No safe Haven ?

 

 

Context :

UK top court says a plan to send migrants to Rwanda is illegal. The government still wants to do it        

( AP News  / 15 Nov 2023 )

Extract :

The British government said Wednesday it will still try to send some migrants on a one-way trip to Rwanda, despite the U.K. Supreme Court ruling that the contentious plan is unlawful because asylum-seekers would not be safe in the African country.

In a major blow to one of Prime Minister Rishi Sunak ‘s key policies, the country’s top court ruled that asylum-seekers sent to Rwanda would be “at real risk of ill-treatment” because they could be returned to the conflict-wracked home countries they’d fled.

Sunak, who has pledged to stop migrants reaching Britain in small boats across the English Channel, said the ruling “was not the outcome we wanted” but vowed to press on with the plan and send the first deportation flights to Rwanda by next spring.

He said the court had “confirmed that the principle of removing asylum-seekers to a safe third country is lawful,” even as it ruled Rwanda unsafe.

Sunak said the government would seal a legally binding treaty with Rwanda that would address the court’s concerns, and would then pass a law declaring Rwanda a safe country.

Sunak suggested that if legal challenges to the plan continued, he was prepared to consider leaving international human rights treaties — a move that would draw strong opposition and international criticism.

Britain and Rwanda signed a deal in April 2022 to send migrants who arrive in the U.K. as stowaways or in boats to the East African country, where their asylum claims would be processed and, if successful, they would stay.

Britain’s government argues that the policy will deter people from risking their lives crossing one of the world’s busiest shipping lanes, and would break the business model of people-smuggling gangs. No one has yet been sent to the country as the plan was challenged in the courts.

Opposition politicians, refugee groups and human rights organizations say the plan is unethical and unworkable. Charity ActionAid U.K. called the Supreme Court ruling a vindication of “British values of compassion and dignity.” Amnesty International said the government should “draw a line under a disgraceful chapter in the U.K.’s political history.”

Announcing the unanimous decision, President of the Supreme Court Robert Reed said Rwanda had a history of misunderstanding its obligations toward refugees and of “refoulement” — sending claimants back to the country they had sought protection from.

The judges concluded “there is a real risk that asylum claims will not be determined properly, and that asylum-seekers will in consequence be at risk of being returned directly or indirectly to their country of origin.”

“In that event, genuine refugees will face a real risk of ill-treatment,” they said.

 

My  Take :

 

This ( illegal ) migrants problem is not unique to UK

Take a look at the following World Bank report :

( https://www.worldbank.org/en/publication/wdr2023 )

Migration is a development challenge. About 184 million people—2.3 percent of the world’s population—live outside of their country of nationality.

Almost half of them are in low- and middle-income countries. But what lies ahead?

As the world struggles to cope with global economic imbalances, diverging demographic trends, and climate change, migration will become a necessity in the decades to come for countries at all levels of income. If managed well, migration can be a force for prosperity and can help achieve the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals.

World Development Report 2023 proposes an integrated framework to maximize the development impacts of cross-border movements on both destination and origin countries and on migrants and refugees themselves.

 The framework it offers, drawn from labor economics and international law, rests on a “match and motive” matrix that focuses on two factors:

#  how closely migrants’ skills and attributes match the needs of destination countries and

#  what motives underlie their movements.

This approach enables policy makers to distinguish between different types of movements and to design migration policies for each. International cooperation will be critical to the effective management of migration. 

Organize regional and global responses to address refugee movements and reduce the need for distressed movements.

