Critics: UK’s Rwanda plan for asylum seekers makes no fiscal or moral sense

Migrants who have arrived in the United Kingdom through "irregular routes" since Jan. 1, 2022 may soon find themselves sent to Rwanda under a controversial plan gaining traction in the UK government.

Under the proposed five-year plan, if migrants' asylum applications are successful, the individuals could be granted refugee status and permitted to remain in Rwanda. However, if the claim is rejected, they could either apply to settle in Rwanda on other grounds, or seek asylum in another "safe third country."

Notably, no asylum seeker would be allowed to apply to return to the UK under this arrangement.

The government aims to implement this plan as a deterrent against people arriving in the UK via small boats across the English Channel. But critics say it makes no logistical, fiscal or moral sense.

Gunes Kalkan is head of Campaigns and Communications at Safe Passage International, which provides legal support to unaccompanied children and other refugees to reunite with family in the UK.

Speaking to TRT World, Kalkan said, "The plan is not good value for money and more importantly, it's not good value for people."

According to government figures, in the year ending June 2023, 52,530 irregular migrants entered the UK, up 17 percent from the year ending June 2022. Some 85 percent of these individuals arrived via small boats in 2023.

This data indicates that the number of people subject to the new measures is likely to be in the tens of thousands, especially if the legislation does not deter people from arriving.

Not a deterrent Peter William Walsh, a senior researcher at the Migration Observatory, a research institute focused on UK migration and migration policy, has called the Rwanda proposal "quite a radical plan."

Speaking to TRT World, he said he didn't think it would work, as evidence suggests that asylum deterrence policies have a relatively small effect on asylum migration.

"Political repression, civil or ethnic conflicts, economic inequality, ecological disaster - these are much bigger drivers of asylum migration," he added.

Kalkan also pointed out that the government's own analysis shows there is little to no evidence that changing policies in the destination country deter people from leaving their home countries.

Analysts say the two most important considerations for people who are choosing the UK as their final asylum destination are the presence of family members and familiarity with the English language.

Shams Moussa, a refugee from Niger who has now been granted leave to remain in the UK, arrived in the UK in 2017. He was initially housed in temporary accommodation in London before settling in northeast England.

Speaking to TRT World, the 46-year-old refugee-turned-activist said there's no such thing as an illegal way to arrive in the UK. Sitting in a dimly lit office in what is now his hometown of Darlington, Moussa recalled that he left Niger "in a very clandestine way, without any documents."

He continued, "When you are running for your life, trying to reach safety, you don't have time to plan. You take risks to escape from your country where they are trying to kill you or persecute you."

Given the history of Niger’s military coups, Moussa had to flee because of his political views. He said had the Rwanda plan been in place back then, he’d still have made the journey because those seeking safety are seldom aware or paying attention to changes in the policies of their destination countries.

Gaining traction As the Rwanda bill makes its way through Parliament, no asylum seeker has yet been sent to the country, which is located in east-central Africa, approximately 6,500km (4,000 miles) from the UK.

The first scheduled flight to Rwanda, planned for June 2022, was cancelled following legal challenges. And in November 2023, the UK Supreme Court delivered a unanimous ruling declaring the scheme unlawful. The court found that genuine refugees sent to Rwanda under this scheme would be exposed to the risk of being returned to their home countries, where they could potentially face harm.

This would be in violation of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), which played a significant factor in the court's decision.

Following Brexit, the UK is no longer part of the European Union, but it is still a member of the Council of Europe and hence a signatory to the ECHR, an international court of the council.

The court’s ruling also highlighted concerns regarding Rwanda's poor human rights record and its history of mistreating refugees.

However, the UK government has since introduced a new bill aimed at explicitly designating Rwanda as a safe country under UK law.

The legislation, subject to approval by both Houses of Parliament, instructs courts to disregard certain sections of the Human Rights Act, effectively bypassing the Supreme Court's decision. Some Members of Parliament (MPs) have voiced criticism of the legislation, arguing that it violates international law.

