Resettling refugees in Rwanda: A look at UK’s controversial policy | Research News,The Indian Express

There are two overriding concerns with this proposal, namely, whether or not the UK and other countries have the right to transfer the burden of asylum seekers to a third party, and whether Rwanda is an appropriate destination to send them.

On July 14, a private jet chartered by the British government to forcibly deport asylum seekers to Rwanda was grounded on a military base in Southern England. Nearly 50 people were selected for the flight but following legal interventions, only seven ended up boarding it. Just a few hours before take-off, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that sending those seven passengers to the Central African country would be a violation of their rights, sparing them from deportation.

The idea behind sending asylum seekers to Rwanda was to showcase outgoing UK prime minister Boris Johnson’s strategy to solve the problem of irregular and unsafe migration across the British Channel. But the UK-Rwanda deal has been heavily criticised by human rights organisations. The British public had a mixed reaction as well, with one recent poll suggesting that only 44 per cent of respondents agreed with the plan. The Guardian called the plan “inhumane” while the Daily Mirror called its critics “left-wing lawyers and naysayers.”

That being said, Rishi Sunak and Liz Truss, the two candidates in the race to replace Johnson, have pledged to follow through on the deal and representatives from the Conservative Party have doubled down on their efforts to make it work.

There are, however, two overriding concerns with this proposal, namely, whether or not the UK and other countries have the right to transfer the burden of asylum seekers to a third party, and whether Rwanda is an appropriate destination to send them.

The deal between Britain and Rwanda

https://indianexpress.com/article/research/rwanda-refugees-uk-controversial-policy-8074481/

---