Under the UK government’s new rules, refugees who arrive in the UK and are considered ‘unacceptable’, such as those who traveled with the help of smugglers or on boats that crossed the English Channel, will be considered for processing in Rwanda, where they will stay. if their application is granted.
The Scottish government said the move was Britain’s “repudiation of moral and international obligations” and First Minister Nicola Sturgeon called the scheme “despicable” as refugee charities warned the “brutal” move would put refugees at greater risk of human trafficking.
It is clear that while the initial phase of the UK government’s controversial policy of sending asylum seekers to Rwanda to have their claims processed will focus on adults, families with children may also be included in the policy at a later stage. Single children will not be part of the scheme.
Once sent to Rwanda while their application is being processed, asylum seekers will be allowed to remain in Rwanda and will not be returned to the UK.
Under the new proposals, the Interior Ministry is also to detain refugees who are to be resettled in Rwanda to prevent people from escaping. Refugees are not usually detained under existing rules, but instead are allowed to roam freely while waiting for their claims to be processed in the UK.
The UK government said the scheme would keep people away from the often dangerous journeys using smugglers.
But Sabir Zazai, chief executive of the Scottish Refugee Council, said: “The more we learn about the UK government’s plans to send people to seek protection in Rwanda, the more discouraging the situation becomes. Reports that the offshoring scheme could be expanded to include children are nothing short of appalling. The agreement between the British and Rwandan governments mentions “persons” and does not mention children.
“The prospect of a child being assessed as an adult during the trial phase of this scheme and then sent to Rwanda is unacceptable.”
He added: “Everyone, children and adults, deserve dignity and respect. Everyone deserves to have their asylum application dealt with fairly in the country in which they apply for protection. Outsourcing the entire system and our international obligations is moral bankruptcy on the part of the UK government.”
The Scottish government’s foreign minister, Angus Robertson, said it was “an outrageous policy”.
“The Home Office should focus on improving the asylum system, not on finding new and shameful ways to make it harder and longer for people seeking protection from persecution.
“The UK government needs to explain how it will ensure the well-being of highly vulnerable people in any offshore arrangement when it seems to be washing its hands of it.
“To subject people to these horrendous acts is a British rejection of moral and international obligations. People should be able to apply for asylum with a full and fair review by the Home Office and, if successful, receive support to re-establish their lives as refugees in the UK.”
Addressing the suggestions on Twitter, Ms Sturgeon said: “Sneaky politics on their own terms.
“But add in the fact that today this is done to divert attention from #partygate and you see the complete moral bankruptcy of this Tory government. Shameful.
However, Scottish Conservative leader Douglas Ross defended the plans, saying they were “based on a desire to curb human trafficking”.
He said: “We know that over the past year, about 28,000 people have crossed the English Channel from France to the UK. And something needs to be done to reduce that number as much as possible, to deter the criminals who make their fortune from human trafficking. ”
Home Minister Priti Patel traveled to the Rwandan capital Kigali to sign the agreement.
Questions have also been raised that Ukrainians leaving their war-torn country are being issued visas to stay in the UK for up to three years, while those arriving from other countries are sent to Rwanda.
Glasgow immigration lawyer Usman Aslam, who works with refugees at Mukhtar & Co Solicitors, said he believes the scheme is illegal.
He said: “What are we going to do if someone from Uganda comes here to seek asylum, send him back to Rwanda, which borders Uganda? The Ukrainians who flee from here should also formally be sent to Rwanda. How about someone who is fleeing Rwanda, will we send him/her to Rwanda to give him status here because of how dangerous Rwanda is, and is that what we will accept if we give them?
“Some asylum seekers have families in the UK so it will mean more separation. They may have come from one detention center to be placed in another.”
He added: “When Boris Johnson said today that Rwanda is one of the safest places in the world, I would ask why does your government grant refugee status to those who flee Rwanda?
Read more
Read more
Outsourcing refugees from Rwanda plans ‘human rights abuse’, Scottish Refugee Council…
Steve Valdez-Symonds, Amnesty International’s director of refugee and migrant rights in the UK, said: “Today’s statement couldn’t be clearer - the UK government flaunts a fundamental lack of humanity with no regard for people fleeing danger, violence or war.
“The expulsion of people to Rwanda, which has a terrible human rights record, is the same as the UK breaking its obligation to provide asylum to people in need of asylum. It doesn’t matter where they’re from, what their gender is, or whether they’re single.
“Not only is this a fundamental repudiation by the UK of the asylum obligations that the UK shares with other countries, but this so-called partnership is a grim replay of an abandoned deal made by Israel when it “convinced” asylum seekers to move to Rwanda. Instead of security, they faced ill-treatment, human trafficking, starvation and threats of being returned to the countries from which they fled torture.
“The government is rapidly destroying the asylum system in the UK, at a cost to taxpayers. If it is serious about fighting smugglers and traffickers, it must target them, not their victims, and provide people with viable alternatives to seek and obtain asylum in the UK – none of which it is currently doing.”
Jamie Fuchs, coordinator of the Human Trafficking Monitoring Group, called the plan “dangerous and inhumane.”
This comes after it was revealed that a similar agreement to outsource refugee processing between Israel and Rwanda was quickly terminated almost a decade ago, as many refugees who were allowed to stay in the East African country after being sent out of Israel subsequently left. to do dangerous things. travel to Europe.
Under the proposal, Rwanda would take responsibility for these asylum seekers, run the asylum process for them, and if they were successful at the end of the process, they would be given long-term housing in Rwanda.
The Rwandan government has stated that migrants will be “entitled to full protection under Rwandan law, equal access to employment and the right to receive health and welfare services.”
It is understood that the UK Government will appreciate anyone with reasons why they are not suitable to be sent to Rwanda. Questions have been raised about the suitability of Rwanda for people who self-identify as LBGTQ+.
Human Rights Watch reported last year that Rwandan authorities arrested and detained more than a dozen gay and transgender people, sex workers, street children and others in the months leading up to a high-profile international conference scheduled for June 2021.