 

True , there are a few countries whose population is declining or stagnant . Therefore, their population is getting OLD  

Such OLD population imposes following :

#  Shrinking Work Force – resulting in declining productivity / economy

#  Need for ever larger number of NURSES / CARE-TAKERS , to look after the health of

    old persons

Despite this , there is resistance from these countries to accept young / skilled migrants from other ( surplus ) countries

 

Then there are other countries where the problem is of huge UNEMPLOYMENT – especially among their young citizen

In these countries, there is a STRONG RESISTANCE to admitting migrants from other countries – for fear of locals losing their jobs to migrants

And there are cases where migrants living in DESTINATION countries for decades, are being forced to return to their countries of origin ( eg : 1.7 million Afghans being driven out of Pakistan ) – where they have no chance of finding a job or even self-employment

Myanmar ( Rohingas ) > Bangladesh > India ( Mizoram ) , is another example

( North African Countries + Mid East countries ) > Europe > UK , is an example

On top of this, it is becoming difficult to distinguish between “ Economic Migrants “ and “ Politically Persecuted Migrants “

Now consider this :

Many countries ( mostly , USA – Russia – China – Japan – EU etc ) are spending TRILLIONS of dollars on space missions – with ultimate aim to “ COLONIZE “ Moon and Mars

This is apart from TRILLIONS of dollars being spent ( both , by developed and the developing countries ) on ARMAMENT

How about building 3 brand NEW countries, right here on Earth , to accommodate 100 million migrants each – instead of trying to colonize Moon / Mars ?

Whereas a habitable COLONY on Moon will take a few DECADES and 100 TRILLION dollars to house a few THOUSAND earthlings, my suggestion will take just ONE DECADE and 10 TRILLION  dollars to house 100 Million migrants !

I propose that , under the GOVERNANCE of UNITED NATIONS , we build these countries as :

#   “ ATLANTIS “ in Atlantic Ocean

#   “ PACEGEN “ in Pacific Ocean

#   “ INDWANA “ in Indian Ocean

These man-made countries will be located in TEMPERATE climate zones and solely powered by Solar Energy

 

Can this be done ?

Consider my suggestion at :

Ø  No use Fighting !........................  25  April  2016

 

Extract :

Entire world produces 280 million tons of plastics , every year

 

Of this , some 20 million tons finds its way into world's oceans

 

Rest finds its way into ugly land-fills

 

A very tiny percentage of this has accumulated at one spot in Pacific Ocean

 

It is called Great Pacific Garbage Patch, covering an area , twice the size of United Kingdom ( approx 500,000 Sq Km )

 

Since most of this is non-degradable, it will continue to float for 50 years

 

Hundreds of scientists and governments are working for years to find a solution to this problem of cleaning up the ocean by removing floating plastic

 

But the solution is evading !

 

Use of current method of skimming will take several decades to clean up the Great Pacific Garbage Patch

 

But if some method can be found to ,

 

*  Increase the thickness of the patch to several hundred feet

 

*  Bind the loosely floating plastic with some glue / resin , to turn it into a strong land like mass ( of course ,

   still floating )

    

*  Build onto this light weight pre-fabricated homes

 

then ,

 

it could become a Nation of 126 million inhabitants ( twice the population of UK , since Pacific Garbage Patch is twice the area of UK ) !

 

Of course , if this method succeeds , 280 million tons can create an entire continent , the size of Europe ! Every year , too !

 

May be scientist can even find a way to tow it away anywhere  !

 

For EU threatened with an influx of a million migrants every year , this could be a much cheaper - and humanitarian - way of housing them

 

 

Much cheaper than what Elon Musk / Mark Zukerberg / Jeff Bezo etc are spending on Space Missions to locate inhabitable distant Earth-like planets !

 

 

Why spend billions of dollars on finding ways to bio-degrade plastics ?

 

Just find a way to " Re-Use " it for benefit of poor people !

 

Call it USM ( United States of Migrants ) !

 

 

I suggested this 7 YEARS ago . Latest information about Great Pacific Garbage Patch ( GPGP ) is :

#  It covers an area of 1.6 million sq km ( 620,000 sq miles )

#  It is 3 TIMES the area of France

#  75 % of its total mass consists of :

Ø  Macro-Plastics …………. 5cm – 50 cm

Ø  Mega-Plastics …………… > 50 cm

Now , France has a population of 68 million people

So , if turned into a SOLID but FLOATING ISLAND , GPGP could easily sustain 200 million persons !

