BoJo’s Plan to ‘Offshore’ Cross-Channel Asylum Seekers to Rwanda Denounced as 'Inhumane & Expensive'

Boris Johnson touted his plan to send some asylum seekers to Rwanda for processing and settlement there as aligning closely with one of his signature initiatives when originally pushing Brexit. When arguing the need for the UK’s divorce with the EU, the PM vowed it would allow the country to “take back control” of its borders.

Boris Johnson’s announced plan to deport unauthorised asylum seekers crossing the English Channel to Rwanda for processing as part of his "New Plan for Immigration" has been decried by politicians, legal experts, and refugee groups as inhumane and likely to result in further loss of life, reported The Guardian.

As human rights groups denounced the mulled policy as violating international agreements on refugees and possibly setting a precedent for other nations to engage in “offshoring”, it has also been underscored that the measure would most likely be challenged in the courts.

The UK prime minister announced the plan on Thursday as his response to the escalating migrant crisis, which has seen the number of people crossing already surpass 5,000 this year. This figure is more than double the total at the same time in 2021.

In line with the measure, which presupposes an initial down-payment of £120m ($157 million) to the Rwandan government, plus Britain covering the cost of flights and accommodation, those seeking sanctuary in the UK would be flown to the African country, which is “globally recognised for its record of welcoming and integrating migrants”.

The plan will apply to those adults who have arrived since January, but with children and their parents not sent.

After the asylum claims have been processed within a period of three months, those who are successful will be able to stay for at least five years with a training and support package.

Britain “cannot sustain a parallel illegal system. Our compassion may be infinite, but our capacity to help people is not”, Johnson stated on Thursday during a press conference in Kent.

Johnson added that the Royal Navy was now taking over “operational command” in the Channel from the Border Force to ensure “no boat makes it to the UK undetected”.

Furthermore, additional funding is to cover acquisition of Wildcat helicopters, search and rescue aircraft, and drones to boost the crackdown on illegal arrivals.

Boris Johnson also assured that, “Rwanda has totally transformed. Over the last few decades it has totally transformed from what it was”, when asked about the East African nation’s poor human rights record.

“The deal we have done [with Rwanda] is uncapped, and Rwanda will have the capacity to resettle tens of thousands of people in the years ahead. And let’s be clear, Rwanda is one of the safest countries in the world, globally recognised for its record of welcoming and integrating migrants”, said the UK PM.

‘Inhumane, Cynical Plan’

However, the plan conceived by the UK PM has been slammed by critics from among the Tory ranks and the opposition.

Bournemouth East MP Tobias Ellwood, the chairman of the Parliamentary Defence Select Committee, suggested that Johnson sought to wield the costly plan as a “massive distraction” from his role in the "Partygate" row after the PM already received fixed-penalty notices for lockdown breaches.

Johnson’s scheme was denounced as inhumane and cynical by Tory peer Sayeeda Warsi.

“This proposal of offshoring asylum seekers to Rwanda is ineffective and costly. It’s also inhumane and shames our proud history as advocates of human rights and the refugee convention”, stated Warsi.

Keir Starmer, leader of the opposition Labour Party, called this a "desperate announcement by a prime minister who just wants to distract from his lawbreaking."

Former leader of the Liberal Democrats, Tim Farron, wrote on Twitter that the policy sought “to use innocent, desperate people as pawns” to “score culture war points.”

The UN refugee agency said the mulled plans could be challenged under the Refugee Convention.

“[The UN High Commissioner for Refugees] remains firmly opposed to arrangements that seek to transfer refugees and asylum seekers to third countries in the absence of sufficient safeguards and standards. Such arrangements simply shift asylum responsibilities, evade international obligations, and are contrary to the letter and spirit of the Refugee Convention”, said UNHCR’s assistant high commissioner for Protection, Gillian Triggs, adding, on a more emotional nore:

“People fleeing war, conflict and persecution deserve compassion and empathy. They should not be traded like commodities and transferred abroad for processing.”

The British Red Cross executive director, Zoe Abrams, said the organization was “profoundly concerned” about the plans to “send traumatised people halfway round the world to Rwanda”.

The measures suggested by Johnson could result in even more loss of life in the Channel, said Lucy Moreton, the professional officer of the ISU immigration and border union. She underscored that migrants would only be more desperate to attempt the journey across the Channel to reach the UK before such plans are implemented.

“What has been announced today is likely to push the immediate numbers up. And that will mean people crossing in less than ideal conditions, putting lives at risk”, Moreton was cited as saying.

Furthermore, there are questions regarding whether the newly-announced plans might be at odds with international law. “The government is announcing this scheme before parliament has approved the necessary powers. There are serious questions about whether these plans would or could comply with the UK’s promises under international treaty”, the president of the Law Society of England and Wales, I. Stephanie Boyce, added.

Indeed, aid groups believe that Boris Johnson’s approach to tackling migrants might be a violation of Britain’s commitment to the 1951 UN convention on refugees.

The latter requires that asylum seekers are protected in the country of arrival and cannot be forcibly sent to areas deemed unsafe.

The “offshoring” tactic has been attempted before. However, after a migration deal was struck between Rwanda and Israel in 2014-2017, it is believed that nearly all asylum-seekers sent to the African nation left almost immediately, trying to return to Europe, resorting to routes such as via Libya, wrote The Independent. Another nation attempting this approach has been Australia, intercepting migrants before they reached the country by boat and transferring them to asylum processing centers on Pacific islands such as Nauru.

As for the current plans conceived by Boris Johnson’s government, implementing them hinges on the passage of a law currently being considered by Parliament - the Nationalities and Borders Bill - that could criminalise anyone entering the country without a valid visa or through “irregular routes”.

Boris Johnson himself has conceded that the Rwanda plan would likely face legal challenges and “will not take effect overnight”, however he added that his country had a “formidable army of politically motivated lawyers who for years have made it their business to thwart removals”.