explained | Britain plans to move asylum seekers to Rwanda

the story So Far: British Home Secretary Priti Patel visited Rwanda’s capital Kigali on Thursday, April 14, in what the two countries describe as an “economic development partnership” that allows asylum seekers to arrive “informally”. will apply. In the UK via the English Channel to Rwanda. deal is draw criticism from refugee organizations and the opposition.

In a speech on Thursday morning off the coast of the Channel in southeast England, Britain’s Prime Minister Boris Johnson declared, “From today…any person who is entering the UK illegally and who is illegal from 1 January.” have come from, they can now be transferred. To Rwanda.” He described the move as an “innovative approach” to his country’s “humanitarian impulse and Brexit independence made possible”.

What is the deal with Rwanda?

Under the “Economic Development Partnership”, asylum seekers who cross the English Channel from France to Britain in trucks and small boats or dinghies will be deported to Rwanda, 6,500 km away, which will handle the processing of their asylum claims.

Ms Patel, who signed the agreement in Kigali on 14 April in the presence of Rwanda’s Foreign Minister Vincent Biruta, put out a video on Twitter, calling the deal a “world-leading migration partnership” that “is illegally going here”. Could see people arriving. Britain moved to Rwanda to consider their claims for asylum “in dangerous ways”; And if granted refugee status, “to make my living there”.

Mr Johnson’s government said on 15 April that the transfer of such individuals to the UK could be seen within weeks. The deal will be active for five years on a pilot basis.

When signing the deal, Ms Patel said: “Those who have been resettled (in Rwanda) will be given support, including training for up to five years with the help of integration, housing, so that they can resettle and can flourish.”

Mr Biruta said the agreement is “about ensuring that people are protected, respected and empowered to pursue their ambitions and if they wish, to settle permanently in Rwanda.”

He said the country is already hosting more than 130,000 refugees from countries including Burundi, Congo, Libya and Pakistan.

Although it is unclear how much the British government will spend on the plan, it has paid Rwanda £120 million ($158 million) in advance of housing costs and integration of asylum seekers until their applications are processed. in Rwanda. many times The UK reported that it could cost the country £20,000 to £30,000 for each asylum seeker transferred to Rwanda.

Guardian Once such asylum seekers reach the UK, the “strength of their asylum claim” and their mode of travel will be considered, the report said. If it is decided that individuals need to be deported from the country, they will be given five days’ notice during which they can make representations to support their claim. However, there is no provision to appeal against the decision of the government.

The government has not clarified whether the scheme will apply to all people who come illegally or only to single men, as previously reported. However, Mr Johnson said the deal with Rwanda was “uncapped” and that “thousands of people” could be resettled in the African country in the coming years.

He said that under the new arrangement, the Royal Navy would monitor the English Channel and would be charged with responding to small boat crossings.

Why is the deal being signed?

When Britain decided to leave the European Union, one of the key themes of the 2016 leaving campaign was to control immigration. In the wake of the 2015 migrant crisis, when more than one million migrants and refugees crossed Europe, there was a divide between how different EU countries responded; Some welcomed migrants, while some made their immigration policies more stringent, essentially closing doors to migrants. Most of the immigrants arrived by sea and land, making dangerous journeys to flee war and persecution in countries such as Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq and African countries.

After leaving the EU, Britain took control of legal immigration and changed its immigration policy, admitting those who wanted to work in the UK through a points-based system.

Mr Johnson has described the current deal with Rwanda as a way to “take control of illegal migration”, now that EU rules do not apply.

Over the years, many migrants and asylum seekers have made the unsafe journey through the English Channel to reach the UK by small boats, many held by smugglers or smugglers who charge money to place them on these boats.

The year 2021 saw the highest number of English Channel crossings in the UK, with over 28,000 people embarking on boats, compared to 8,500 in 2020. So far this year, 6,000 people have entered the UK on boats. In November last year, 27 people trying to cross the Channel from France to the UK were killed when their boat capsized in the deadliest incident of a Channel crossing.

Ms Patel has touted the new deal as a solution to break the “business model of people smugglers” and help prevent “loss of lives”. He said the new system would ensure that the ability to access the British asylum system is based on “need” and not on “the ability to pay traffickers”, adding that it will help taxpayers spend money in supporting illegal migrants. Will save on cost.

Mr Johnson echoed that by saying that “those who tried to jump in the queue or abuse our system would find no automatic way to settle in our country, but rather a safe third country or fast to their country of origin.” and will be removed humanely.”

In recent days, the administration has made several proposals to prevent English Channel crossings, from installing a “giant wave machine” to repel boats, to sending migrants to places including remote Ascension Island, Albania and Gibraltar. , who refused to accept such plans. ,

Even though Britain received more than 56,000 asylum applications last year, the most in nearly two decades, other European countries have received more asylum applications and accepted more refugees than Britain.

While Britain has so far allowed 83,500 asylum seekers under orders from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), Germany has accepted 2,32,000.

Why was the deal criticized?

Many refugee and human rights organisations, and opposition parties in the UK, have strongly criticized the deal, calling it inhumane, impractical and a waste of public money.

The UK branch of the UNHCR has said that agreements to outsource the asylum process through third countries without appropriate safeguards are “eye-wateringly expensive, violate international law, use widespread detention … More smuggling, not less”.

It further said that the new arrangement shows that the UK wants to “shift its responsibility towards refugees, not share them”. The central UN refugee agency also said that asylum seekers and refugees “should not be traded like commodities and transferred abroad for processing”.

Lawyer Saeeda Warsi, a former Conservative Party minister in the British cabinet and current colleague in the House of Lords, called the deal “ineffective, costly and cynical”.

“It is also inhumane and shames our proud history as advocates of human rights and the (UN) Refugee Convention,” she said.

Another reason for condemning the system is Rwanda’s own human rights record. Rights group Human Rights Watch pointed to Rwanda’s “track record of extrajudicial killings, suspicious deaths in custody, illegal or arbitrary detention, torture and abusive prosecution, particularly targeting critics and dissidents”. It added that Britain had in the past raised human rights concerns about Rwanda in global forums.

UK-based organization Refugee Council representative Enver Solomon called the deal a “brutal and bad decision” and said the administration should instead focus on developing an “ordered, humane and fair asylum system” and developing safe passageways. Humanitarian visa to change dangerous routes.

Several opposition leaders, including Labor Party’s Keir Starmer and Shadow Home Secretary Yvette Cooper, have called the deal impractical, extortionate and distracting from the fact that Mr Johnson was recently fined.partygate‘ dispute. Ms Cooper warned that the deal would cost British taxpayers billions of pounds during an already ongoing crisis in the country.

The Conservative minister in the Home Office, Tom Pursglove, however, backed the economic viability of the deal, saying it would save money in the long run. Defending the initial £120 million cost to be borne by the UK, he said: “We are spending £5 million a day accommodating individuals crossing into hotels (English Channel).”

Which other countries have made such arrangements in the past?

Such arrangements, made in the past by Australia, Israel and Denmark, have also invited criticism.

In 2013, Australia began trying to send asylum seekers into the country by boat in the small atolls of Papua New Guinea and Nauru, ensuring that no one would be allowed to settle in Australia. The policy ended the sea route of people smuggling from Southeast Asia, but was widely criticized by Australia as a brutal breach of international duties.

Israel sent thousands of people to Rwanda and Uganda between 2014 and 2017 in a controversial and prudent “voluntary” plan. Some people are believed to have remained there, many of whom were trying to reach Europe.

In June last year, Denmark passed legislation that would allow asylum seekers in third countries not in the EU while their applications for refugee status are processed.

(with inputs from agencies)