Ministers have for the first time signed an agreement to send asylum seekers arriving in the UK to another country to have their cases processed, and the move, experts warn, will encourage traffickers.
Boris Johnson is ready to announce an agreement with Rwanda, according to which migrants will be “taken” more than 4,000 miles to the landlocked African country while awaiting a decision on asylum from the Ministry of Interior.
The Rwandan government is expected to be paid an initial price of £ 120 million for the deal, which will be funded by the British taxpayer.
The prime minister is expected to set out his plans in a speech Thursday morning, saying: “Our compassion may be endless, but our ability to help people is not.
“The British have voted several times to control our borders – not to close them, but to control them. So just as Brexit has allowed us to regain control of legal immigration by replacing free movement with our point-based system, we are also regaining control of illegal immigration with a long-term asylum plan in that country.
But while the government says the move will allow the UK to “regain control”, critics have condemned the policy, saying it was “cruel and nasty”.
Describing it as “incapable, unethical and blackmailing”, shadow Home Secretary Yvette Cooper warned that it would cost billions of pounds to taxpayers in the UK during the cost of living crisis and make it more difficult, not difficult. easier ”to get quick and fair asylum decisions.
She dismissed the message as Mr Johnson’s “desperate and embarrassing” attempt to “divert attention from his own breach of the law” and from the “failure” of the Home Office’s asylum decision-making, which sees thousands waiting for more. from year to decision.
“The Interior Ministry is now a catalog of failures, from passport queues to delays in Ukrainian visas, to rising crime and declining prosecutions. Instead of mastering the basics, all Priti Patel and Mr. Johnson do is come up with wild and unworkable titles. Britain deserves better, “she added.
Enver Solomon, of the Refugee Council, described the plan as “cruel and nasty” and said he would do little to stop people from coming to the UK, only “more human suffering and chaos”.
“Far from allowing people to rebuild their lives, we know where other countries have done it. [that] “It only leads to high levels of self-harm and mental health problems, and it can also lead to people falling back into the hands of human smugglers,” he said.
The Offshore Processing Capacity Development Plan is part of a controversial bill on the nationality and borders of the Interior Ministry, which is currently going through parliament.
Senior Tories condemned the move, with former Cabinet Secretary Andrew Mitchell warning that the move would involve the construction of British Guantanamo Bay and would cost £ 2 million to an asylum seeker – more than settling into the Ritz.
Richard Harrington, the government’s refugee minister, said only last week that he had not been informed of the plans and said any such policy was likely to fail.
Critics point to a similar migration agreement between Rwanda and Israel between 2014 and 2017, which resulted in most of those sent there leaving the country and embarking on a dangerous journey to Europe – during which many people were trafficked and sold.
Campaigners also warned that the plan is likely to see LGBT + asylum seekers who have fled life-threatening situations in their home countries and sought protection in the UK be sent to a country where it is not safe for gays and transgender people. to be open to their sexual orientation.
There is widespread evidence of abuse and ill-treatment of LGBT + people in Rwanda, with a report by Human Rights Watch last year alleging that Rwandan authorities arrested and arbitrarily detained gays and transgender people in the country.
Australia’s asylum-seeking policy, which ran from 2001 to 2007 and restarted in 2014, has led thousands to divert thousands to Nauru or the island of Manus to have their applications processed. The policy was widely condemned, with Amnesty International saying it was indefinite detention in what could be considered “humiliating or inhumane” conditions.
Sonia Steats, CEO of Freedom from Torture, said the plans were “deeply disturbing” and should “terrify anyone with a conscience”.
“Australia’s experiment with offshore processing camps has become a hotbed of human rights abuses, where sexual violence against women and children has been widespread,” she said. “Even more worrying is that the UK government has agreed to this deal with a country known to be torturing, as we know from the many torture survivors in Rwanda that we have treated over the years.
Mr Johnson said in a statement that the plan “will ensure that the UK has the world’s leading asylum offer, providing generous protection to those who are fleeing the worst of humanity by settling thousands of people each year.” in safe and legal ways. “
Following Mr Johnson’s speech, Interior Minister Patel will announce further details of what the government called “the world’s first partnership for migration and economic development” during a visit to Rwanda.
Where has offshoring been used before?
There are still many details about the UK Government’s new migration agreement with Rwanda, but the goal is clear: to send asylum seekers to prevent them from arriving on our shores.
The policy of “offshore” asylum seekers is the first for the United Kingdom, but it has been made – although examples are limited – in other parts of the world.
Australia began accommodating asylum seekers in detention centers in Nauru and Manus Island in 2001. The policy lasted until 2007 and restarted in 2014. It housed thousands in detention camps worth about $ 12 billion for the eight years until 2021
Up to three-quarters of asylum seekers held in Australia’s offshore camps were eventually identified as refugees, but their government denied any prospect of resettlement in the country.
The severe physical conditions in the centers are well documented, with detainees suffering from poor mental health due to prolonged detention and uncertainty about their future prospects, inadequate and unhygienic living conditions and poor standards of health care.
At least 10 people have been killed while being held in offshore processing centers in Australia.
No evidence has been found of the effectiveness of Australia’s offshore asylum model in reducing migration flows, according to a report by the Open Society Institute for European Policy.
Announcing its new deal on “migration and economic development”, the government described Rwanda as “one of the fastest growing economies in Africa, recognized worldwide for its records of welcoming and integrating migrants”.
But a similar migration deal between Rwanda and Israel between 2014 and 2017 is said to have led to almost all 4,000 people believed to have been sent there to leave the country almost immediately.
Many have tried to return to Europe on human smuggling routes, where trafficking and human rights abuses are widespread, especially during travel through Libya.
In a less direct example, the EU has also been accused of using offshoring, working to curb migration to the Libyan coast guard, which the bloc finances to push back into the Mediterranean and return migrants back to Libya.
The migrants were subsequently detained in centers and fell victim to ruthless trafficking gangs who tortured them in an attempt to extort money from their relatives back to their home countries.
Denmark signed a migration agreement with Rwanda last year and adopted an act allowing the country to relocate asylum seekers outside the EU while their cases are being processed, although it is believed that there are still no migrants sent from Denmark to Rwanda.
The African Union strongly condemned the move, accusing Denmark of “shifting the burden” and stressing that Africa was already “taking the burden” of many refugees around the world.
As there is no offshore policy in the world that is known to have been successful, and many human rights violations result from such policies, the UK plan comes with significant risks.
Add Comment