Thailand Visa Exemption (60 days) and Visa On Arrival (VOA) (15 days)

[Social Media]

 

In a move that has sparked controversy, Sir Keir Starmer has agreed to a Rwanda-style deal to deport migrants who arrive at the British-owned Chagos Islands, sending them to St Helena, another UK territory over 5,000 miles away. This decision mirrors a similar arrangement made by the previous Conservative government, which Starmer once condemned as "completely wrong" and "immoral."

 

 

The Chagos Islands, located in the Indian Ocean, are a strategic British territory that houses the Diego Garcia airbase, co-operated with the United States. Since 2021, the islands have faced an influx of asylum seekers, particularly Sri Lankan migrants fleeing political persecution. This surge in migrants has become problematic for the military operations of the airbase. Many of the migrants have been housed in temporary camps, and some are contesting their detention in court. 

 

Under the new arrangement, any further migrants who arrive at the Chagos Islands before their handover to Mauritius—an agreement Starmer made earlier this month—will be deported to St Helena. St Helena, one of the most isolated places on Earth and home to less than 4,500 people, lies in the middle of the South Atlantic. Its limited public services, including a single hospital, have left the local population uneasy about the deal. Islanders were not consulted before the agreement, leading to frustration and concern.

 

In return for housing migrants, the government of St Helena has been allocated £6.65 million in funding, which it plans to use to alleviate its healthcare backlog. Despite the financial boost, islanders fear that the cultural shock and strain on services will be too much for the small population to bear. Andrew Turner, a St Helena councillor, expressed concern, saying, “We are a very small island. There are less than 4,500 people who are resident on St Helena, so any influx to the island would have an impact. The cultural shock alone would have a big impact.”

 

The situation has ignited criticism back in Westminster as well. Starmer has faced backlash for canceling the UK’s Rwanda migrant deal shortly after assuming office, a plan that would have involved sending asylum seekers to Rwanda for resettlement. Many are questioning how the new arrangement with St Helena differs from the scrapped Rwanda deal, especially given that both agreements involve deporting migrants to remote locations in exchange for financial support.

 

The Prime Minister has also been accused of neglecting the needs of British overseas territories like St Helena. Islanders feel that their small community is being used as a stopgap solution for a complex migration issue. A spokesman for Friends of the British Overseas Territories, a campaign group, criticized the deal, stating, "Saint Helena is a small island with public services that already face a number of pressures. The last thing it needs is an undetermined number of illegal migrants being homed there for an unspecified length of time."

 

The Foreign Office has defended the agreement, citing the "deeply troubling situation" on the Chagos Islands as the reason for this new plan. A spokesman explained that the government inherited the issue of stranded migrants on the islands, leading to mounting legal challenges. “Ministers have worked hard to find solutions and contingency plans which protect the integrity of British territorial borders and migrant welfare,” the spokesman said, adding that the arrangement would only be implemented if migrants continued to arrive on Diego Garcia.

 

This latest development has intensified the ongoing debate over how the UK handles asylum seekers and the ethical implications of deporting them to far-flung territories. As the Chagos Islands are set to transfer to Mauritius, the future of the migrants arriving there—and the communities like St Helena tasked with housing them—remains uncertain.

 

Based on a report from the Daily Telegraph 2024-10-19

 

 

 

[herfiehandbag]

Inhabitants of Saint Helena not consulted on migrants being sent there.

 

Inhabitants of Chagos Islands not consulted on being handed to Mauritius.

 

Oh the white man's burden!

[ryxyz]

5 hours ago, herfiehandbag said:

 

Inhabitants of Chagos Islands not consulted on being handed to Mauritius.

 

Oh the white man's burden!

The Chagos Islands belong to Mauritius. The Islands were forcibly seized, and Mauritius have been asking for the Islands to be returned. 

[Cory1848]

6 hours ago, herfiehandbag said:

Inhabitants of Saint Helena not consulted on migrants being sent there.

 

Inhabitants of Chagos Islands not consulted on being handed to Mauritius.

 

Oh the white man's burden!

Sending Sri Lankan refugees to Saint Helena seems a problematic move. However, there are no “inhabitants” of the Chagos Islands (other than US and British military personnel, who rotate in and out); the original inhabitants were forcibly evacuated (mostly to Mauritius and the Seychelles) in the 1960s because the US wanted to build a military base there (Diego Garcia).

 

As someone else commented, returning the Chagos Islands to Mauritius is the right thing to do, and I think the Mauritian government has promised the Chagossians (or their descendants) a right to return, but I’m sure the US will want to keep its base; not sure if that’s been resolved yet ...

[OneZero]

If he were alive, what would Napoleon say about such a development?

[Thingamabob]

1 hour ago, ryxyz said:

The Chagos Islands belong to Mauritius. The Islands were forcibly seized, and Mauritius have been asking for the Islands to be returned. 

Entirely wrong. The islands, which are over 2000 Kms distance from  Mauritius, belong to the Chagossians. Mauritius laid claim to them, under Chinese influence, following independence in 1968.