in political posturing, game-playing and – most damning of all – a gaping hole where leadership should be.
Yet there are no easy answers. Because we are compromised so deeply by the poison Behr speaks of, I fear that no government of any stripe will ever come to terms with the reality of this ongoing tragedy. But if I were to recommend a remedy, it would start with making Boffey’s piece required reading for anyone in power with a shred of integrity left.
Colin Montgomery
Edinburgh
• As Rishi Sunak and his band of merry sycophants finally force their Rwanda bill through (Report, 23 April), it strikes me that we don’t know who it actually benefits. The prime minister claims it will deter small boats crossing the Channel, even as the Conservatives admit that crossings continue to rise. Many Tory MPs have backtracked on their previous assertions that either Rwanda is unsafe or that the scheme is not going to work. It has done little to improve Sunak’s popularity with voters, certainly not with those on the left. This is not to mention the extraordinary cost of £1.8m per deportee, the practicalities of finding an airline willing to cooperate and the numerous appeals that can be made, putting pressure on an already struggling appeals system. Most significantly though, it uses vulnerable people as political ping-pong balls.
Few people would argue that boat crossings need to be dealt with, but this is not the way. This bill benefits no one, wastes money and solves nothing. The leader of a free country is condemning some of the most powerless people to be used as political fodder for a few votes. It smacks of desperation, despotism and inhumanity.
Daniel Fenton
Peterborough
• So Rishi Sunak is going to spend millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money during a cost of living crisis to deport a handful of people at a time to Rwanda, in an act of performative cruelty that Amnesty International has correctly labelled a “national disgrace”. A policy that was not in the Tory election manifesto, which is deeply unpopular, which does nothing to stop illegal immigration, and which the UN and our supreme court have described as illegal, is going to become law for nothing other than political point-scoring.
This is insanity and a stain on our country. It must be opposed at every step until it is eventually, inevitably repealed by the next government.
Federico Moscogiuri
Hertford
• The debate about the safety of Rwanda bill seems to focus on two questions: will it work and is it too expensive? While these are important, I have different questions. If a refugee sent from the UK to Rwanda is tortured, what will the UK government do, and how will this be enough?
The UK government may say that this will not happen, as it agreed a treaty with Rwanda in December 2023. However, it said at the United Nations in 2021 that Rwanda was still practising torture, 13 years after Rwanda ratified the UN convention against torture. The UNHCR told the UK supreme court that from 2020 to 2022, Rwanda rejected 100% of asylum claims by people from Afghanistan, Syria and Yemen. As Lord Reed and Lord Lloyd-Jones pointed out in the UK supreme court, this was “a surprisingly high rejection rate for claimants from known conflict zones”.
Alwyn Jones
Leicester
• Re Rishi Sunak claiming that there’s an “element of compassion” in the Rwanda bill (Report, 23 April), if compassion was any part of Sunak and his party’s intention, then the vast sums they have spent on this exercise in performative cruelty would have been spent ensuring that potential asylum seekers have a safe and legal route to follow. The Tory party’s actions are vile and inhumane, and their words are nothing but lies and propaganda.
Martin Coult
London
• Have an opinion on anything you’ve read in the Guardian today? Please email us your letter and it will be considered for publication in our letters section.
