‘Cruel’ and ‘a waste of money’: criticism of British government’s plan to send migrants to Rwanda

The agreement signed between the United Kingdom and Rwanda to send migrants and asylum seekers to the latter country continues to draw criticism. This Sunday, Justin Welby, Archbishop of Canterbury and spiritual leader of the Church of England, suggested the plan raises “serious ethical questions”.

In his Easter sermon on Sunday, the Archbishop accused British rulers of delegating responsibilities to other countries that should belong to the United Kingdom. He stressed the country’s “national responsibility” and “Christian values.” “The details are for politics and politicians,” he said, but “the principle must meet God’s judgment.”

Migrants can live a ‘new life’… but in Rwanda

The United Kingdom announced this week that some migrants and asylum seekers arriving in the country will be sent to Rwanda, where they will receive accommodation and support until their asylum claims are processed. If they receive a positive response to the application, they will be helped to build a ‘new life’ in Rwanda, with access to ‘training, housing and healthcare’ for five years, According to the British government. If they are not granted asylum, they have only two options: apply for permission to remain in Rwanda or return to their countries of origin or other countries in which they are allowed to stay.

According to the BBC, the scheme is aimed primarily at single men who arrive in the UK irregularly. Despite this specific goal, it will have a wide scope, as Priti Patel hinted. According to the British Home Secretary, who traveled to Rwanda’s capital this week, Kigali, to sign the agreement, the “vast majority” of those arriving in the UK “illegally” will be considered eligible for this inter-country transfer.

A growing number of migrants are arriving in the country via northern France, hiding in trucks or ferries – and since the Covid-19 pandemic has imposed blockades on several roads – also on boats and small boats. According to British government figures, more than 28,000 people entered the country on small boats last year. The year before, there were 8,500, and in 2018, 300. Many died in transit.

The scheme, which is due to be implemented in the coming weeks, according to an official indication, is retroactive, and applies to migrants and asylum seekers who have been in the UK since January 1 this year.

With this ‘Partnership for Economic Development’, as the British government called it, it is hoped to stop irregular entry into the country, ‘breaking’ the business model of those who trade these people. “If we had an agreement with the Rwandan government on the proper and humane treatment of these people, the criminal gangs would realize that their potential source of income would be drained,” Government Minister Simon Hart said this week from Wales. . The plan will cost the UK around 120 million pounds (144.5 million euros).

“Cruel” is a “waste” of money. plan criticism

Over the course of the week, several organizations criticized the new British plan. Political leaders such as Keir Starmer (British Labor Party) and Nigel Farage (Brexit Party) were also criticized, albeit using different arguments.

The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees emphasized that violations of the Geneva Refugee Convention, to which the United Kingdom is a signatory, are at risk.

Amnesty UK Director Steve Valdez Symonds said the scheme would not only “cause suffering” but would waste “huge amounts of public money”. The official also drew attention to Rwanda’s “dark record” on human rights.

More than 160 British institutions and NGOs signed a letter describing the measures as “shamefully harsh”. Enver Solomon, executive director of the Refugee Council, one of these organizations, accused the country’s government of making a “cruel and unpleasant” decision, which in reality would not have the desired effect.

Within the government, there are those who have doubts

The same skepticism about the measure’s effectiveness exists within the British government. In an exchange of correspondence between Priti Patel, the British Home Secretary, and Matthew Rycroft, that ministry’s minister, the feasibility of the plan, in economic terms, was called into question.

In a letter sent to Priti Patel in April last year, recently released by the British government itself, Matthew Rycroft says that while the plan is “adequate and workable”, there is “uncertainty” about its usefulness for the economy. “Blocking people into the UK could save state money, but the cost-effectiveness of the scheme depends on how well these crossings are stopped.”

According to the British minister, there is little evidence that the measure could have an intended “deterrent effect” or, if there is, “highly uncertain”. This means that there can be no guarantee that the plan will achieve benefits more than costs and that it will “succeed”.

In her response to the letter, the Minister of the Interior stressed that it was impossible to know whether the plan would work before it was implemented, but stressed that she was “confident”. “It is the best tool we should commend [migrantes e requerentes de asilo]. Without work, we will continue to bear the costs and people will continue to die.”