Breaking the Law in Britain? Say Farewell to Africa, Over 6,000 Kilometers Away

Britain’s controversial Rwanda law has two main objectives: to act as a deterrent to newcomers and to bolster the Conservative government. Additionally, it reflects the increasing trend of outsourcing the asylum process. Annamari Sipiä, HS’s London correspondent, discusses how the law aims to dissuade individuals from attempting to reach Britain through illegal routes, such as the dangerous sea journey across the Channel. The possibility of being forcibly sent to Rwanda as part of the asylum process serves as a significant deterrent.

The implementation of forced flights to Rwanda is part of the government’s strategy to dissuade migrants and asylum seekers from choosing illegal routes to Britain. By showcasing these forced flights as a potential consequence, the government hopes to put an end to human smuggling operations that have been ongoing for years. The law also serves as a means to boost support for the Conservative Party, which is currently facing low popularity and the threat of defeat in the next parliamentary election.

Outsourcing the asylum process to third countries, such as Rwanda, is part of an international trend in managing refugee flows. While controlling borders and regulating entry is a legitimate state interest, the decision to transit non-Rwandans to Rwanda has raised ethical concerns. The safety and suitability of Rwanda as a destination for asylum seekers have been questioned, especially as the country also accepts asylum seekers from Britain.

The Labour Party, as a potential successor to the current government, has proposed alternative methods to combat human smuggling without resorting to forced flights to Rwanda. The debate over the best approach to manage refugee flows and deter illegal migration continues, with different parties offering varying solutions to address the challenges posed by human smuggling operations.