U.K. Plans to Send Some Asylum Seekers to Rwanda

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/14/world/europe/uk-rwanda-asylum-seekers-processing.html

Version 0 of 1.

LONDON — Britain said on Thursday that it planned to send some asylum seekers to Rwanda for processing and settlement there, becoming one of the few major powers to plan legislation that would turn away migrants without even considering their cases.

The policy, if implemented, would take to a new level the hard-line immigration stance of Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s Conservative government and align it closely with one of his central arguments for pushing Brexit, his signature initiative, which he pledged would allow Britain to “take back control” of its borders.

Human rights groups immediately denounced the policy, saying it is inhumane, violates international agreements on refugees and could set a precedent that encourages other nations to send migrants to other countries, a tactic known as “offshoring.”

In a speech on Thursday, Mr. Johnson said his plan could resettle thousands of migrants who cross the English Channel after long journeys from countries like Albania, Iraq and Sudan, and would apply to those who had arrived since January. He said that Britain “cannot sustain a parallel illegal system. Our compassion may be infinite, but our capacity to help people is not.”

In Rwanda, those who arrived in so-called emergency transit centers would be given the option of seeking resettlement to countries other than Britain, returning home or to a previous country of asylum, or staying in Rwanda. Britain will pay Rwanda 120 million pounds, about $157 million, to finance opportunities including education, vocational and skills training and language lessons.

Implementing the proposal depends on the passage of a law now being considered by Parliament that could criminalize anyone entering the country without a valid visa or through what the government calls “irregular routes.” Given the limited legal routes for refugees into Britain, that could effectively prevent many from making any asylum claims that would allow them to live in the country.

The legislation’s chances are considered good because Mr. Johnson’s party holds an 80-seat majority.

But the prime minister conceded that the plan would likely face legal challenges and “will not take effect overnight,” adding that in Britain there is a “formidable army of politically motivated lawyers who for years have made it their business to thwart removals.”

Those comments led human rights groups to suggest that Mr. Johnson was laying the groundwork for the policy to stall and then blame left-leaning advocates for derailing it. They suggested he was more interested in outlining a policy that would appeal to his conservative supporters than putting it into practice.

“The public should be very skeptical of these plans,” said the Kent Refugee Action Network in a statement. “It’s likely that very few people will ever actually be sent to Rwanda.” Kent, where Mr. Johnson spoke, is a coastal region, where thousands of asylum seekers have arrived.

Tim Farron, a former leader of the Liberal Democrats, wrote on Twitter that the policy was designed “to use innocent, desperate people as pawns” to “score culture war points.”

Very few other countries have tried similar tactics to deter migrants. In 2018, a plan by Israel to deport migrants to Rwanda fell through after Rwanda announced that it would accept only those who left Israel voluntarily. Australia has used asylum processing centers on Pacific islands such as Nauru, after intercepting migrants before they reached Australia by boat.

In September, Denmark’s Parliament passed a law that allows the nation to relocate asylum seekers outside Europe to have their refugee claims assessed, despite criticism from rights groups and the United Nations, but it has not relocated anyone yet.

Aid groups say the plan would violate Britain’s commitment to the 1951 U.N. convention on refugees, which lays out international protections. It requires that asylum seekers are protected in the country in which they arrive and cannot be forcibly sent to unsafe areas.

When Britain began to float the prospect of offshore asylum processing last year, an assessment from the United Nations’ refugee agency determined that many of the proposals would potentially violate that agreement.

Andy Hewett, the head of advocacy for the Refugee Council, an aid group in Britain, contrasted the proposed new policy with Britain’s current approach to Ukrainian refugees. The government has rolled out a family reunification policy and a program that allows families to sponsor and provide housing for Ukrainian refugees fleeing the war.

As of Monday, 16,400 Ukrainian refugees had arrived in Britain under the programs, and 56,500 visas had been issued, according to government data.

“There is no difference between the risks facing Ukrainian refugees and the risks facing refugees from other conflict zones across the world,” Mr. Hewett said. “And the response from the U.K. government needs to be consistent. They can’t have an open door for one group, and at the same time, be slamming the door shut on another group.”

For the British government the pressing issue is its failure to curb the arrival of a small but steady flow of people making dangerous, sometimes fatal, crossings, often on unseaworthy boats, across the English Channel from France. While the number of people arriving in Britain by boat is not high by international standards, the channel crossings have been a persistent embarrassment to Mr. Johnson’s government.

Migrants arriving on British shores currently have the right to claim refugee status under international agreements. Of those applying for asylum, almost two-thirds were found to be genuine refugees in 2021.

The choice of Rwanda raised concerns among advocates because of a troubled human rights record that Britain itself has previously questioned. But it is regarded as a stable country with a track record of accommodating displaced people.

In 2017, it offered to receive up to 30,000 African migrants who had faced discrimination, trafficking and violence while in Libya, and overall it has welcomed almost 130,000 refugees or asylum seekers, mainly from the Democratic Republic of Congo and Burundi.

Mr. Johnson also laid out some conditions that seemed further intended to discourage migrants. He said that asylum seekers would, on arrival in Britain, be housed in centers, rather than hotels, and that the Navy would take an enhanced role in tackling the Channel crossings. “They’ll be housed in accommodations like those in Greece,” said Mr. Johnson, referring to the camps there, some of which have earned a reputation for dismal conditions.

Priti Patel, Britain’s home secretary, who traveled to Rwanda for the announcement, said in a statement that the agreement with Rwanda would see “those arriving dangerously, illegally or unnecessarily into the U.K. relocated to have their claims for asylum considered and, if recognized as refugees, to build their lives there.”

The government has not made clear whether the plan will apply to all asylum seekers arriving in Britain or just some. Mr. Johnson appeared to suggest that mostly men would be impacted, saying that it was “a striking fact that around seven out of 10 of those arriving in small boats last year were men under 40, paying people smugglers to queue-jump and taking up our capacity to help genuine women and child refugees.”

The Rwandan government said that people who are transferred to the country would be offered “legal pathways to residence” if their claims were successful.

Keir Starmer, leader of the opposition Labour Party, described the plan as “unworkable and extortionate.” He added that it was a “desperate announcement by a prime minister who just wants to distract from his own lawbreaking” following the decision by police on Tuesday to fine Mr. Johnson for breaking lockdown rules.

Ian Blackford, the leader of the Scottish National Party’s lawmakers in the British Parliament, told the BBC that the proposal was “absolutely chilling.”

Mr. Hewett, of the Refugee Council, said that it may take time for the full details of the plan to be released, meaning it was not yet possible to form definite conclusions on its legality. But he said the proposal at the very least undermined the spirit of the 1951 agreement, while setting a “dangerous precedent” that could lead other Western countries to outsource to countries like Rwanda.

“The principle of the convention is that people have a right to claim asylum in any country, that country should examine their asylum claim — and this completely undermines that principle,” he said.

The migrant pact comes just weeks after Johnston Busingye, Rwanda’s new high commissioner to Britain, arrived in London. The British government had been pressed to block Mr. Busingye’s appointment given his role in the arrest of the dissident Paul Rusesabagina, who helped save thousands during the Rwandan genocide.

Stephen Castle and Megan Specia reported from London and Abdi Latif Dahir from Nairobi, Kenya. Emma Bubola contributed reporting from London.