The United Kingdom’s controversial scheme to relocate asylum seekers to Rwanda is taking off, after the first individuals were notified last week of their impending transfer. Among the first transfers are asylum seekers who crossed the English Channel, a route that has been used more often since 2020 due in part to COVID-19-related restrictions and the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the European Union. In the future, the scheme could include Ukrainians who arrived via Ireland. All told, the government expects to relocate tens of thousands of asylum seekers this way.

It could still be several weeks or months until asylum seekers actually depart for Rwanda. The government already faces a legal challenge over the plan (many more are likely to come), not to mention robust criticism from the UN refugee agency and others.

Still, this first step marks a turning point in the global approach to asylum, in many ways overtly disregarding key tenets of the international protection system established after World War II (my colleagues Hanne Beirens and Samuel Davidoff-Gore went into further detail in a commentary last month).

But it is also the natural evolution of a trend that has been picking up steam for years. This dynamic was exacerbated by the pandemic; countries’ mobility restrictions were based on public-health concerns, but nonetheless opened the door to blanket denials of migrants’ access to their territory. At the same time, the uneven impacts of COVID-19—particularly economic fallout—prompted new patterns of movement.

The UK-Rwanda plan builds on so-called offshore processing such as the system used by Australia for multiple years, under which asylum seekers arriving by irregular means were brought to other countries to have their protection claims evaluated. The UK scheme is different in that it offers, in effect, a one-way ticket to Rwanda, at which point the Rwandan government will be responsible for handling the asylum claim and the United Kingdom will absolve itself of responsibility (although it will provide at least GBP 120 million in funding).

Along with neighboring Uganda, Rwanda was the destination for thousands of Eritrean and Sudanese migrants who from 2014 to 2017 arrived in Israel but agreed to participate in a secretive and ostensibly voluntary relocation scheme (migrants were reportedly often coerced into leaving; many transferees subsequently left their new countries and attempted to migrate again, this time to Europe).

Despite the challenges that lie ahead, the UK policy may set a new precedent. Denmark had previously outlined a similar relocation process, and is now discussing the matter with Rwanda, officials have said. The United Kingdom may also pursue similar agreements with additional countries.

So, what is next? For years, the balance of humanitarian protection has been sharply uneven, with many more refugees and asylum seekers residing in countries of first asylum adjacent to migrants’ origins than in wealthy countries of the West. If imitators follow the United Kingdom’s lead, this dynamic is likely to increase, and countries far from conflict may further insulate themselves.

Best regards,
Julian Hattem
Editor, Migration Information Source
[email protected]