Boris Johnson is set to announce an agreement with Rwanda that would allow migrants to travel more than 4,000 miles to the closed African country while awaiting a Home Office decision on asylum. It is understood that the Rwandan government will pay an initial cost of 120 120 million under the agreement, which will be financed by the British taxpayer. The prime minister is expected to outline the plans in a speech on Thursday morning, saying: “Our compassion may be infinite, but our ability to help people is not. “The British people have voted many times to control our borders – not to close them, but to control them. “Just as Brexit has allowed us to regain control of legal immigration by replacing free movement with our point-based system, we are also taking control of illegal immigration with a long-term asylum plan in this country.” However, while the government claims the move will allow the UK to “regain control”, critics have condemned the policy, saying it was “cruel and ugly”. Describing it as “impossible, immoral and blackmailing”, shadowy Home Secretary Yvette Cooper warned it would cost the UK’s taxpayers billions of pounds. . He called the announcement a “desperate and shameful” attempt by Mr Johnson to “divert attention from his own breach of the law” and the “collapse” of the Home Office decision on asylum applications, which saw thousands waiting for more. from one year for decision. “The Interior Ministry is now a list of failures, from passport queues to visa delays for Ukraine, rising crime and declining prosecutions. Instead of trying to recover, they wallow in their sadness and thus, experience more failure. “Britain deserves better,” he added. Enver Solomon, of the Refugee Council, described the plan as “cruel and ugly” and said it would not prevent people from coming to the UK, only leading to “more human suffering and chaos”. “Not by allowing people to rebuild their lives, we know where this has come from in other countries. [that] “It only results in high levels of self-harm and mental health issues, and it can also lead to people falling into the hands of smugglers.” The plan for developing offshore processing capacity is part of the controversial bill on nationality and borders of the Ministry of Interior, which is currently in parliament. Senior Tories condemned the move, with former Cabinet Secretary Andrew Mitchell warning that the move would include building a “British Guantanamo Bay” and costing 2 2m per asylum seeker – more than putting them in the Ritz. Richard Harrington, the government’s own refugee minister, said just last week that he had not been informed of the plans and indicated that any such policy was likely to fail. Critics point to a similar immigration agreement between Rwanda and Israel between 2014 and 2017, which resulted in most of those sent there leaving the country and making the perilous journey to Europe – during which many people were trafficked and sold. Campaigns have also warned that the plan could see LGBT + asylum seekers fleeing life-threatening situations in their home countries and seeking protection in the UK being sent to a country where it is not safe for homosexuals and transgender people. . their sexual orientation. There are widespread allegations of ill-treatment and abuse of LGBT + people in Rwanda, with a Human Rights Watch report last year stating that Rwandan authorities had arrested and arbitrarily arrested gay and trans people in the country. An asylum policy in Australia, which lasted from 2001 to 2007 and resumed in 2014, has led thousands of people to be diverted to Nauru or Manus Island to have their applications processed. The policy has been widely condemned, with Amnesty International saying it amounted to indefinite detention in conditions that could be considered “humiliating or inhumane”. Sonya Sceats, chief executive of Freedom from Torture, said the plans were “deeply troubling” and “should intimidate anyone with a conscience”. “Australia’s experiment with offshore processing camps has become a hotbed of human rights abuses, where sexual abuse of women and children was widespread,” he said. “It is even more disappointing that the UK government has entered into this agreement with a state known for its torture, as we know from the many Rwandan torture survivors we have treated over the years.” Mr Johnson said in a statement that the plan would “ensure that the United Kingdom has a world-leading supply of asylum, providing generous protection to those fleeing the worst of humanity by relocating thousands of people each year through safe and legal means”. roads ». Following Johnson’s speech, Home Secretary Patel will announce more details about what the government has called the “world’s first immigration and economic development partnership” during a visit to Rwanda.
Where has “offshoring” been used before?
There are still many details about the UK government’s new immigration agreement with Rwanda, but the goal is clear: to remove asylum seekers to prevent them from reaching our shores. The policy of “withdrawal” of asylum seekers is a first for the United Kingdom, but it has been done – although examples are limited – in other parts of the world. Australia began placing asylum seekers in detention centers in Nauru and Manus Island in 2001. The policy was in place until 2007 and resumed in 2014. It has seen thousands placed in detention camps at a cost of about $ 12 billion over eight years to in 2021. Up to three-quarters of asylum seekers held in Australian offshore camps were eventually declared refugees, but their government denied any prospect of resettlement in the country. The harsh 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 unhealthy living conditions and poor levels of health care. At least 10 people have been killed while being held in Australian offshore treatment plants. No data were found on the effectiveness of the Australian offshore asylum model in reducing migration flows, according to a report by the Open Society European Policy Institute. Announcing its new agreement on “migration and economic development”, the government described Rwanda as “one of the fastest growing economies in Africa, recognized worldwide for its history of receiving and integrating migrants”. However, a similar immigration agreement between Rwanda and Israel between 2014 and 2017 is said to have resulted in nearly 4,000 people being estimated to have been sent there to leave the country almost immediately. Many have sought to return to Europe via human trafficking routes, where trafficking and human rights abuses are widespread, especially during travel to Libya. In a less direct example, the EU has also been accused of using a form of offshoring in its efforts to curb migration to the Libyan Coast Guard, which the bloc has funded to repel the Mediterranean and bring migrants back to the Libya. . Immigrants were then held in detention centers and fell victim to rogue trafficking gangs, who subjected them to torture in an attempt to extort money from relatives in their home countries. Denmark signed an immigration agreement with Rwanda last year and passed a law allowing the country to relocate asylum seekers outside the EU while their cases are being processed, although it is not believed that migrants from Denmark have yet been sent to Rwanda. The African Union strongly condemned the move, accusing Denmark of “shifting the burden” and stressing that Africa was already “carrying the burden” of many of the world’s refugees. As no offshore policy around the world is known to have been successful, and the many human rights violations that have resulted from such policies, the UK plan carries significant risks.
