Rishi Sunak relaunches plans to send asylum seekers to Rwanda

I've never seen the Rwanda deal as anything more than about grabbing positive headlines in certain newspapers. I'm simply not convinced it will substantially deter people from entering the UK to claim asylum or result in many being transported there.

We are being pummelled by high taxes, we are seeing our public services crumble due to lack of investment or reform, we have seen economic stagnation over the last decade and more. Conservatives don't seem all that exercised about these big issues but the hill that they are willing die on is sending a small proportion of asylum seekers to Rwanda.

Would a Conservative supporter be willing to explain why Rwanda is the fundamental issue for them right now?

What I personally find telling is that at the start of the bill, James Cleverly states that he is unable to declare that the bill is compatible with the ECHR. (For information, a declaration as to whether a bill is compatible or whether the minister is unable to make a declaration of compatibility is required under s19 of the Human Rights Act 1998).

If the bill passes in its present form, all I can see this resulting in is lengthy court battles, particularly with the European Court of Human Rights. If that were to happen then it is also possible that the Supreme Court might make a declaration of incompatibility. In theory this should result in the government asking parliament to amend the offending legislation, but it is highly doubtful the government would do this given how hard Sunak is pushing this policy.

I also find it hypocritical that the government is trying to push through legislation that is clearly going to result in human rights breaches if passed. The UK was a key player in introducing the ECHR - British MP and lawyer Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe led the drafting and UK was the first country to ratify the ECHR in 1951. The UK also freely entered into the Refugee Convention and the United Nations' ban on torture, which are both pieces of international law the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill will force the courts to ignore when considering appeals. It feels like the government just believes it can do what it likes and ride roughshod over the obligations that the UK not only signed up for but was instrumental in creating!

I've never seen the Rwanda deal as anything more than about grabbing positive headlines in certain newspapers. I'm simply not convinced it will substantially deter people from entering the UK to claim asylum or result in many being transported there.

We are being pummelled by high taxes, we are seeing our public services crumble due to lack of investment or reform, we have seen economic stagnation over the last decade and more. Conservatives don't seem all that exercised about these big issues but the hill that they are willing die on is sending a small proportion of asylum seekers to Rwanda.

Would a Conservative supporter be willing to explain why Rwanda is the fundamental issue for them right now?

I feel like the melodrama about whether specific treaties or all treaties should be disregarded is not really seeing the wood from the trees, and it's bizarre to hear those politicians who don't think the bill goes far enough to come out and suggest that if only the Rwanda Bill went further it would completely stop the boats.

There isn't enough capacity in Rwanda to send all the people crossing the Channel in small boats anyway, and the calculation is simply that by threatening Rwanda people will be deterred from wanting to make the trip. (I guess in that regard, the less safe Rwanda appears the higher the deterrent effect would be!) I frankly don't see how it ever serves as a bigger deterrent than the risks to life taken by crossing the Channel in a small boat.

It feels like a matter of principle rather than practicality at this point, and it's causing ructions in the government over a policy that nobody knows will even work even if it can be executed as the government would like it to.

The answer to your later point is partly that it's a small piece of much larger immigration reform required however more importantly for Sunak, it's a wedge issue for 2019 Tory voters.

2019 Tory voters consider immigration more important than the average voter and Rwanda has about 75% support among 2019 Tory voters.

The maths for Sunak is simple on such issues, if he can find a way to retain about 90% of 2019 Tories then he remains Prime Minister. At about 85%, Starmer no longer has his majority.

He will likely fail because as you say, the economy takes priority but the logic is not entirely flawed.

I think your later point is well informed however you miss the point that many conservatives today (me included) no longer consider the refugee conventions fit for purpose. Suella wasn't lying when she said that current rules would technically make a few hundred million people eligible.

Likewise, I'm sure you can understand that many conservative voters who voted to end being under jurisdiction of a foreign court now find it grating that the sovereign parliament of the United Kingdom funds itself beset with a refugee crisis because of the musings of yet another foreign court infringing upon it's sovereignty.

I am very sympathetic towards Robert Jenrick and agree that the revisions do not go far enough.

I am fiercely in agreement with stopping the boats and decimating the profitable operations of traffickers & smuggler gangs.
I believe that the government must do its utmost to prevent the entry of all overseas citizens who either: do not have prior permission to enter the uk nor the accomodation & financial funds to support themselves whilst within the uk, have obtained visas dishonestly, flout the terms of their legitimately obtained visa, have committed a crime in the uk against a uk resident citizen or know that they are ineligible to enter/stay/work in Britain but refuse to leave.

This requires enforcing a very tough immigration regime and criminal court system.
One that harshly punishes the: trafficking criminals laughing all the way to the bank, their partners in crime and the entitled overseas citizen customers that have imposed themselves or their relatives upon uk territories & uk residents.

Ultimately getting this done will require a lot more enforcement action against people traffickers, their organised crime allies and other partners in crime.
In addition to the UK: leaving the jurisdiction of the ECHR, terminating the uk's status as a signatory of the Refugee Convention and changing the eligibility criterias for all uk welfare benefits & access to accomodation (outside of the incarceration and detention systems) in order to ensure that no overseas citizens can ever access any whilst within uk territories.