The UN refugee agency has condemned Boris Johnson’s plan to send asylum seekers to Rwanda as a “symbolic gesture” that would be virtually impossible.
Speaking to the Guardian, Gillian Trigs, UNHCR’s assistant high commissioner, said the proposed agreement would only accommodate several hundred people a year, making it extremely expensive, as well as illegal and discriminatory.
Ministers insisted on Friday that the scheme would save money “in the long run”, despite reported costs of up to £ 30,000 per person.
But government insiders have said the expected flood of lawsuits could cost significantly more, with some predicting it could take two years before someone is sent to Rwanda.
“We are in an environment where populist governments will turn to their right-wing, anti-immigrant sentiments” Gillian Trigs, UNHCR
Interior Ministry sources said they were prepared for judicial reviews and a wave of immigration tribunals regarding the legality of attempts by offshore asylum seekers to arrive after traveling across the English Channel in small boats.
There are two stages of appeals for judicial review and three for those who want to challenge their removal through an immigration tribunal, which calls into question Johnson’s stated goal of taking people to the Central African country over the next six weeks.
Interior Minister Priti Patel signed a “ministerial decree” authorizing the implementation of the policy, despite objections to the expenditure from the permanent secretary of her department.
A source from the Ministry of Interior said that the ministry’s ordinance was issued because the long-term savings made by the new policy “cannot be quantified with certainty”, but Patel did not want to allow “lack of precise modeling” to keep the decision.
Downing Street said it expects thousands of asylum seekers to be relocated in the first few years of the scheme.
Trigs accused the United Kingdom of “trying to shift the burden to a developing country” and warned that the agreement signed by Patel “will not be in line with the UK’s international legal responsibilities”, adding: “All indications are that it will be unfeasible . ”
Trigs continued: “We want to end the vulnerability of people on the move to human trafficking and, of course, we want to stop drowning people, but we strongly disagree with the persecution of people in need of protection. Instead, there must be an increase in legal routes to the United Kingdom. “
The proposals appear to be designed to attract anti-immigrant sentiment in the UK, she suggested.
“We are a politically neutral, humanitarian body – it’s not really for me to comment on politics,” Trigs said.
“But we are in an environment where populist governments will turn to their right-wing, anti-immigrant sentiment, and that will probably be part of that.
Two former Tory international development secretaries voiced opposition to the policy on Friday, questioning whether the government would successfully send someone to Rwanda.
Rory Stewart told the Guardian that “there is a very high probability that this is a complete pie in the sky” and that he was “expelled to distract people” because the prime minister was fined by the police for attending a party. on Downing Street, which violates Covid law.
Stewart, a minister under Theresa May, said that when he was in government, it was difficult enough to return some citizens to their places of birth.
“This is a completely unusual thing to do, and I think the legal challenges will mean they won’t get to the planes,” he predicted.
Stewart, who visited Rwanda earlier this month, said it was “one of the poorest countries on Earth” and “a particularly extreme environment in which to place people.”
Asylum seekers in the UK face the possibility of being taken to a facility in Rwanda
Conservative MP Andrew Mitchell also said it was impractical, immoral and incredibly expensive.
“Costs are eye-catching,” he told the BBC. “You will send people 6,000 miles to Central Africa – it seemed when it was previously discussed in parliament that it would actually be cheaper to accommodate anyone seeking asylum at the Ritz Hotel in London.”
Trigs also warned that the United Kingdom is discriminating against refugees by offering an unrestricted scheme for asylum seekers from Ukraine and a “draconian” system for refugees from other countries.
“At the political level, we are seeing levels of discrimination,” Trigs said. “We are deeply concerned that the processes appear to be discriminatory. One of the basic principles of international law is non-discrimination based on race, ethnicity or nationality.
Trigs hoped that British support for the accommodation of Ukrainian refugees would encourage the government to reconsider its proposals.
She said: “We have seen an outpouring of sympathy and generosity from the British people themselves. So we see this message as uncharacteristic of British values. We hope that the public response will help to improve the negative aspects of this proposal with Rwanda. “
Johnson was also sent a letter from 150 British refugee organizations, warning that the plan would “cause great suffering” and lead to more, not less, dangerous travel – leaving more people at risk of trafficking.
Signatories, including the Joint Immigrant Welfare Council, LGBT + refugee advocates Rainbow Migration and HOPE not Hate, said Rwanda had “poor human rights record” and the most vulnerable people had to “bear the brunt”.
Future legislation will be needed to place the deal, signed by Rwanda’s interior minister earlier this week, in the UK’s charter.
Alf Dubs, a Labor peer who was a refugee child, told the Guardian that he expected “a lot of fighting for it” and that the Bishop of Durham, who also sits in the House of Lords, signaled he was opposed to the policy. , saying it was “wrong in so many ways.”
Home Secretary Tom Parsglove defended Rwanda’s initiative, saying it would “crush” the smugglers’ business model and reduce the cost of accommodating all those arriving in the UK illegally, which he said was up to £ 5 million. per day.
He said in addition to the £ 120m already committed to fund the scheme, “we will continue to contribute to Rwanda as it handles cases, in a way similar to the amount of money we are currently spending on it here in the UK”.
Persglove added: “But in the long run, putting this under control should help us save money.
“We spend £ 5 million a day to accommodate people who cross into hotels. This is not sustainable and unacceptable and we need to keep it under control. “
Add Comment