Boris Johnson has announced the implementation of a five-year plan for asylum seekers, some of which could be sent to Rwanda. This scheme will focus on single men who have arrived via dangerous methods across the channel in boats. It will cost 120 million British pounds, and the first flight will take off on the 14th of June. The government believes that this program will deter illegal immigrants and “undermine smuggling gangs”. The program has received extreme criticism from other governments, non-governmental organizations, and the United Nations – but is this criticism warranted, what does the plan consist of, and is it seen elsewhere?

Those who “arrived illegally since January 1st”, are under threat of being relocated to Rwanda. Prime Minister Johnson has stated that this will ensure those who are taking advantage of the UK’s asylum system will no longer be able to, and those in genuine need, will receive the help they are requesting. In his speech, PM Johnson claims that Rwanda is “one of the safest countries in the world”, but this claim has been disputed. Even the gov.uk’s travel website states “levels of health and safety [are lower in Rwanda]”, when compared to the UK. Critics of Rwanda’s government are arrested or even risk death from Rwandan agents. Along with this, Rwanda is one of the most densely populated countries in Africa. The Gashora Transit Center, created to house those trying to flee the Libyan Civil War across the Mediterranean, does not allow any access for journalists. Refugees in this center “snuck out” to speak to reporters, stating that most cannot afford basic necessities, such as clothes and food outside the center. Those within the center fail to receive proper medical attention and lack privacy, along with this, as they are not natives, they cannot speak the language and fall to the bottom of society. Refugees are also under fear of speaking out, and authorities use excessive force against those that do.

Human rights groups, along with the United Nations Refugee Agency, have opposed this plan. They have argued that this will only put extreme risk on refugees, causing them to look for alternative, more dangerous routes. Demonstrators have been gathering at Gatwick airport, the location of the first plane set to transport refugees to Rwanda. This procedure has been criticized for a multitude of reasons, but there are two major issues with the plan, according to these groups. Firstly, Asylum Aid states it is unfair on the refugees, as they have no time to access legal aid, especially if they do not speak fluent English, and they do not have enough time to file an appeal to stay in the UK. Secondly, the question of safety arises, as discussed in the previous paragraph, Rwanda is not safe, especially for refugees. These two ideals are fueling those who oppose the plan, claiming that this policy breaks the European Convention on Human Rights.

There is also a fear now that other countries will follow suit with the UK, sending their refugees elsewhere, as Denmark has already proposed to move its refugee centers to “non-European Union countries”. While organizations have been criticizing these two mostly, there are other nations who have had similar plans in place for years. For example, Australia denies resettlement visas to those who arrive via boats. They are taken out of the boats and transferred elsewhere. Israel also has an influx of immigrants, and it handles them by sending them to two foreign countries, unofficially reported as Uganda and Rwanda. Refugees are given three choices: returning to their country of origin, accepting a miniscule cash payment and a flight to one of the two countries, or imprisonment. These systems are similarly criticized to what the UK plans to do.

The government has said this plan will deter migrants and those wishing to abuse the immigration system. However, despite the flight being confirmed for take off, over 100 refugees arrived via the Channel Crossing on the 13th of June. The flight that takes off on the 14th of June will only carry less than a dozen people, and will cost £500,000. It has been reported that the cost of sending each migrant away will be between £20,000 and £30,000. The opposition party has used figures from other countries that have similar processes, such as Australia. They have claimed it has cost Australia more than five billion pounds sterling to send over 3,000 migrants offshore since 2013. Even the former Tory International Development Secretary has expressed his doubts of the program.

These schemes are considered immoral and in direct violation of human rights. They do not allow refugees to receive the attention they need and give them no time to understand what is happening. As Amnesty International has said, by pursuing this policy, the British government has abandoned its “responsibility to refugees under the Refugee Convention”. Along with this, most will not have enough time to apply for an appeal, especially in the UK’s new system. The Refugee Convention states in Article 16 that all refugees should have access to the court system in the territory they find themselves. They are given false promises, being told they will go somewhere safe and accepting of them, just as safe as where they migrated to. But the reality is the opposite. Rwanda and other nations they are being sent to are not safe for refugees and they do not have access to what these people need – Rwanda has its own “human rights challenges to address”.