Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill

• Context (IE): The Rwanda Bill was passed by the UK to counter a challenge raised by the British Supreme Court against a controversial deportation policy.

What was the policy?

• UK government plans for deporting undocumented immigrants to the East African nation of Rwanda.
• Rwanda plan aims to reduce illegal migration and net migration numbers in the UK.

Need for such a policy

• Rising migrant population: The number of migrants arriving in Britain on small boats soared to 45,774 in 2022 from just 299 four years earlier.
• Domestic elections: UK elections are due in 2025, and such a policy is seen as a popular measure.

Main provisions of the bill

• Under the Bill, asylum seekers deemed to have illegally entered its territories after January 1, 2022, can be sent to Rwanda for “processing”.
• Crucially, irrespective of whether an asylum seeker is found to be “genuine” or not, they cannot return to the UK and must opt for settlement in either Rwanda or another country.
• The bill was introduced to respond to the UK’s Supreme Court’s concerns and allow Parliament to confirm the Republic of Rwanda’s status as a safe third country.

Why Rwanda was chosen?

• Other nations were dismissed as unviable or rejected by the host country.
• Rwanda was always the most promising country that agreed to strike the deal.
• Earlier in 2021, Denmark agreed to a “memorandum of understanding” with Rwanda, which was referred to as a possible “precursor to a subsequent transfer agreement”.
• Rwanda currently hosts more than 135,000 refugees and asylum seekers, and it is claimed that their rights are “protected under various laws“.

Criticism of the Rwanda Plan

• Human rights issue: Rwanda’s poor human rights record raised questions of safety.
• Freedom of criticism: Allegedly, the Rwandan government is intolerant to criticism.
• Not whole rights: Rights given to asylum seekers are limited. It could be difficult for them to make independent lives for themselves.
• Refoulement policy in Rwanda: Rwanda has a record of the practice of sending migrants back to their unsafe home countries.
• Economic burden: The UK will bear the cost, so a huge sum of public money will be spent.
• Domestic opposition in the UK: Opposition parties refer to the plan as an “unworkable, unethical and extortionate policy“.
• Legal issues: The UK Supreme Court ruling in 2023 declared the policy was illegal.
• Commodity treatment: UNHCR argues that asylum seekers should not be traded like commodities and transferred abroad for processing.
• Shifting the responsibilities: Arrangements without proper safeguards simply shift the asylum responsibilities and are contrary to the letter and spirit of the Refugee Convention.