Expelling Iranians or Iraqis from the UK to Rwanda? Here is the new idea of the British government to fight against illegal immigration. At the end of an agreement between the two countries, in mid-April, a first plane must leave for Kigali, Tuesday June 14, with on board migrants whose asylum request is being examined. This project is strongly criticized by the United Nations and human rights associations, but also by the Anglican Church and Prince Charles.
What is the principle ?
This “partnership for migration and economic development” – official name of the Rwanda plan – particularly concerns migrants who have “made a dangerous and illegal journey to the UK”. After examination of their file by the British services, they can then be “relocated” in Rwanda while their asylum application is being examined. In the event of a green light, it is expected that these people will remain in the African country. In case of refusal, the migrants concerned will have to leave voluntarily or try to obtain another status in Rwanda. Otherwise they will be returned “in their country of origin or in another country where they would be legally admitted”.
Quoted by Sky News*, Home Secretary Priti Patel said in mid-April that the “large majority” of those arriving in the UK by means deemed “illegal” – such as on unauthorized boats or stored in trucks – will be considered for relocation.
/2022/06/14/phpCJ4a9H.jpg)
“Once they get their status [de demandeur d’asile]they will go live with other Rwandansconfirmed Alain Mukurarinda, deputy spokesman for the Rwandan government, quoted by Reuters. They will be free and will not be prisoners.” The new arrivals will be accommodated near the capital Kigali and in particular at the Hope Hostel, an establishment made up of around fifty double rooms. Bed and full board will be charged 72,000 Rwandan francs (about 67 euros) per person per day to the British government, according to the director of the establishment.
Are there precedents?
Australia has used a similar system for several years. Migrants are placed in detention camps on the islands of Manus, Papua New Guinea, and Nauru, an island nation in the Pacific Ocean. Australia also gives money to Cambodia to welcome illegal immigrants. A British Labor Party executive, Yvette Cooper, took up this example to denounce Boris Johnson’s measure. She recalled that Australian taxpayers had paid a total of 10 billion Australian dollars (more than 6.6 billion euros) to relocate 3,127 people, reports Politico. Denmark has also reported a memorandum of understanding for future cooperation with Rwanda, but the arrangement has not yet been put in place.
How is this project defended?
By sending asylum seekers more than 6,000 km from the United Kingdom, the British government wants to discourage applicants from leaving for the United Kingdom, who are ever more numerous. The number of illegal Channel crossings has indeed tripled in 2021. Since the beginning of the year, more than 9,000 migrants have crossed the Channel illegally to reach British shores, an increase on previous years (already record), according to British government figures analyzed by the Press Association* agency.
“Criminal groups that put people’s lives at risk in the English Channel must understand that their economic model will collapse under this government”hammered Prime Minister Boris Johnson on LBC radio. “This sends a clear signal that those who come to our country illegally will not have the right to stay in our country”Home Secretary Priti Patel told the BBC. “We will use all the tools and all the legislative measures at our disposal.”
Illegal Channel crossings are the bane of the Conservative government and regularly cause tensions with France, from where many migrants want to reach the United Kingdom.
What is Rwanda’s interest?
Rwanda has obtained quid pro quos. London will initially finance the device to the tune of 120 million pounds (about 144 million euros) for this initial five-year agreement. The Rwandan government has specified that it will offer migrants the possibility “to settle permanently in Rwanda if they wish”. However, the reception conditions for migrants in the country raise questions.
After an article from Guardian* which called into question the reception capacities of the country, and the security offered to migrants, the Rwandan ambassador in London defended himself in a long-haul. “Rwanda is already home to nearly 130,000 refugees from neighboring countries such as the DRC and Burundi”argued Johnston Busingye in the Daily Telegraph*. The diplomat promised to offer a “Safe Haven” migrants returned from the UK.
Rwanda, ruled by President Paul Kagame since the end of the 1994 genocide, which claimed 800,000 lives according to the UN, is also regularly accused by NGOs of repressing freedom of expression, criticism and opposition. Politics.
How many passengers on the first flight?
Maybe a dozen, maybe less, maybe none. According to the Care4Calais association, at least 23 people out of 31 had their ticket to Rwanda canceled during the legal challenges. According to the association, Iranians, Iraqis, Albanians and a Syrian were among the passengers scheduled to depart. “I think this flight could be canceled” due to an insufficient number of passengers, said the Guardian* a government source.
“There will be people on these flights and if they are not on this flight, they will be on the next one”said the head of British diplomacy, Liz Truss, on Sky News. “What really matters is to establish the principle” and of “break the economic model of these terrible people, these traffickers who trade in distress.”
On Monday, two last-minute challenges were dismissed by the judges. The associations have already announced that they will pursue their legal challenge after the first flight, if it takes place.
Is this process legal?
Reply soon. Associations for the defense of refugees, including Care4Calais and Detention Action, had filed urgent appeals against this government project. But these were rejected at first instance and on appeal. The British High Court plans to examine in detail the legality of Plan Rwanda in July.
The civil service union PCS, which has many customs officers supposed to implement the deportations, also expressed its doubts. Asked about Sky News *, its secretary general Mark Serwotka wondered about the imminence of a first flight, even though the High Court must deliver an opinion this summer: “Imagine being told to do something on Tuesday, which in July is deemed illegal. It would be a terrible situation.”
The UN strongly condemned this project. UNHCR lawyer Laura Dubinsky said the UN agency was concerned about the risk of “serious and irreparable harm” given to migrants. “The UNHCR is not involved in the arrangement between the UK and Rwanda, despite claims to the contrary by the Minister of State”she also pointed out, accusing the government of lies.
Human rights organization HRW also believes that London “seeks to shift its responsibilities for asylum entirely to another country”contrary to the 1951 Geneva Convention on the non-refoulement of refugees.
What are the reactions across the Channel?
This controversial project has caused a lot of ink to flow in the United Kingdom, so much so that the Anglican Church has broken the silence. The spiritual leaders of the Church of England have in particular denounced a measure “immoral”in a letter to Times. “Whether or not the first deportation flight leaves the UK today, this policy should put us as a nation to shame”, they write. Critics dismissed by Minister Liz Truss, who assures that the government’s policy is “totally legal” and “totally moral”.
Fueling the controversy, Prince Charles privately judged the government’s project “appalling”according to remarks reported by the magazine Times*. Clarence House, which handles communications for Prince Charles, declined to comment but stressed that the heir to the throne “remain politically neutral”as required by his role within the royal family.
* These links refer to content in English.