Three myths surrounding the British Rwanda campaign for asylum seekers

The debate over the British asylum system has been shrouded in layers of misunderstanding, disinformation and even propaganda, as the issue has become increasingly politicized.

At times, some of the confusion over the system has been heightened by Conservative government lawmakers as they try to push through a controversial plan to deport asylum seekers to Rwanda for processing and resettlement.

So far, Britain has sent 140 million pounds – about $175.8 million – to the Rwandan government, but not a single person to Rwanda, due to a series of legal problems. Legislation that should bring change will be discussed again in parliament this week.

As the legislation, the Rwanda Security Bill, returns to parliament this week, and politicians negotiate the form it will take, here's a look at three common claims about the policy and how it will impact asylum in Great Britain Britain could influence.

Claim: If you are concerned about high levels of immigration to Britain, the Rwanda policy will allay your concerns.

Reality: The asylum seekers targeted by this plan represent a small proportion of arrivals.

Right-wing Conservatives who supported Britain's withdrawal from the European Union see the Rwanda plan as part of fulfilling the Brexit promise to regain control of Britain's borders.

And yet asylum seekers are doing well around 6 percent of total migration to Great Britain. In 2022, overall immigration rose to record levels, with more than a million people come to Britain to work and study. The majority come from outside Europe, with the top three being legal migrants that year India, Nigeria and China. Preliminary figures show that these figures remained high in 2023.

The government does not tend to focus on the increase in overall migration, which does not fit well with its rhetoric around reducing arrivals. And the inconvenient truth is that Britain is increasingly dependent on immigrants to keep its economy – and its public services – going.

There were 75,340 asylum applications in the UK in the year ending September 2023, according to the latest government figures. Although the number of asylum applications has increased in recent years, it is still below the peak of 2002, when conflicts in Afghanistan, Iraq and Somalia brought the number to 84,132. Migration experts say the sharp increase in asylum applications often reflects wars or natural disasters, with a decline as these issues are resolved.

Claim: The plan will 'hold the boats back' by stopping asylum seekers from going to Britain.

Reality: Many experts say there is little evidence of a deterrent effect.

The Rwanda plan was first introduced by then Prime Minister Boris Johnson in April 2022, in response to migrants crossing the English Channel to Britain in small boats.

Since then, a series of conservative leaders have continued this policy, and “stop the boats” has become a rallying cry. But the concept has been questioned from the start, both on principle and whether it would work.

The government's plan would mean anyone arriving by small boat or other “irregular means” would not be eligible for asylum in Britain. Instead, they would be detained and then sent to Rwanda. Their asylum cases would be heard there and if successful, they would be resettled there.

Government has argued that this will 'deter dangerous and illegal travel' and 'disrupt the business model of people smugglers'.

The policy is based on the idea that people considering seeking asylum in Britain will decide not to undertake the journey if they think it will end with a one-way flight to Rwanda.

But there is little evidence so far that this is the case. Experts note that desperate people fleeing war or persecution are already taking enormous risks in the hope of finding safety. A few days ago, five people died in icy waters off the French coast while trying to board a ship bound for the English coast.

Prime Minister Rishi Sunak oversaw a reduction in boat arrivals in Britain in the year leading up to 2023, with 16 percent fewer people arriving than in the previous 12 months. Government data showed there was a decline largely due to a decrease in the number of Albanians arriving during that period, after Mr Sunak struck a deal with the Albanian government.

Claim: The new law will remove legal challenges to the plan.

Reality: Many disagree, including the UN and international legal experts.

The current government legislation, the security of Rwanda bill, would enshrine in law the government's claim that the African nation is a safe place to send asylum seekers. The bill was drafted in direct response to a British Supreme Court ruling in November that the policy of deporting asylum seekers to Rwanda was unlawful.

In that case, the judges said there were real concerns that asylum seekers whose claims were heard in Rwanda could face a return to their country of origin, putting refugees at risk of violence or abuse. Implementing the policy would therefore be contrary to British and international law, the court said.

James Cleverly, British Home Secretary, told Parliament in late December that the new legislation “puts Rwanda's security beyond legal doubt” and “provides the basis to put an end to the merry-go-round of legal challenges.”

But this is by no means settled. Sarah Gogan, an immigration lawyer and partner at Harbottle and Lewis, a British law firm, said simply passing the law would not automatically make it legal to deport asylum seekers to Rwanda.

“While the Government is preventing individuals from pursuing challenges under domestic law, Parliament cannot legislate away from the UK's obligations under international law,” she said. European Convention on Human Rights and the 1951 UN Refugee Convention, both of which Britain was a major signatory after the Second World War.

A last-minute interim decision by the European Court of Human Rights halted a flight due to take asylum seekers to Rwanda from Britain in June 2022.

The United Nations refugee agency has opposed the plan from the start and this week published a new analysis arguing that despite the latest legislation it remained “incompatible” with international refugee protection.

There are still obstacles to the new legislation within parliament: if it is passed by the House of Commons, it could face challenges in the House of Lords, Britain's unelected upper house of parliament.