Deport asylum seekers to a safe country? This appears to be possible thanks to the controversial “Rwanda Deal” approved by the British Parliament. We asked you what you need to know about these and other asylum deals.
Your questions will be answered by Assistant Professor of International and European Law at Radboud University, Anick Bijnenberg and Africa-focused migration and asylum policy researcher Francesco Masini from the Clingendael Institute.
What does Rwanda law mean?
The law passed by the British Parliament classifies Rwanda as a safe country. This makes it possible for people who illegally cross the border into the UK to be deported to Rwanda to apply for asylum there.
1. Why go to Rwanda?
“Rwanda is a developing country that does what it says it does,” begins researcher Masini. He has lived and worked in several African countries for a long time, and knows Rwanda well. “When I was there in the late 1990s, a few years after the genocide, the country had to be rebuilt from the ground up. In the meantime, things like infrastructure, healthcare and education had improved incredibly.”
“While building the country, it became clear to Western countries: If you agree to something with Rwanda, they will fulfill it,” he continues. “The Rwandan government has previously concluded agreements with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, for example, to transfer refugees from Libyan detention centers to Rwanda.”
“The situation in Libyan detention centres, which house refugees who had been promised asylum in Europe but had to wait for further processing, was so bad that these people had to be housed elsewhere. Rwanda took on this task, by picobello executed. This has helped the international community a lot.”
Rwanda not only helps solve asylum and migration problems, but is also one of the top 5 suppliers of troops to UN peacekeeping missions, and helps its military in other countries. “This is not only noble, but also strategic,” Masini says. “Because the country does so much for the international community, things run counter to each other. They receive little criticism for their actions in Congo, or for local government policy, and they also receive a lot of development money from the UK, among other things.” Other”. Others.”
2. It seems more logical not to send residents of safe areas to Rwanda, but to return them immediately to the country from which they came. Can a law be put in place that makes this possible?
“No, that's not possible,” Penenberg says. “If a country is classified as a ‘safe country’, it may still be the case that someone does not consider this country safe, for example because they belong to the LGBTI+ community, or because they have a certain political point of view. People are therefore always entitled to an assessment “Individually for their asylum application, and if that shows that the country of origin is not truly safe for someone, then that person should not be sent back.”
At the same time, in practice, it is sometimes difficult to bring people back, because we cannot always know where a person is coming from. “Let's say someone flushes their passport in the toilet on a plane and then applies for asylum: how do you know where that person is coming from? If the embassies of potential home countries refuse to cooperate, we can't send someone back.”
3. Will it be monitored whether people sent to Rwanda are still safe there?
Masini: “I don’t think we have to worry too much about it financially: housing and access to healthcare will be well organised. Rwanda also receives a lot of money from the UK for this.”
The unclear point is the asylum procedure. “It is not that asylum seekers in Rwanda are applying for asylum in order to eventually return to the UK. No, they are seeking asylum to remain in Rwanda.”
“But in Rwanda there is almost no one who deals with individual asylum applications. So this whole system must be built, and it must be possible to appeal and put in place procedures for this. And therein lies the danger.”
However, Masini believes that the UK will do everything in its power to close this file. “Because as soon as problems arise, the puppets dance, because Rwanda is no longer a safe country. That is the whole premise of the deal.”
4. Don't these types of deals violate international treaties such as human rights?
“It is now customary international law that you cannot return someone to a country where they are at risk,” says legal expert Binnenburg. “This is something that many countries are convinced of, and therefore it is enshrined in law.”
When the UK concluded an agreement with Rwanda in April 2022, it was not accepted without criticism. The British Supreme Court ruled in the fall of 2023 that Rwanda is not a safe country, and that the agreement therefore contravenes international human rights treaties such as the Refugee Convention and the European Convention on Human Rights. “In response, the British Parliament has now passed a new law stating that Rwanda is safe and that this fact cannot be disputed.”
However, Bijgenborg and Masini expect that the final word has yet to be said on the matter. Masini: “The British government says it will put the first people on a plane to Rwanda before the summer, but I think there will be all kinds of flights.” Challenges in court It arrives.”
Einvandag asks
This article contains answers to questions submitted via EenVandaag Askt. With EenVandaag Askt, you will have an impact on what we make. Would you like to join? Then download the EenVandaag survey app, go to Settings and turn on notifications for EenVandaag requests. You'll find the questions and answers under “Participation.” EenVandaag's Peiling app can be downloaded for free from the App Store or Play Store.
5. Why can't the Netherlands make the same deal with Rwanda as the UK?
“The UK has left the EU, the Netherlands has not,” Binnenburg explains.
“In the field of asylum, the EU member states have concluded joint agreements. They have thus partially transferred their powers to the EU. The question is whether the Netherlands is still entitled to conclude an asylum agreement with a third country.”
“In addition, the question is: If the Netherlands is allowed to conclude such a deal, can we also send asylum seekers to Rwanda under EU law? The answer to that is ‘no’. EU law stipulates that a person living in a European country A member applying for asylum has the right to remain in that country until a decision is made on the application.”
“This is exactly what did not happen in the UK deal. There, the asylum seeker is sent to Rwanda while the application is being submitted. But the Netherlands should not do that according to EU law,” the legal expert concludes.
6. Wouldn't it be beneficial to ensure that these people have a better life in their country?
“That's right,” Pennenburg says. “We can try to improve the economic situation of countries. But this must be done in a structural way, because history also shows that it does not always work when Western countries simply intervene elsewhere.” Moreover, migration is something for all times, Pinnenburg believes. “It's something you can't stop. You can't stop people.”
“The UK is currently trying to do this,” says Masini. They focus only on deterrence. “It is actually only about 3,000 asylum seekers a year who want to be deported to Rwanda, a small fraction of the total influx, but the British government hopes this will send a signal that asylum seekers crossing the Channel illegally are not welcome.”
Masini believes we must look at migration more deeply in the long term, and from a broader perspective. “There are such major crises, as is the case now in Sudan, and if we as an international community pay too little attention to them, there will be the next refugee crisis. Caring for refugees is our humanitarian duty and it is up to us to do so. Deterrence is never the answer.” .
Asks? Ask them!
Do you have any questions or would like answers? Send us a message here in the chat. Every Thursday in the Get Involved newsletter we tell you what we're doing with all the responses. Want it in your email? Then register here.
Zombie specialist. Friendly twitter guru. Internet buff. Organizer. Coffee trailblazer. Lifelong problem solver. Certified travel enthusiast. Alcohol geek.