This week, a parliamentary report reached the same conclusion. After a thorough review, it found the legislation to be fundamentally incompatible with the UK's human rights obligations.

The report added that the legislation undermines the protections outlined in the Human Rights Act, violates certain provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights, and does not allow the UK to adhere to international treaties.

Choosing Rwanda
Amid all the concerns about Rwanda, why did lawmakers choose it as a safe third country to deport migrants to from the UK?

According to Walsh, "The government may have approached other countries but perhaps had been unsuccessful in reaching agreements. Also, this has provided a platform for Rwanda on the international stage to present itself as a modern, democratic country that respects human rights."

The UN, however, has been quite strident in its criticism of the Rwanda policy and the broader asylum policy that the UK government has pursued, describing it "as amounting to an asylum ban."

UNHCR, the UN Refugee Agency, has criticised the UK-Rwandan asylum partnership as running counter to the fundamental principles of global solidarity and responsibility-sharing that underpin the international refugee protection system. It says this policy is an example of "externalisation" of international protection.

In addition to introducing the Safety of Rwanda Bill, the UK government entered into a new migration treaty with Rwanda in December 2023. Home Secretary James Cleverley stated that the treaty ensures individuals sent to Rwanda to seek asylum would be protected from the risk of being returned to their home country.

It also mandates the inclusion of UK judges in a new appeals process.

But Kalkan said that the government is "playing politics" with refugees' lives and "undermining the country's international and human rights laws" to inflict misery on people who are simply searching for a safer life.

He added the government has been unjustifiably "fixated on this issue of people crossing the channel (even though) the number of asylum claims that the UK receives, as a proportion of the population compared to the rest of Europe, is quite low."

The UK government has already paid £240 million ($303 million) to Rwanda to bolster this plan, with an additional £50 million ($63 million) expected in the 2024-25 financial year. However, Rwandan President Paul Kagame has offered to refund the money paid by the UK if no asylum seekers are sent to Rwanda under the agreement.

According to official data, the cost of removing each individual to a third country like Rwanda is approximately £63,000 ($80,000) more than keeping them in the UK (factoring in the cost of flights and payment to Rwanda, versus the cost of housing and benefits per person).

"Why would you give another country money to take care of your responsibility, to take care of poor people arriving in your country," Moussa asked.

"To them it’s just a political game. Legally, ethically, financially - it is just not right," he said, adding that his work as a campaigner to help fellow asylum seekers is far from being done.

The UK's asylum system currently incurs an annual cost of nearly £4 billion ($5 billion), including approximately £8 million ($10 million) per day on hotel accommodation.

But financials aside, there is a human cost to this Rwanda plan.

As a charity that works to reunite refugee families, Safe Passage is concerned families will be torn apart if the legislation goes ahead.

The group has been supporting individuals with family ties in the UK who have been threatened with deportation to Rwanda, causing them immense distress. Many are living in constant fear of being forcibly relocated and are uncertain about their safety.

"People who fled war and persecution need to feel safe so they can start to recover and rebuild, not face more risks and uncertainty," Kalkan said.

For its part, the government has been insisting that only those who arrive using irregular routes will be considered for deportation to Rwanda. But Moussa said the plan will not stem the flow of traffic, as there is no other real safe passage available to these migrants.

"We didn't hear this happen when the Ukrainian crisis started. How can a 16-year-old child from Sudan get into this country without a safe route in place? No warlord is going to wait for him to grab his passport so he can safely get on a plane to the UK," he said.

Kalkan said offering refugee visas is the only viable option as "offshoring asylum systems is never an acceptable solution. This government has shamefully chosen to deny refugees safe ways to reach the UK."

He acknowledged that it may be difficult to stop the bill from becoming law, but there will still be several hurdles before it can be implemented and there would be legal challenges to the policy itself.

“There will be many people who will be fighting tooth and nail to ensure that these plans cannot be implemented,” he warned.