So forgive me if I’ve misunderstood, but the UK signed a new treaty yesterday and it seems that:
Asylum seekers will be sent to Rwanda for processing.
If found to have a valid claim and are, therefore, legal, the refugee will stay in Rwanda.
If found not to have a valid claim, and therefore illegal, they will be sent back to the UK.
If a successful refugee committed a crime in Rwanda then they’ll be deported to the UK.
Rwanda will also send their asylum seekers to the UK for processing.
It seems that Rwanda is calling all the shots. According to Sky news, notably, the treaty also contains a provision for the UK to resettle “a portion” of Rwanda’s “most vulnerable” refugees.
Does this mean that all those people who come from across Africa, being trafficked to the med, crossing the med, crossing Europe and then the channel at great expense and great danger now can instead go to Rwanda and be sent to the U.K. ? And if the treaty is symmetrical, then those coming from Rwanda who are genuine refugees will stay in the U.K… How will this differ from the existing situation ?
It might be my flu head but I’m not sure I get the question but it’s worth bearing in mind that the expected Rwanda capacity to accept refugees from the UK is around 100 so, in any event, there’s not going to be much difference from today’s situation.
This means that any refugee should go to Rwanda and not the U.K and they will automatically be sent to the U.K and be processed in exactly the same way as if they had arrived there themselves currently. Also, if the treaty is symmetrical then any who are genuine refugees will stay in the U.K. and the others will be deported. No different to the current situation.
It’s not yet clear if he’s Braverman’s protege who’s going because it’s not extreme enough or, as some thought, Sunak’s man playing a part in order to placate the right who’s throwing in the towel because this is too much.
I guess we’ll find out in due course.
Edited to add: turns out he’s the former and it wasn’t just an act.
This is an illustration of the Tories claiming to be a broad church whilst the extreme right tail wags the dog.
If they ever want to be an electoral party again, it is important that the extremists leave.
One minor clarification, and one more important correction… At least this is how I understand it.
The processing in Rwanda isn’t on behalf of the UK. Asylum seekers who did not use a legal route (spoiler alert: there are none) are sent to Rwanda for processing their claim for asylum under Rwandan rules.
As such, successful applicants - as you correctly point out - are given right to remain in Rwanda. However, importantly, unsuccessful claimants are not returned to the UK, they are returned to their country of origin.
Edit: forgot to add, however, that anyone sent to the country who subsequently commits a crime can be returned to the UK.
No Relocated Individual (even if they do not make an application for asylum or humanitarian protection or whatever the outcome of their applications) shall be removed from Rwanda except to the United Kingdom in accordance with Article 11(1). The Parties shall cooperate to agree an effective system for ensuring that removal contrary to this obligation does not occur, which includes systems (with the consent of the Relocated Individual as appropriate) for returns to the United Kingdom and locating, and regularly monitoring the location of, the Relocated Individual.
Interesting. My understanding was that last month the Supreme Court found the plan unlawful due to the refoulement of failed asylum seekers. Admittedly I am not a lawyer.
Reading this article suggests the Supreme Court finding was perhaps more about the trustworthiness of Rwanda in sticking to the terms, i.e. there’s a risk of refoulement happening. In which case I stand corrected.
