The United Kingdom's asylum plan with Rwanda: a violation of the migrant's human rights

The United Kingdom, a unitary state located in the northwest of Europe, over the decades has been the main destination for migrants from South Asia, Central Africa and Europe itself, who are in search of a better quality of life. that they cannot obtain in their country of origin.

In recent years, the United Kingdom has received large waves of immigrants, it was not until 2022 when immigration reached a new record in the region, hovering around 1.2 million people, this is how the reduction of this happened to be one of the main objectives of the national agenda. To this end, the Conservative Party has proposed a series of reforms that have defined the United Kingdom's foreign immigration policy in the last two years.

Immigration agreement with Rwanda

With the goal of reducing the number of migrants coming from Central Africa, specifically from Rwanda, the United Kingdom and the Central African State signed an agreement defining that migrants who cross the English Channel on rafts or small boats - regardless of their nationality -, they would be sent back directly to their country of origin without the opportunity to present an asylum application or be candidates for a stay, whether temporary or permanent.

The main objective of this bill is to stop boats of undocumented and unauthorized immigrants seeking to enter the United Kingdom; It is promised that deportation will persuade immigrants to avoid putting their lives at risk on unsafe trips, as well as mitigate human trafficking. To this end, Great Britain has promised compensation to Rwanda of 470 million dollars as part of the same agreement and whose funds will be used for relocation. of deported immigrants and in support of the country's economic growth.

Despite the opposition of the European Court of Human Rights, who has sought to stop the proposal, with 320 votes in favor and 276 against, on January 17 of this year, the House of Commons approved the bill to expel immigrants to Rwanda, however, the approval of the upper house, the House of Lords, is necessary so that the proposal can be positive and implemented.

A violation of the Human Rights of the Migrant

The project initially proposed by former minister Boris Johnson and preceded by Rishi Sunak, current prime minister, has been quite controversial and criticized, especially by organizations focused on the protection of Human Rights, by the United Nations, by the same legal bodies and even by the Anglican Church, who argue that it is a violation of International Law and specifically the Human Rights of Migrants. But specifically why is it a violation of the Human Rights of Migrants?

In the first instance, according to the foundations of International Law and various mechanisms, requesting asylum is a Human Right. In the present context, a refugee has the right to request asylum as part of the protocol that receiving States must follow. In accordance with the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees of 1951, with the objective of ensuring the exercise of fundamental rights and freedoms of refugees, [it is established as part of the protocol that every refugee has the right to request asylum](https ://www.amnesty.org/es/what-we-do/refugees-asylum-seekers-and-migrants/#:~:text=Ask for%20asylum%20es%20a%20right,another%20country%20for%20request %20asylum.), the receiving State is obliged to carry out the request (grant it), however, it is not obliged to grant it, nor to declare why it denies it. The United Kingdom has been a State party to the convention since 1954.

Based on the above, although the receiving States have the power to deny asylum, they are subject to proceed with the application, an action omitted in the United Kingdom bill since immigrants are not given the opportunity to be able to submit your application.

Likewise, one of the most important principles of said convention is the principle of non-refoulement, therefore, it is established that no Contracting State may, either by expulsion or return, place a refugee in any way. the borders of the territories where their life or freedom is in danger. However, the same law has some gaps and/or ambiguities that could be contradictory. The same convention establishes that the receiving country can refuse to grant asylum to a person and send them to a third country as long as it is considered “safe.”

Despite the various accusations against the Central African country for violating Human Rights, the United Kingdom has classified Rwanda as a “safe third country”, a term recurrently used by developed countries in the regions of North America and Western Europe to prevent the advent of migrants seeking refuge in said receiving countries.

The previous term has been the key for the United Kingdom, in application of a precautionary measure¹, to continue with the process of approving a law that seeks the return and/or deportation of immigrants from Rwanda, despite the various accusations and oppositions for being a mechanism that violates the human rights of the migrant to a greater extent.