The House of Commons of the British Parliament passed a bill proposing to forcibly transfer asylum seekers arriving in the UK from anywhere to Rwanda. An asylum claim will then be assessed in Rwanda. If the asylum claim is assessed positively, they will be allowed to live in the United Kingdom, if not, there are two paths: apply for asylum in Rwanda or apply for asylum in a ‘safe third country’.

The British bill is not new, in fact, the Conservative-led government first proposed it in April 2022. Last November it was ruled illegal by the British Supreme Court because the Court ruled that Rwanda could not be considered a safe country. Asylum seekers would have risked being trafficked from Rwanda to their country of origin where they could have been subjected to any kind of ill-treatment or otherwise inhumane living conditions all of which would be in breach of the European Convention on Human Rights which is a European treaty to which the UK is also a party. The Supreme Court raised three main issues: (1) the country’s poor human rights record; (2) the presence of serious and systematic flaws in its asylum process; and (3) that under a similar agreement with Israel, Rwanda removed asylum seekers.

As a result of this ruling, the Conservative Party rewrote the bill and reached an agreement with Rwanda to prevent Rwanda from repatriating those arriving from the UK. By doing so, the Conservative Party believes it has made Rwanda a safe country and is not violating the convention with this forced relocation. On Wednesday evening this bill was passed in the House of Commons with 320 votes in favor and 276 against. The Prime Minister has also put a lot of emphasis on this proposal given the next elections due to be held by early 2025 in the United Kingdom. At the time of writing the bill has yet to be passed by the House of Lords.

As the bill awaits consideration in the House of Lords, the controversy surrounding its potential consequences for asylum seekers and the broader implications for human rights and international obligations continues to fuel public debate.
There are still many doubts regarding the stage of the transfer of asylum seekers from England to Rwanda. The prime minister is banking on the deterrent factor of the bill for future arrivals in the UK by stopping the flow of those migrants who leave from France and cross the English Channel in small boats. The deterrent effectiveness of the bill will also depend on the number of people transferred to Rwanda. If only a few hundred migrants are forcibly relocated to Rwanda and immigration rates remain similar to those recorded in previous years, then the chance of a person who has crossed the channel being moved to Rwanda is low. Most experts, on the other hand, argue that there is no evidence that this law will have the desired effect all others focus instead on the economic factor two the plan would be particularly expensive. To date, the British government has already paid €160 million to Rwanda point the plan is expected to cost €200,000 for each asylum seeker who is relocated.

In summary, the House of Commons passed a controversial bill proposing the forced transfer of asylum seekers to Rwanda, overcoming legal challenges. The government’s emphasis on deterrence and the substantial financial investment, coupled with doubts about the plan’s effectiveness, raises questions about its ethical and practical implications. As the bill awaits consideration by the House of Lords, the broader impact on human rights and immigration policy in the UK remains uncertain