Nine reasons to reject the Rwanda plan

Yesterday Parliament voted on emergency legislation to push forward its plan to send refugees to Rwanda. The government had been advised that their plan would breach international law because Rwanda is not a safe destination for refugees. The emergency law will give the government the right to say that it is. As the Conservative Lord Garnier put it, “it’s rather like a bill that has decided that all dogs are cats.” Nevertheless, not a single Conservative MP voted against the bill, and those that abstained did so because it wasn’t radical enough.

It’s an extraordinary place to find ourselves as a country. But let’s just rewind for a minute and remind ourselves of some of the reasons why we shoudn’t press ahead with forced deportations to Rwanda.

It’s misguided from the start. The stated purpose of the Rwanda plan is to “create a strong deterrent”, in the words of one of its architects, Robert Jenrick. It is supposed to be extreme. It’s supposed to be so terrible that you don’t risk coming to Britain at all, in case it happens to you. This is an appalling approach to the very real problems around immigration, illegal or otherwise.

It’s especially cruel and stupid when dealing with refugees. Refugees are escaping an emergency situation. How do you deter someone who is desperate? What moral grounds you could possible have for doing so? Trying to lower immigration by deterrent is like trying to reduce queues at A&E by making hospital waiting rooms more miserable. (Oh wait… )

It’s literally a fascist idea – other countries have attempted offshore processing of asylum claims. Britain’s ‘innovation’ with the Rwanda plan is the permanent resettlement in a third country. Pay someone to take these people away, and it has distinct historical echoes with the Madagascar Plan. That was hatched by the Polish government in 1937, who hoped to resettle Jewish refugees in Madagascar. It was later picked up by the Nazis in Germany, and it was only when it was ruled out that they turned to the ‘final solution’ of just killing the people they didn’t want.

In polite middle class circles it’s a greater crime to call someone a fascist than to actually be a fascist, so let me be clear: Britain doesn’t have a fascist government and the Conservative party are not fascists. But this particular policy is. If you are among those who are disturbed by my use of the word fascist, can I suggest you direct your energies towards encouraging the government not to do fascist things.

It’s legalised trafficking – in order to legitimise their extremism, the policy to ‘stop the boats’ is framed by the Conservatives as a response to trafficking and people smuggling gangs. It’s true that getting into Britain requires such things, and that’s because the government has closed all legal routes into the country. Unless you’re part of a very specific regional exception, it is impossible to be a legal asylum seeker to the UK. The government is fighting a situation that they created themselves.

Having decried this illegal transportation, it’s ironic then that our response to it is another illegal transportation. To forcibly remove someone to another country against their will is ethically no better than people trafficking.

It’s racist – In Boris Johnson’s speech announcing this policy, he boasted that “our United Kingdom is a beacon of openness and generosity” – but it does depend who’s asking. The biggest refugee resettlement of recent years has been for Ukrainians, who were welcomed into people’s homes. Other schemes have provided for those leaving Hong Kong or Afghanistan. Outside of places where we have a historic connection and a clear duty of care, the government picks and chooses who to show compassion to, and it seems to fall along racial lines. Racists certainly think so – ‘we should send you to Rwanda‘ has now become a common taunt aimed at black public figures.

Again, if use of the word racist makes you uncomfortable, don’t support racist policies.

It trashes Britain’s reputation – Britain’s standing in the world is already at a depressing low, what with Brexit, the binning of aid commitments and climate policies. This will seriously test our relationship with allies and overseas partners. To African countries it looks like imperialism. Consider this opinion piece from South Africa’s Mail and Guardian. It describes UK immigration policy as racially biased, and seeking to “offload” unwanted people onto a poorer country in a unequal partnership. In its forcible transportation of people, “the Rwanda scheme presents troubling echoes of the UK’s imperial past.”

It’s illegal – you’d think this would give us a definitive answer on whether or not we should do it – if it’s illegal, maybe not? The force of law has not been a powerful enough deterrent, but make no mistake: it is illegal on several fronts. Rwanda is not a safe place to send people. Seeking asylum is a legal right. You also have the right to seek asylum in a country of your choosing. The UNHCR says the plan is “contrary to the letter and spirit of the Refugee Convention.” It breaks EU human rights laws and UK laws, as confirmed by the Supreme Court. The government’s response is not to stop the plan, but to rewrite the law, and abandon human rights conventions and international treaties.

Rwanda doesn’t want it – This cavalier disregard for human rights and international law isn’t going down well in Rwanda. Vincent Biruta, Minister for Foreign Affairs, has warned that the scheme can only go ahead if it respects international law. “Without lawful behaviour by the UK, Rwanda would not be able to continue with the Migration and Economic Development Partnership.”

The opposition leader in Rwanda has explained how the government negotiated the deal with the UK behind closed doors, and announced it as a fait accompli. There has been no discussion or opportunity to vote on it. Protesting about it now would be a dangerous thing to do. Boris Johnson declared that “Rwanda is one of the safest countries in the world”, but opposition leader Victoire Ingabire Umuhoza would disagree. He’s spent eight years in prison for criticising the government, and bluntly states that “Rwanda is not a free country.”

The UK doesn’t want it – not only does Rwanda not want to break the law for this deal, neither do British voters. When the Supreme Court ruled that it was illegal last month, YouGov asked people what the government should do in response. 39% said they should scrap the plans entirely, and 29% said the government should look for a different country to work with. There is arguably a slim majority of support for the idea overall (it varies from month to month), but a more significant majority don’t think it’s value for money, don’t think it will work, and don’t think it will ever happen.

The government knows it won’t work – right from the start, government ministers have known that the Rwanda plan is a bad idea. Their lawyers told them it was a bad idea. Foreign Office officials said it was unworkable. Charities and political thinktanks said it wouldn’t work. So did the opposition. Britain’s ambassador to Rwanda said it was a terrible idea, and as the polls above show, the British public are smart enough to know it won’t work too.

Why push ahead with it? Because it’s real function isn’t to deal with immigration. It’s real function is to make the Conservatives look tough. While voting to break the law to push them through, they’ve been boasting on social media this week about the “toughest immigration laws ever”. It’s to push Labour into a difficult electoral position. Opposition to their plan can be framed as being “on the side of traffickers”, as Sunak has already said about Keir Starmer on several occasions.

So this cruel, illegal, racist, fascist, unworkable and expensive imperial policy is ultimately a piece of theatre, an electoral strategy. And last night, not a single Conservative MP voted against it.