Understanding the Rwanda Policy: An Explanation of the U.K.'s Strategy for Asylum-Seekers

Following an extensive struggle in both the courts and Parliament, Britain's Conservative government successfully passed a bill on Monday. This legislation aims to enable the country to deport asylum-seekers to Rwanda.

The proposed legislation aims to counteract last year's Supreme Court decision that found the policy of deporting asylum-seekers to an African nation to be illegal. The court determined that Rwanda does not offer a secure environment for refugees to resettle or to have their asylum applications processed.

Do you believe you fulfil all immigration criteria? Uncover U.K. Immigration possibilities.

The Rwanda policy, a cornerstone of Prime Minister Rishi Sunak's agenda during declining approval ratings for his party, is now on the brink of implementation. However, it has sparked significant controversy, with critics arguing that it poses serious concerns regarding the rule of law and the separation of powers in Britain, potentially affecting thousands of asylum-seekers. Human rights organizations have committed to challenging the policy through legal avenues.

What is the Rwanda Policy? 

Following a surge in asylum-seekers crossing the English Channel after a pause due to the coronavirus pandemic, the Conservative government committed to "stop the boats." The majority of these arrivals, journeying in small and frequently unsafe boats, seek international protection in Britain via the asylum process. Many of them are ultimately recognized as refugees and granted permission to reside in Britain.

The government has enacted policies through various bills and agreements, stating that individuals arriving by small boats or other "irregular means" will be permanently ineligible for asylum in Britain. Under this policy, they will be detained and transferred to Rwanda, where their asylum requests will be processed. Successful applicants will then be resettled in Rwanda.

The government contends that the Rwanda policy will act as a deterrent, reducing the tens of thousands of dangerous annual crossings from France to Britain. However, migration specialists challenge this view, pointing out that individuals risking their lives on small boats to reach Britain are unlikely to be deterred.

Rights organizations and legal authorities have warned about enacting the policy, arguing that it breaches Britain's commitments to refugees under international law and infringes upon the 1951 U.N. Refugee Convention.

How did we arrive at this point? 

In the early part of 2021, Boris Johnson, who was the Prime Minister at the time, started proposing ideas to deport asylum-seekers to other countries. Controlling the U.K.'s borders was a key pledge of the 2016 Brexit campaign, fervently supported by both Johnson and Sunak.

During the summer of 2021, Priti Patel, overseeing immigration and asylum policies, introduced the Nationality and Borders Bill. This legislation criminalized irregular entry into the country, such as by boat without a visa. Additionally, it expanded the authorities' power to arrest and deport asylum-seekers.

In April 2022, the U.K. revealed an agreement with Rwanda to relocate asylum-seekers to the African nation in return for a significant development aid package worth hundreds of millions. Subsequently, the Nationality and Borders Bill was enacted into law later that same month.

However, legal obstacles and a last-minute provisional ruling by the European Court of Human Rights stopped the first scheduled flight in 2022. By early 2023, Suella Braverman, the Home Secretary at the time, rejuvenated the initiative by introducing the Illegal Migration Bill.

The legislation enacted in July 2023 tasked her office with the responsibility of removing almost all asylum-seekers who entered Britain "illegally" – that is, without a visa or via covert means such as small boats or trucks. However, in practice, many of these individuals would not be considered illegal entrants as genuine refugees possess the right to enter and seek international protection.

The proposed policy entails returning asylum-seekers to their countries of origin or relocating them to another secure third country, like Rwanda. Regardless of the verdict on their claims, they would be denied the right to reenter, settle, or obtain citizenship in Britain.

The attempts to deport asylum-seekers to Rwanda faced legal challenges and culminated in a Supreme Court decision that declared the plan unlawful.

The "Safety of Rwanda" Bill and a treaty signed with the African country earlier this year aim to circumvent judicial decisions by legally declaring Rwanda as safe. It mandates that judges and immigration officers regard and treat Rwanda by this designation.

What is Britain's financial expenditure on the plan?

Despite having yet to relocate any asylum-seekers to Rwanda, the independent public spending watchdog in Britain disclosed last month that by the end of 2024, the government is set to have disbursed 370 million pounds (approximately $457 million) to Rwanda. Moreover, the costs of implementing this policy will escalate should the flights commence.

Britain has committed to compensating Rwanda with an extra 20,000 pounds in development fees for each individual relocated, alongside 150,874 pounds per person to cover operational expenses. Beyond the initial transfer of 300 people, Britain will further provide Rwanda with an additional 120 million pounds.

On Tuesday, Yvette Cooper, the Labour opposition minister overseeing migration, criticized the expense as "exorbitant." She suggested that the funds would be better spent enhancing our border security.

What has been the response to the policy? 

Since its introduction, the policy has encountered significant resistance, especially from the United Nations refugee agency, UNHCR, which, in 2021, cautioned that it breaches international law.

On Tuesday, Filippo Grandi, the Commissioner for the UNHCR, expressed concerns that the law aims to "reallocate the responsibility of refugee protection, eroding the foundations of international cooperation and establishing a concerning precedent for the world."

Michael O'Flaherty, the Council of Europe's human rights commissioner, expressed serious concerns over the bill, highlighting its significant implications for asylum-seekers' human rights and the principle of the rule of law. He strongly advised the U.K. to halt deportations under this policy and to reconsider the bill, pointing out its direct challenge to judicial independence.

When are the initial deportation flights scheduled to depart?

Initially, Sunak pledged to deport asylum-seekers by spring. However, he recently stated that the first flights would only take off in June or July.

He mentioned that the government had prepared an airfield, secured commercial charter flights, and designated 500 skilled escorts to accompany asylum-seekers on their journey to Rwanda.

Legal authorities argue that the strategy is fundamentally flawed, while rights organizations are committed to opposing any proposals to deport asylum-seekers to Rwanda.

Richard Atkinson, the Vice President of the Law Society of England and Wales—a professional body for legal practitioners—stated on Tuesday that the bill is a flawed and constitutionally inappropriate legislation.

On Tuesday, over 250 British rights groups penned a letter to Sunak, committing to challenge the measures in European and British courts.

Individuals notified of their impending deportation to Rwanda will likely initiate legal challenges in British courts to contest their removal. Furthermore, some may seek recourse through the European Court of Human Rights, potentially prompting the issuance of an injunction to stop the flights.

At TerraTern, we help immigrants who face difficulties in their country of origin. We provide immigration and study abroad services and understand the importance of finding a safe and secure place to call home. We believe that all individuals have the right to seek asylum and protection, and we condemn any policies disregarding this fundamental human right.