By Sarah-Jane (Politics Correspondent)
Edited by Mark Etkind (Politics Editor)
On Wednesday 13th of April, the Rwanda Asylum Seeker Scheme was enacted for the following five years by the, now former, British Home Secretary Priti Patel and Rwandan Minister of Foreign Affairs Vincent Biruta. The Rwanda Migrant Scheme proposed by them is a new immigration policy which sends individuals identified by the United Kingdom as illegal immigrants or asylum seekers to Rwanda.
The Rwanda asylum scheme was first proposed by the former Labour Home Secretary, David Blunkett back in 2004. However, Blunkett’s policy was vastly different to the policy proposed by the current Conservative government. In 2004, Blunkett had proposed that asylum seekers should be processed in centres outside of the EU, and temporarily housed there, until applicants were successful and would then be approved to move and settle in the UK. Furthermore, in 2004, the Home Office was in talks with Tanzania to send failed Somali asylum seekers from Britain to Tanzania.
Despite all three of the plans involving asylum seekers being processed outside of the UK, the significant and important distinction is that Labour plans would allow successful applicants to relocate to the UK, while the current Conservative policy would have them permanently sent to Rwanda. Labour’s proposal was scrapped in 2004 due to a Human Rights Report. However, despite the backlash the government has received over the plans, the Rwanda asylum scheme is still set to go ahead.
Earlier this year, 47 people were told they would be flown to Rwanda, with a flight booked for the 14th of June. After a series of legal challenges, and a ruling from the European Court of Human Rights, the flight was cancelled. However, there is uncertainty on whether the Rwanda Asylum plan will be given the go ahead in future as it is currently facing several High Court challenges in the UK.
Unsurprisingly, the government faced extreme backlash over on the Rwanda asylum plan leading to a number of protests nationwide. One protest, on the A4 Colnbrook Bypass, have involved protesters lying in the road and locking themselves together. In a statement a spokesperson for the Met Police said: “Police were called at 17:12 on Tuesday, 14th June to reports of a group of protesters blocking the A4 Colnbrook Bypass”. During the protest, nine people were arrested for obstructing the highway. The Conservative Government still continues to argue that the Rwanda Asylum Scheme would reduce numbers crossing the English Channel considerably.
Rwanda claims that they can process a thousand Asylum Seekers during its trial period, and claims that there is even more capacity available. Under the scheme, Rwanda can also request to send some of their most vulnerable refugees to the UK. The UN Refugee Agency defines an asylum seeker as someone who has applied for shelter and protection in another country. A refugee is a person who has fled conflict or persecution in their own country. The Rwanda Asylum Scheme determines the eligibility of a refugee/asylum seeker for the scheme if they have travelled illegally into the UK, by any means on transport, with the exception of Rwandan nationals and unaccompanied asylum-seeking children.
Anybody caught arriving through the British Channel can be eligible for the Rwanda asylum scheme and could face being forcibly transported over 6,500km (4,000 miles) across the world to Rwanda. Rwanda is a densely populated, land-locked country in east-central Africa. Rwanda is known for its breath-taking scenery and its bordering neighbours are Uganda, Tanzania, and Burundi. Rwanda became the second country without any historical ties to the United Kingdom and the British Empire to join the commonwealth, which it did in 2009. Rwanda was a colony of Germany in the 19th century and of Belgium for the first half of the 20th century. Belgium officially granted Rwanda independence in July 1962 after the victorious Hutus had forced Rwanda’s Tutsi monarch into exile and declared the country a republic.
Despite the UK governments claims that Rwanda is a safe country, it has recently been described to the High Court as an “authoritarian state” that “tortures and murders political opponents”. It is reported that the former Home Secretary, Priti Patel, was advised against the Rwanda Asylum Scheme by government officials. Rwanda has a relatively low crime rate, yet its political state is an alarming factor to consider in the trial to see asylum seekers transported to Rwanda.
During the High Court trial, one of the Barristers, said that “neither the claimed economic benefit” of the policy, “nor its asserted efficacy as a deterrent, has any evidential foundation”. Multiple documents that have been disclosed during the trial show repeated warnings about the Rwanda Asylum plan and its safety to Cabinet Members, including Priti Patel. The repeated dismissal of the asylum seekers safety by the Conservative Party, along with the Nationality and Borders Act passed last year that gives the Home Office power to revoke dual citizenship without notice, is a raise for concern and leaves worry for other citizens currently under Conservative leadership. This can only lead someone to ponder, what other safety issues are the Conservative government choosing to dismiss?
After the election of, the new Prime Minister, Liz Truss on Monday the 5th of September, activists have argued that the treatment of refugees will worsen under her new government. Liz Truss has said that she plans to “support and extend” the Rwanda Asylum Scheme. Furthermore, on September 3rd , Truss’s team said that immigration would become a “top priority” if she was successful in becoming Prime Minister and continued to vow that Rwanda deportations would still go ahead, despite the criticism it so far faces.
Liz Truss’s voting record on immigration has been questionable in the past few years. On the 20th of July 2021, Truss voted in favour of the Nationality and Borders Bill. The Nationality and Borders Bill involved raising the maximum penalty for “assisting unlawful immigration or asylum seekers” from 14 years’ to life imprisonment. However, Truss voted against the first reading of the Nationality and Borders Bill which included the enabling of stateless children born in the United Kingdom or a British overseas territory (after the bill was passed) to become a British citizen or a British overseas citizen.
The legal challenge against the Rwanda Asylum Scheme returned to the High Court on Monday 5th of September and has not yet given an official announcement date for the judgement. The final decision will be made by two, anonymous, judges in the High Court.
So, all that is left to do is wait. What do you think? Should the Rwanda Asylum Scheme be allowed to go ahead? Or is it a clear violation of human rights?
Comments