The United Kingdom’s contentious plan to deport asylum seekers to Rwanda has sparked heated debates and raised critical questions about human rights, morality, and the efficacy of such a strategy.
In recent years, the UK has faced an influx of asylum seekers attempting to cross the English Channel in small boats. Seeking a solution to this crisis, the British government proposed a radical plan: deporting some asylum seekers to Rwanda.
Under a five-year agreement, certain asylum seekers arriving in the UK would be sent to Rwanda for processing. If their claims were successful, they could be granted refugee status and allowed to stay. If not, they could apply to settle in Rwanda or seek asylum in another “safe third country.” The plan is aimed to deter people from making perilous journeys across the Channel.
The deal also involves financial incentives. The UK will pay at least £370 million to Rwanda, with additional payments for each person relocated. However, the first deportation flight, scheduled for June 2022, was canceled due to legal challenges.
Moral And Human Rights Concerns
The UK Supreme Court ruled that the Rwanda scheme was unlawful, citing the risk of “refoulement” — returning genuine refugees to countries where they could face harm. Rwanda’s human rights record has raised red flags, including allegations of torture, extrajudicial killings, and mistreatment of refugees.
The Supreme Court judgment stated that “there were real risks that asylum claims would not be properly determined by the Rwandan authorities, and (b) that in consequence there were real risks of refoulement, and that so long as such grounds existed any removals under the MEDP would contravene section 6 of the Human Rights Act…”
Hence, by sending asylum seekers to Rwanda, the UK risks violating the European Convention on Human Rights.
As a signatory to international conventions, the UK has a moral duty to protect those fleeing persecution. Deporting them to a country with potential risks undermines this responsibility. Balancing national interests with humanitarian obligations is a delicate task.
Furthermore, deportation decisions have lasting consequences for individuals. Separating families, disrupting lives, and subjecting people to uncertain futures challenge the UK’s moral compass. Is deterrence worth the human cost?
While the UK aims to reduce migration costs, the financial burden of the Rwanda deal remains significant. The promised funds could be better allocated to improving asylum processing within the UK or supporting refugees directly. Moreover, the economic impact on Rwanda — a developing nation — must be carefully assessed.
Moreover, does this deportation plan infringe upon an individual’s right to self-determination? By denying asylum seekers the chance to return to the UK, their autonomy is limited. Shouldn’t they have the agency to decide their fate, even if it means returning to their home country? Besides, had they wanted asylum in Rwanda, they wouldn’t have come to the UK in the first place.
Could the UK have pursued alternative solutions? Perhaps investing in more efficient asylum processing centers, collaborating with neighboring countries, or addressing root causes of migration? A comprehensive approach that respects human rights, allocates resources wisely and considers individual autonomy might yield better results.
UK Government Rejects Exemption for Afghan Heroes
Yet the UK government is bent on implementing its deportation plan. Even a plan to stop Afghan heroes who supported British troops from being deported to Rwanda was rejected by Rishi Sunak.
MPs on Monday, March 19 night overturned all 10 amendments to the Safety of Rwanda Bill by the House of Lords, including one that would have excluded anyone who supported British armed forces in an “exposed or meaningful manner” from being deported to the east African country.
The House of Commons rejected the Lords amendment, with 312 MPs voting against it and 255 voting in favor. This resulted in a significant majority of 57 in favor of the government’s position.
Other amendments that were overturned included one that sought to ensure the bill complied with domestic and international law, and another that would have prevented parliament from declaring Rwanda a safe country until the treaty, along with its promised safeguards, was fully implemented.
Ahead of the votes, the prime minister was told it was a “moral imperative” that Afghan heroes who supported British troops should not be deported to Rwanda. However, these calls went unheeded.
In hindsight, alternative approaches — such as improving domestic asylum processing, collaborating with neighboring countries, and addressing root causes of migration — might better align with human rights and moral imperatives. As the UK government navigates this complex issue, it must remember that behind policies and statistics lie real people seeking safety and dignity.
READ ALSO: EU’s Approach to Irregular Migration, A Flawed Strategy
