Pie in the Sky Policy: Royal Air Force and U.S. Would Oppose Offshoring Migrants to Atlantic Island

Members of the public watch as migrants sit onboard an inflatable boat before attempting t
Getty Images
Oliver JJ Lane

Yet another non-starter for the UK ‘Conservative’ government, now well known for eye-catching migrant policy that ultimately amounts to nothing, as a bid to divert attention from its failing Rwanda policy too meets resistance from within the state.

The Royal Air Force and the United States government, who are perhaps the most prominent users of the volcanic mid-South-Atlantic Ascension Island for its strategically important air base and radio arrays would be against the newly revived idea of offshoring migrants there, a report claims.

Although Ascension Island is a British Overseas Territory and the UK government is responsible for its foreign and military policy, the military services that have been the main users of the outcrop for nearly a century appear to feel clear ownership and would obstruct such a plan, The Times says. The U.S. would not want migrants near its space-tracking equipment — Ascension is one of a small chain of land stations for the GPS system — and the Royal Air Force says it has better things to do than transport migrants pending processing to the South Atlantic, it is claimed.

Although the government could theoretically charter civilian aircraft for the flight — as it does with normal migrant deportations — The Times reports the military authorities on Ascension don’t want civilian aircraft landing there anyway.

The Ascension plans are just the latest in a long line of proposals and plans put out by the government which, while headline-grabbing, never appear to materialise to much, if anything. For some critics, including Brexit leader Nigel Farage, the unusual quality of some of the ideas put forward leaves the impression that the government is willing to do anything to deal with mass migration except reduce the number of arrivals.

While the Ascension plan was re-floated yesterday, it was first discussed during the Boris Johnson government in 2020, when it was dropped over being unrealistically expensive. In the meanwhile, the UK’s Conservative Party government has proceeded with the so-called Rwanda plan, a move to offshore migrants while they are processed for potential asylum status to the African nation of Rwanda.

Because the cost of living is dramatically lower in Rwanda than in the United Kingdom — where the government is spending millions of pounds a day to host migrants in hotels and has even rented an accommodation ‘floatel’ barge to house 500 — it was thought it would be cheaper for the taxpayer to pay the Rwandan government to house and feed migrants awaiting decisions. Yet the plan was challenged through the courts by activists who strongly believe migrants belong in Britain, and to date not a single individual has been housed in Rwanda.

COMMENTS

Please let us know if you're having issues with commenting.