Britain planned to send asylum seekers to Rwanda who had entered its territory illegally.
The UK is facing massive opposition to its controversial plan, unveiled on Thursday April 14, to send asylum-seekers who have arrived illegally on British soil to Rwanda in hopes of preventing the rise of illegal crossings across the English Channel .
Also readMore than 500,000 refugees from Ukraine identified by UNHCR
SEE ALSO — China opposes Russia’s suspension from the UN Human Rights Council
While Prime Minister Boris Johnson had promised to control immigration, a key issue in the Brexit campaign, illegal Channel crossings tripled in 2021, a year marked by the deaths of 27 migrants in a shipwreck in late November. London regularly accuses Paris of not doing enough to prevent them. As of today (…) anyone entering the UK illegally, as well as those who have entered the UK since 1 January 2020, can
“A scandalously poorly thought out idea”
Rwanda “will be able to host tens of thousands of people in the coming years,” he added, praising the East African country as one of the “safest in the world, recognized globally for its approach to migrant reception and integration.” . This project, which is likely to apply to all foreigners who have entered the country illegally, regardless of where they come from (Iran, Syria, Eritrea, etc.), has provoked outraged reactions and “strong resistance” from the UN. People fleeing war, conflict and persecution deserve compassion and empathy. They should not be traded like commodities and shipped abroad for processing,” said Gillian Triggs, UNHCR Deputy High Commissioner for International Protection, in a statement.
Amnesty International criticized “a scandalously ill-conceived idea” and highlighted Rwanda’s “dismal human rights record”. Daniel Sohege, director of human rights organization Stand For All, condemned an “inhumane, impractical and very costly” initiative to AFP, instead recommending that entry routes into the UK be opened “more securely” as those that exist are “very limited”. For Human Rights Watch’s Nadia Hardman will make the device “complicate the process for Syrian refugees desperate for a place of safety. They will arrive expecting to be treated according to the core values the UK says it supports.” , but instead they will be relocated thousands of miles away, she announced.
An “absolutely ridiculous” idea
The Labor opposition has accused Boris Johnson of diverting attention after he was fined in full jail for celebrating a birthday. By sending asylum seekers more than 6,000km from London, the government wants to discourage the growing number of candidates from crossing to the UK: 28,500 people made the dangerous crossing in 2021, up from 8,466 in 2020, according to the Home Office. In Dover, opinions are divided: “They must be sent back because that is not our responsibility,” Andy, 68, a British Army veteran, told AFP. Mike Allan, a 73-year-old retiree, thought the idea was “absolutely ridiculous” and “a lot more expensive in the long run.”
Eager to regain popularity ahead of next month’s local elections, Boris Johnson and his government have been scrambling for months to negotiate deals with third countries on where to send migrants while they await processing. Such a measure is already being used by Australia with outlying islands in the Pacific, a much-criticized policy. Under the agreement announced on Thursday, London will initially fund the device with £120m (€144m). The Rwandan government has clarified that it will provide the opportunity “to settle permanently in Rwanda if they wish to do so”.
Also readMigrants: UNHCR chief expresses his ‘shame as a European’
“Our compassion may be infinite, but our ability to help people is not,” said Boris Johnson, who expects legal action against the device. As part of that plan, which complements a broader immigration bill currently in parliament, the government on Thursday handed the extra-equipped navy the task of controlling illegal crossings across the English Channel. On the other hand, he gave up his plan to push back the boats entering British waters, which was frowned upon, especially on the French side.
PODCAST – In politics as in life: Saying is doing? The Philo Moment, by Aziliz Le Corre
Listen and subscribe on your favorite audio platform