June 08, 2022
Short Url
The first flight carrying asylum seekers and migrants from the UK to Rwanda was initially due to remove dozens for processing in Kigali, the capital of the African nation, this week. The flight, now postponed to June 14 or even later, comes after the new Nationality and Borders Act was signed into law in April. This gives the UK government the power to transfer to a “safe third country” the responsibility to provide asylum to those who arrive in the UK through “irregular” routes, such as crossing the English Channel from Calais in France to Dover in the UK.
Residents at a detention center in Sussex in southern England resorted to hunger strikes to pressure the British authorities to refrain from deporting them to Rwanda, more than 7,000 km away. The migrants or asylum seekers in question are said to be of Middle Eastern origin and had made the treacherous crossing of the English Channel in the last few months on board dangerous small boats. They are considered by London to have gained entry illegally and have, therefore, been earmarked for this scheme.
Many believe that this new government policy is aimed at deterring further arrivals on small boats from France. These crossings have added strain to UK-France relations post-Brexit and have caused Boris Johnson’s Conservative government embarrassment among its ardent supporters, since it promised to clamp down on so-called illegal immigration after withdrawing from the EU.
The UK scheme resembles what have been branded by some as “fantasy island” immigration centers, such as those used by Australia to process asylum seekers in Nauru and Papua New Guinea.
Home Secretary Priti Patel did not seem concerned by the hunger strikes or threat of self-harm by asylum seekers earmarked for transportation to Rwanda. She claimed she is “absolutely determined” that the UK will send migrants away despite the prospect of legal challenges, since activists, opposition politicians, human rights campaigners and the UN Refugee Agency have all slammed the plan as unworkable.
Those who took part in the hunger strikes are reported to be from Egypt, Syria and Sudan, but they seem to have abandoned their protests for the time being. They apparently said they would rather die than be placed on a deportation flight, as many see Rwanda as not being fit to receive migrants or offer protection to asylum seekers.
A recent UK Home Office report claimed that asylum seekers in Rwanda are sometimes forced to wait years for a decision and that two-thirds of applications are rejected. The report also cites evidence that some Middle Eastern people face discrimination. Despite this, Patel insists that the UK’s £120 million ($150 million) deal with Rwanda allows deportees granted asylum there to “build their lives” and gives the necessary “protection for those who are genuinely vulnerable.”
The Home Office’s own guidance on Rwanda’s asylum system quotes a UN Refugee Agency assessment that decisions on cases can take as long as two years, despite claims by the Kigali government that the wait is usually only 45 days. UN officials who support asylum seekers and refugees in Rwanda said that, until 2020, there was only one eligibility officer assessing all asylum cases, there was a lack of interpreters, and that two-thirds of applications were rejected in 2019.
Assurances that the UK will help Rwanda build capacity and provide more caseworkers, legal advice, translators and a “comprehensive integration package” do not go far enough, as those transported there will not have gone on their own accord. There are also concerns about basic human rights abuses.
Sending migrants to Rwanda for processing will not work. The UK immigration processing center in the small African nation, which will be built using the £120 million London is sending to Kigali, might deter migrants wishing to reach the UK and settle there, but it will not end the problem. For decades, Britain has grappled with trying to find a balance that presents it as a nation that shows empathy in its dealing with migrants, offering shelter to those fleeing conflicts and other dangers, while at the same time ensuring that such flows do not add significant stress to its already overstretched health and social services.
The country needs to choose whether it is a great power with a heart or simply a medium-size nation that is unable to be generous with migrants and asylum seekers.
Mohamed Chebaro
Recently — and despite Prime Minister Johnson’s posturing about supporting Ukraine’s fight against the Russians until the end — the UK left it to its people’s own private goodwill to take Ukrainian refugees into their homes, which many thought was a first case of a country “privatizing” its asylum system.
The immigration system in the UK has been broken for decades. The country needs to choose whether it is a great power with a heart or simply a medium-size nation that — thanks to years of austerity under the Conservatives, which has drained its institutions of funds — is unable to be generous with migrants and asylum seekers. Such a choice could maybe help lawmakers and officials design the necessary rules for the country to welcome those its job markets need for employment and entrepreneurship, as well as those it wants to offer shelter to and protect from violence, torture and persecution, in the hope that neither group becomes a burden on the strained social benefits system the UK affords all those in need domestically.
- Mohamed Chebaro is a British-Lebanese journalist, media consultant and trainer with more than 25 years’ experience covering war, terrorism, defense, current affairs and diplomacy.
Disclaimer: Views expressed by writers in this section are their own and do not necessarily reflect Arab News’ point of view
source https://www.arabnews.com/node/2099666
Categories: asylum, Europe, Europe and Australia, Immigration, migrants, refugees, UK