The Rwanda scheme has been and still is the most controversial Government policy of Rishi Sunak's premiership. The scheme means that Asylum seekers who arrived in the UK after the 1st of January, 2022, could be deported to Rwanda and would not be allowed to return. The scheme has seen intense opposition from Human Rights organisations, and opposition parties and was even ruled unlawful by the Supreme Court, UK's highest court, in November 2023.

The policy was devised in response to figures showing net migration levels have sharply risen in recent years. The graph below shows how significant the rise has been.

Until the end of 2023, the scheme cost 240 million pounds, with the National Audit Office claiming that this figure will have 130 million added over the next five years. Clearly, this scheme is very expensive, so what are the Prime Minister's justifications for it?

The Prime Minister asserts that this policy mainly acts as a deterrent, and at the time of writing, on the 30th of April, he may be right. Without talking about the cruel nature of this policy or its other major problems, if specifically talking about deterrence, the Irish government says many of those who have arrived are ‘fearful’ of being sent to Rwanda.

Of course, at the time of writing of this article however, it is not clear how events will unfold, will this deterrence stay strong for the next few months or the following years or not?

Some major problems with this policy are:

Human Rights Watch and two UN leaders have criticized the bill alongside other human rights organisations, where Human Rights Watch have described the bill as ‘a grave threat to the rule of law and human rights, setting a dangerous legal and constitutional precedent that seeks to elevate the government above the rule of law’. Human rights organisations consider the bill a breach of international law.

The Supreme Court has deemed Rwanda an unsafe country, with Amnesty International in agreement. Sonya Sceats from the organisation Freedom from Torture has said that ‘this latest attack on refugees by this government will further traumatise people who have fled from torture chambers seeking safety and a chance to rebuild their lives in the UK’. Furthermore, they add that ‘news of this crackdown is sure to trigger mental health collapse in many men, women and children in the care of our therapists’.

The policy fails on the ethical front, its success in the future is uncertain, and its merciless nature does not provide it with any moral support. It has been reported that even the Prime Minister had doubts about it when he was Chancellor although he denies this.

Of course, the Prime Minister’s aim through all of this is to ‘stop the boats’ and crack down on illegal migration; the Rwanda scheme appears to be his solution to the problem of illegal migration. A question must be asked however, are schemes of this type the only option? Was such a scheme necessary in the first place, regardless of its ethical implications? Why do people feel compelled to flee to the United Kingdom in the first place? Are the public seriously supposed to believe that this has all happened out of nowhere?

According to Novara media, the government is very selective of which countries people can claim asylum from, and therefore asylum seekers from other countries have no option except to come through illegal means, namely people smugglers. With this added context, the Rwanda scheme does not seem to be a strong policy aimed at 'stopping the boats', as the root of the issue is not being addressed. The government could modify their existing asylum seekers policy to give asylum seekers a chance to enter legally, as the existing policy is forcing desperate people to rely on people smugglers to enter. The policy therefore may appear to be more of a political ploy than a real policy, although, in the last week, it does seem to have had a deterrent effect.

The demonisation of asylum seekers stems from a lack of understanding of Government migration policy and misinformation surrounding the intentions and actions of asylum seekers. Such misinformation, which will be covered more specifically in the future, can lead to unrest and violence in the country like the anti-migrant protest in Country Wicklow, Ireland where 6 people were arrested as residents had set alight to a proposed migrant centre. In our view, their unrest is unfounded and unjustified since the likelihood it is based on misinformation and misconceptions is very high.

Although the Rwanda policy must not be implemented due to the laws it violates, at home and abroad, and its moral bankruptcy, its effects shall remain to be seen in the coming months.

Domestic Fact Checks

Rwanda, a deterrent policy or a political ploy?