The question Boris’s Rwanda plan critics must answer

There are many reasons to oppose Boris Johnson’s government’s policy of removing migrants to Rwanda. There’s certainly a moral case against this asylum policy, one which the Church of England’s bishops have presented with some force; and there could be a legal case which the Supreme Court will consider in July. But given the lack of achievements of Boris’s government, we should be grateful, at least, that this is a policy that attempts to actually achieve something.

For one thing, the Rwanda plan has a definite purpose: to stop the flow of migrants using small boats, often dangerously unseaworthy ones, to cross the English Channel. Even those opposed to the current policy would surely admit that it would be preferable if no-one made the crossing by these means. People have drowned crossing the Channel. Discouraging migrants from making the journey is no bad thing.

But can this plan solve the conundrum? At the heart of the problem facing Britain is that demand to live in the UK will always outstrip the capacity.