In an unprecedented move, the UK government has proposed an asylum deal that would see refugees currently in the UK being sent to Rwanda for the processing of their asylum claims. If approved, claimants could gain refugee status and the right to stay in Rwanda. However, those unsuccessful in their applications would have to seek asylum in a different ‘safe third country‘. This arrangement would apply to anyone who entered the UK illegally after January 1, 2022, with no cap on the numbers to be sent.
Critics argue the move is not cost-effective, and the UK’s top Home Office official admitted there’s little evidence to suggest that the policy would significantly deter people from crossing the English Channel to reach the UK.
The Legal Debate Around the Asylum Plan
The proposed asylum relocation scheme received a significant pushback from Britain’s Supreme Court in November 2023. The court unanimously declared the plan unlawful, arguing that refugees sent to Rwanda could risk being returned to their home countries where they might face harm, contravening the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). The court ruling also voiced concerns about Rwanda’s human rights records and its treatment of refugees in the past.
Moreover, this solution has seen criticism based on the fact that Rwanda, a landlocked country 4,000 miles from the UK, has a documented history of human rights concerns. The proposed policy is not without its contradictions, considering the UK’s condemnation of Rwanda for “extrajudicial killings, deaths in custody, enforced disappearances and torture” back in 2021. Read Also: 13 Less Known Facts About Black History Month
These concerns raise serious ethical questions about the responsibilities of nations in adhering to international human rights standards. Opponents of the deal are also worried that outsourcing asylum responsibilities to Rwanda could set a worrying global precedent, potentially undermining the protection system that exists for refugees internationally.
An additional layer to this complex issue is the new migration treaty with Rwanda, which guarantees the safety of those sent to Rwanda for their asylum claims. The scheme also includes an independent monitoring committee to ensure compliance, plus a new appeals process involving British judges.
Navigating the Legal Roadblocks
In response to the Supreme Court’s ruling, the UK government introduced a new bill – the Safety of Rwanda Bill – aiming to establish Rwanda as a safe country in UK law. The legislation, currently awaiting approval in the House of Lords, seeks to circumvent the court’s judgment by having the courts overlook certain sections of the Human Rights Act that prevent deportations to Rwanda.
The bill passed in the House of Commons with only 11 Conservative MPs opposing it. However, it now faces significant opposition in the House of Lords, with some peers vowing to strip out key powers as the bill progresses. Read Also: The Top 7 African Nations with Affordable Lifestyles
The Cost and Potential Economic Impact of the Asylum Plan
To facilitate this agreement, the UK government has so far paid £240m to Rwanda, with an additional £50m expected to be paid in the 2024-25 financial year. The Labour Party estimates the eventual cost to be around £400m, while individual removal to a third country like Rwanda is believed to cost £63,000 more per individual than hosting them in the UK.
Despite these figures, Prime Minister Rishi Sunak argues that the plan will save billions in the long run, without providing detailed calculations to back his claim. Meanwhile, the Home Office maintains that the policy could result in no cost if it deters incoming asylum seekers.
Bottom Line
With so many different perspectives in the mix, this new approach to dealing with asylum seekers in the UK is set to continue to spark debate among policymakers and the public. As the situation unfolds, the ultimate decider of its success will be its impact on the asylum seekers it’s designed to assist.