Asylum seekers seeking safe haven in the UK could be sent to Rwanda for processing under new government plans, it has emerged.
Boris Johnson is said to be “edging closer” to unveiling proposals to send asylum seekers and migrants to the central African nation after a “surge” in the number of people trying to cross the Channel to reach British shores, Sky News reported.
The PM had wanted to announce a “trial” of the plans last week, The Times said, but “wobbled” after ministers and officials raised concerns that the plans were not ready.
The Week
Escape your echo chamber. Get the facts behind the news, plus analysis from multiple perspectives.
SUBSCRIBE & SAVE
Sign up for The Week's Free Newsletters
Join more than 350,000 subscribers and keep yourself informed with a selection of The Week’s most interesting, enlightening and entertaining stories - plus daily puzzles.
Join more than 350,000 subscribers and keep yourself informed with a selection of The Week’s most interesting, enlightening and entertaining stories - plus daily puzzles.
Latest Videos FromThe Week
Border security
The government’s controversial Nationality and Borders Bill, which will enable asylum seekers to be processed abroad, has not yet gained royal assent, while the terms of the deal with Rwanda are “still to be finalised”, The Times reported.
Under the plans, the government could pay Rwanda “millions” as part of a deal to send asylum seekers to the country rather than housing them in the UK. Discussions have been “shrouded in secrecy” with ministers referring only to “country X” during meetings.
“He wanted to go ahead with it but it’s just not ready,” a government source told the paper. “It’s close but there are still a lot of things in the balance.”
An announcement is “likely” if the government’s Nationality and Borders bill passes through the Commons and Lords before the Queen’s Speech in May. However, there remains “resistance” to the bill in the upper house, The Times reported, as well as from some of Johnson’s own backbench MPs.
So far this year, some 4,550 people have crossed the Channel in small boats, “more than triple the number that had arrived by this time in 2021”, reported The Times. If the rate continues, 2022 will likely be a record-breaking year for illegal crossings.
Best-laid plans
Similar proposals to process migrants in third countries or territories have come to light in recent months, although the reported plans have so far made little progress.
In January, Ghana was named alongside Rwanda as one of two African nations approached by the government to set up an offshore immigration centre for migrants and asylum seekers. But Ghanaian diplomats “flatly denied” that any such proposals were under consideration, according to the i news site.
The Home Office also reportedly held talks with Denmark last summer over plans to share an immigration centre in Africa.
A government source told The Times at the time that representatives of both countries discussed how the Danish government managed the laws domestically and their negotiations with third countries, as well as the “potential” to share a processing centre abroad.
Ascension Island, a UK overseas territory in the South Atlantic, has also been touted as a possible location for an offshore processing centre. However, Home Office minister Tom Pursglove said “The suggestion around the Ascension Island is untrue”, The National reported.
Pros and cons
The Nationality and Borders Bill, which would allow asylum seekers to be processed overseas, has been described as “barbaric” by critics and has been subject to heavy amendments in the House of Lords, Sky News reported.
Johnson is also facing resistance from three former ministers – David Davis, Andrew Mitchell and Simon Hoare – who unsuccessfully rebelled against the plans for overseas processing centres contained in the Bill.
Davis said the plans for having the potential to create “a British Guantanamo Bay”, warning it would be a “moral, economic and practical failure”.
The bill was also met with “swift condemnation” by international rights groups and law experts when it was first introduced to parliament last summer, said Euractiv.
Tim Naor Hilton, chief executive of Refugee Action, described it as an “extreme and nasty anti-refugee bill [that] has no place in any country that seeks to defend human rights and the rule of law”.
The Law Society of England and Wales also warned the bill would likely breach the UK’s obligations under the 1951 UN Refugee Convention.
Australia-style system
Offshore processing of asylum seekers is already in place in Australia. But other governments should be wary of following Australia’s example, Human Rights Watch has warned, condemning the policy as “abusive and costly”.
In October 2021, the government had plans to “consider emulating” Australia’s system, said The Guardian. The paper revealed Foreign Office documents that showed Downing Street sought its advice on “negotiating an offshore asylum processing facility similar to the Australian model in Papua New Guinea and Nauru”.
The Australian policy has “consistently drawn worldwide condemnation from governments, legal groups, United Nations bodies, and human rights NGOs for its radical lack of transparency and documented failures”, the paper added.
But while the argument for onshore processing of asylum seekers is often “used as a de facto test of compassion, morality or support”, we should be wary of “simplistic” solutions to complex immigration problems, said The Sydney Morning Herald.
The return of “failed” asylum seekers, “can occur only with the agreement of the host country”, a “difficult process” that can “take years”, the paper added.
But “having a system where it is known that even if you are not a genuine refugee Australia will find it very difficult to return you, is to invite people to circumvent our skilled and family migration programs”.