Is this fantasy or has current technology advanced sufficient enough to turn my suggestion into reality ?

I asked ChatGPT

 

Here is how ChatGPT replied :

Your proposal to create man-made countries to accommodate migrants and to potentially repurpose plastic waste into habitable structures raises several complex technical, ethical, and practical considerations.

Let's break down your suggestions:

1. Creating New Countries for Migrants

Feasibility:

Building new habitable areas in the oceans is an ambitious idea.

Technically,

constructing artificial islands has been done in the past, notably by countries like the United Arab Emirates. However, creating countries specifically for millions of migrants would require substantial infrastructure, resources, sustainable energy solutions, and international cooperation.

Practicality:

While the idea might theoretically address the issue of overcrowding and provide a new home for migrants, it raises ethical questions. It's essential to consider the rights and autonomy of the people being relocated and whether such a massive undertaking would truly solve the root causes of migration or merely shift the issue elsewhere.

Morality:

The creation of such countries would need to ensure fair governance, access to resources, and protection of human rights for their inhabitants. Building new countries solely to house migrants might be seen as a form of segregation or even colonization, raising moral and ethical concerns.

2. Repurposing Plastic Waste as Habitable Land

Feasibility:

Repurposing plastic waste to form habitable structures or islands is an innovative concept.

However, the practical challenges of turning floating plastic into stable land masses and ensuring their sustainability and habitability for a large population are immense.

Practicality:

While it's an intriguing idea to repurpose plastic waste into habitable areas, the technology to achieve this on a large scale remains largely untested and would require significant advancements in material science, engineering, and environmental sustainability.

Morality:

The proposal to repurpose plastic waste for humanitarian purposes aligns with environmental goals, but it should be done with careful consideration for environmental impact, safety, and the well-being of potential inhabitants.

Conclusion:

Your ideas involve innovative thinking and attempts to address critical global issues such as migration and environmental degradation.

However, the feasibility and ethical implications of executing such proposals on a large scale require meticulous planning, extensive research, international collaboration, and consideration of human rights, environmental impact, and long-term sustainability.

At present, while elements of these ideas are intriguing, their realization would require a depth of technological advancement, international cooperation, and ethical considerations that may still be beyond our current capabilities and global consensus. These proposals should be approached cautiously, considering their complexities and potential implications.

 

 

With regards,

Hemen Parekh

www.hemenparekh.ai  /  16 Nov 2023

Related Readings :

MUAMMAR GADDAFI - A VISIONARY ?  …………………………….. 04 Aug 2015

Did You Say, “ Ahead of Times “ ?  ........................ ………. 23 Dec 2017

Procuring Technology for “ Recycling of Plastics “…………………19 Feb 2022

 

https://www.byfusion.com/faq-byblock/

BYBLOCK IS THE FIRST CONSTRUCTION-GRADE BUILDING MATERIAL MADE ENTIRELY FROM REPURPOSED, OFTEN UN-RECYCLABLE PLASTIC WASTE

 

FAQ :

HOW BIG IS A BYBLOCK?

 

ByFusion’s Standard ByBlock (BBK-011) is similar in dimension to a standard concrete masonry unit (CMU). – approximately 16″ width x 8″ depth x 8″ height and weigh 22lbs.

 

WILL BYBLOCK FLOAT?

 

Yes. Despite its hefty 22lb weight, ByBlock is buoyant. This is due to the small air pockets which reside between sections of the shredded platic. 

 

HOW STRONG DO FASTENERS HOLD IN BYBLOCK?

 

ASTM D1767 testing results for #10 screw at a depth of 2″ has a strength of 203 lbs/ft Withdrawal Strength, and 270 lbs/ft Shear Strength. Similar tests using a 3/8″ lag screw at a depth of 3″ returned 327 lbs/ft Withdrawal Strength, and 520 lbs/ft Shear Strength.