I have been writing satirical notes for a good quarter of a century, but reality regularly overcomes fantasy, I don't even have to invent absurd situations, because life produces them - read Zsolt Ungváry's article on Vasárnap.hu.
Boris Johnson said more than a week ago that "Britain could resettle tens of thousands of asylum seekers in Rwanda as part of a new partnership". The essence of this is that anyone who has come to Great Britain illegally since January 1 this year can now be transferred to Rwanda in Central Africa.
Viktor Orbán was authorized for the fourth time by two-thirds, who has been claiming for many years that the problem of emigration must be solved locally, and that our countries must be protected somehow (say with a fence) from uncontrollable, large-scale migration. But no, it looks serious.
First of all, people search on the Internet for what they need to know about Rwanda, because if it has become such an important player, let's be informed. Some superficial knowledge can be gathered from Wikipedia, but I am afraid that the British government did not delve deeper into the subject either, as we can remember that their foreign minister recently confused Rostov and Voronezh, which are significantly closer, with Donetsk and Luhansk, and the USA's Ukraine with Hungary.
Rwanda in the 19th century It was still a German colony in the 19th century, and later it became the property of the Belgians, whose policy contributed heavily to the Tutsi-Hutu conflict, which led to one of the bloodiest genocides of the late 20th century. The question is, if the Hutus also tolerated the Tutsis, who had been living with them for a long time, so hard that they killed hundreds of thousands of them, what kind of reception will the random arrivals of all kinds of ethnic groups find?
The territory of Rwanda is little more than a quarter of that of Hungary, with 12 million inhabitants, or 4.5 times the population density. Incidentally, this is almost twice the population density of Great Britain. It is interesting that, for example, Wyoming (2 people/square kilometer), Idaho (6 people/square kilometer), or even New Zealand (18 people/square kilometer) in the United States did not come up as a solution.
In particular, the action has unpleasant surprises in store for those migrants who may have set off from South Sudan, made it to Europe bitterly in months, and then, like in Who's Name at the End, are sent back to the starting area with a single blow.
Since March 1, there is a good chance that a large number of Ukrainian refugees may have arrived illegally in the island country, will they also be sent to Rwanda?
And what if all of a sudden all the countries decide to settle their unnecessary migrants in Rwanda? The Danes have already caught wind, according to the Magyar Nemzet article, "Copenhagen has started negotiations with Rwanda on the development of a procedure in which asylum seekers arriving in Denmark would be transferred to the Central African country." Will they all fit in the small country? Especially considering that some of the remaining specimens of the critically endangered mountain gorilla live there. They should also be relocated to a safe place.
It's true, that would be a big mess, because we don't just settle animals here and there.
Source: Vasárnap.hu
Author: Zsolt Ungváry
(Header image: worldwildlife.org )
