British Home Secretary, James Cleverly, arrived in Rwanda on Tuesday to finalize a new agreement for the transfer of asylum seekers to the African nation following the UK's highest court ruling that the deportation program was illegal. The Rwanda initiative is a key component of the government's efforts to reduce migration and is being closely monitored by other nations contemplating similar measures.
The United Kingdom's Supreme Court ruled last month that the expulsion of asylum seekers to Rwanda would violate international human rights laws enshrined in domestic legislation. Following this ruling, Britain has been attempting to renegotiate its agreement with Rwanda to include a binding treaty that prohibits the expulsion of asylum seekers sent there by Britain, addressing one of the court's primary concerns.
Cleverly, who arrived in Kigali, Rwanda's capital on Tuesday morning, is scheduled to meet with the country's foreign minister, Vincent Biruta, to finalize and sign the agreement.
"I am excited to meet with our counterparts to sign this agreement and to explore ways to collaborate in addressing the global issue of illegal migration, as Rwanda is deeply committed to the rights of refugees," Cleverly stated.
Britain's proposed initiative involves relocating numerous unauthorized asylum seekers to Rwanda in order to discourage migrants from making the perilous journey across the Channel from Europe in small vessels. As part of this arrangement, Rwanda has already been provided with an initial payment of 140 million pounds ($180 million), in addition to assurances of further funding to cover the housing and support needs of those being deported.
Pressure
The Prime Minister is facing significant pressure to reduce net migration, which reached a peak of 745,000 last year, and to stop the influx of asylum seekers who are paying human traffickers to help them cross the English Channel, often on overcrowded and unsafe boats.
Britain's immigration minister, Robert Jenrick, explained that the government needed to take action because individuals arriving on small boats were essentially entering the country illegally. According to Jenrick, crossing an international border and entering a country unlawfully is a serious offense that should be treated accordingly, as per the law.
The majority of individuals arriving in Britain used legal pathways, and the government recently unveiled proposals to reduce these numbers by increasing the minimum salary requirement for skilled job positions on Monday.
The first flight scheduled to take asylum-seekers to Rwanda last year was scrapped after legal challenges.
Justin Tallis/AFP/Getty Images
The UK's attempt to send asylum seekers to Rwanda has been halted by the Supreme Court. Additionally, ministers are set to release new legislation naming Rwanda as a "safe country" in an effort to prevent legal opposition to the proposed deportation flights.
Sunak has set "Stop the boats" as one of the five government goals before the anticipated national election next year. The Supreme Court deemed the government's plan to send asylum seekers to Rwanda unlawful, as it posed a risk of deported refugees having their claims inaccurately assessed or being returned to their home country to face persecution.
The court ruled that the plan violated international commitments, such as the European Convention on Human Rights, the United Nations Refugee Convention, and the Convention against Torture.
Tensions within the Conservative Party are escalating over the appropriate response, as some members of parliament are urging the government to withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights, following the European Court of Human Rights' initial obstruction of deportation flights.
This year, nearly 29,000 individuals have arrived on the southern coast of England without permission, following a record 45,755 detections in 2022.
The Rwanda policy was initially introduced by former Prime Minister Boris Johnson last year, but as of yet, no asylum seekers have been relocated to the country.
Critics, including opposition lawmakers, Conservatives, church leaders, and the United Nations refugee agency, have contended that the policy is ineffective, wasteful, and morally wrong, and would not be successful.