On 22 April the upper house of the British Parliament held finally approved the government plan for the transfer to Rwanda of a part of the people who, having arrived illegally in the United Kingdom, justify their irregular entry by declaring that they are fleeing wars, persecution and extreme situations of violence and therefore ask for asylum.
The agreement
The agreement with Rwanda was announced in April 2022, but it took two years to make it effective because there were obstacles to its implementation legal obstacles and an avalanche of criticism. However, the governments that have followed in the meantime, up to the current one led by Rishi Sunak, they always defended the project and assured that, despite the setbacks, they would make it happen, and so they did. Prime Minister Sunak claims that the first departures will take place within 10-12 weeks and the Rwandan government, immediately after the vote, assured that theHope Hotel and other facilities are ready to receive asylum seekers who will stay there while waiting for their cases to be examined.
Under the agreements, those who obtain asylum will receive asylum from the British government for five years financial aid and other forms of support so that they can integrate into the economic and social life of the country. Those whose requests are rejected will be able to submit application to remain in Rwanda for another reason or they will be transferred to their respective countries of origin or to other states in which they have the right to reside.
The indignant
The news of the plan’s approval was greeted with predictable indignation. For two years, accusations have been leveled against the British government of violating international law and of ignoring with inhuman indifference the requests for help from desperate people seeking safety. Among the first to react after the vote were non-governmental organizations Freedom from Torture, Amnesty International And Liberty with a joint statement: “This shameful bill violates and wastes the constitution and international law by exposing torture survivors and other refugees to the risk of an insecure future. The British government must decide to treat refugees decently.”
A few hours later came the disconcerting comment from Filippo Grandithe UN High Commissioner for Refugees, who, together with Volker Turkthe UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, issued a statement asking the United Kingdom to renounce the transfer plan, saying that it violates the Geneva Convention and that, if implemented, “it will compromise the refugee protection system, undermine international cooperation and will set a worrying precedent.”
The dismay comes from the fact that Grandi never misses the opportunity to praise and thank countries like Rwanda and to hold them up as an example: so poor and yet, in his opinion, models of hospitality and unconditional dedication towards refugees. Instead, in order to go against the British government, the High Commissioner aligns himself with those who believe Rwanda, which also this year deserves the title of Safest African state according toAfrica Crime Index by Country 2024a country that is too dangerous, a terrible, unacceptable destination for refugees who need so much help and will instead be “deported” there.
It may be a preconception, but the impression is that the plan to transfer asylum seekers elsewhere would be denounced as illegal and immoral regardless of the non-European country chosen by the British government. The very fact of referring to asylum seekers by always calling them, a priori, “refugees” is typical of a narrative obstinately devoted to justify illegal migratory flows to the bitter end headed towards Europe.
Whether an illegal emigrant deserves refugee status must in fact be decided on a case-by-case basis and all those who in various capacities are interested in the phenomenon and deal with it know, without exception, that only a small part of asylum seekers I am truly on the run to save my life and freedom. They know this because it is demonstrated both by the countries of origin, in most of which there are no ongoing wars nor situations of extreme violence and insecurity, and by the consistently low percentages of asylum requests actually approved.
Deterrent function
Furthermore, in the case of Great Britain, in fact all the asylum requests of those who land on the English coast starting from France and crossing the Channel on small boats – already over 6,000 since the beginning of 2024 – could be legitimately rejected, even if trafficking in people who come from countries at war or from which they fled because of persecution. In fact, not only did we reach France they were already safebut they were able to ask for and obtain asylum because France has ratified the Geneva Convention which obliges it to welcome refugees and not to send them back to countries where their life or freedom would be in danger.
So they cross the Channel not to save themselves nor to have the opportunity to ask for asylum. They do it because they want to get to Britain and stay there. This is why the British authorities are certain that the prospect of being transferred to Rwanda will have certainly a deterrent function.
Saving lives
A further capital value effect of the Rwanda plan which will receive King Charles’ approval in the next few days will be save many human lives. On the night between 22 and 23 April, dozens of boats set sail from France for England, taking advantage of favorable weather conditions and calm seas. One of the boats, which left from a point on the coast near Boulogne, was overloaded and ran aground on a sandbank. Five people – three men, a woman and a little girl – died crushed by other passengers.
“These tragedies must stop – declared the British Home Secretary James Cleverly – I am not willing to accept a situation that costs so many human lives. My government is doing everything it can to put put an end to the activities of criminal organizations who manage illegal travel.”
Follow us on our channels
