According to AP new British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak was under pressure Friday to explain why Britain has paid Rwanda 240 million pounds ($300 million) as part of a blocked asylum plan, without a single person being sent to the East African country. This plan was initiated under Boris Johnson and has created a lot of discussions.
Under the agreement, migrants who reach Britain across the English Channel would be sent to Rwanda, where their asylum claims would be processed and, if successful, they would stay.
The plan was challenged in U.K. courts, and no flights to Rwanda have taken off. Last month, Britain’s Supreme Court ruled the policy was illegal because Rwanda isn’t a safe country for refugees despite all these claims, the government is adamant and insists on the deal.
Firstly, Brittain is trying to lower down its immigration figures whether legal or illegal, this saw the government announcing the scrapping of the dependant visa for care workers. It is reported than more than 300 000 care workers and family dependants have entered the UK in the past 2 years. This law will be effective in the spring of 2024 and has already been challenged by legislatures.
The issue of sending asylum seekers has consequences in that it further endangers the immigrants as Rwanda itself is facing a migration issue due to economic issues and other degrading social issues. Sending this people to Rwanda is more like sending them back to countries they are coming from.
UK immigration minister Robert Jenrick resigned over this legislation citing that it does not go far enough. This shows that most of the powerful politicians and institutions in the UK do not believe in it.
Speaking to BBC news one of the immigrants from Gambia mentioned that he will do whatever it takes to get to the UK because they have travelled for months to get there. He further mentioned that it is not safe to Uganda .
On the contrary the UK is doing good for itself , when asylum seekers are running away from social . political persecution among others , they have to be placed in a safe place , Rwanda is safe they do not have enemies there . What the government realises is that people are abusing this route not to get only peace but as a way to enter Europe and seek for jobs.
There are asylum seekers in Kenya , In Zimbabwe , In Ghana everywhere in Africa there is a country holding an asylum , the question is why are these people refusing when their safety is guaranteed and the UK has provided 300 million to support this move. In my view it is not a bad option but it has real implications on UK/African citizens who were born in Africa because of the colonization as there are many of them in case they face the same situation. Will the same rules apply?.
