The Rwanda Asylum Plan
Source: Civils Daily
https://www.civilsdaily.com/news/what-is-the-uk-rwanda-asylum-plan/
UK’s Rwanda Asylum Plan (officially the UK–Rwanda Migration and Economic Development Partnership) was an attempt by London to deport asylum seekers arriving in the UK to Rwanda, where their claims would be processed. If successful, these migrants might remain in Rwanda permanently. It focused on those arriving by “small boats,” aka not those with enough money to overstay their vacation or visa. Rwanda is, of course, a third world country. You rarely hear glowing news about Kigali in global headlines, unless it’s the UN congratulating itself for another half-baked “development” project like this one. What could possibly go wrong with sending unvetted people to Rwanda?
The plan meant asylum seekers would never return to Britain. Instead, the UK would funnel cash into Rwanda’s infrastructure and pay the costs of relocation. It was an outsourcing scheme dressed up as humanitarian concern. And yet, the same people wagging their fingers at Israel for daring to suggest Palestinians should leave a warzone were dead silent here. The UN in particular barely blinked at Britain’s plan to dump its migrants in East Africa.
The timeline reads like a tragicomedy: April 2022, the deal is signed. June 2022, first flights are grounded by court orders, but the UN barely stirs, too busy letting Russia chair committees on human rights (Russia had re-invaded Ukraine in February and quickly turned the UN focus on Israel, the eternal scapegoat). By 2023, UK courts say Rwanda is not safe. The Supreme Court agrees. Then in December, Sunak shrugs and passes a bill declaring Rwanda safe by legislative fiat. Sunak tells people to trust the paperwork, not the previous rulings. By April 2024, the bill becomes law. And just months later, Labour pulls the plug, calling it “dead and buried.” Hundreds of millions down the drain and zero accountability. The UN claps politely in the background, then returns to lecturing Israel.
This is the hypocrisy in its rawest form. The UK, historic architect of colonial misery, still manages to present itself as the world’s moral compass while doing the same thing it accuses others of—dumping human beings on countries with fewer resources. And the UN, that anti-progressivism mess, joins in the act, pretending to “warn” the UK about undermining refugee protections while simultaneously ignoring that its own agencies keep entire populations like the Palestinians in dependency camps for decades. UNHCR bleats about solidarity while UNRWA turns people into permanent clients. But Britain’s little deportation fantasy? Barely a squeak until it was convenient.
I want to be clear: Rwanda partnered on this plan.
You probably didn’t hear about the Rwanda Asylum Plan because… well… no Jews, no news. You’d think a rich state’s plan to have a poorer country inheret their migrants would get wall-to-wall coverage, or at least some coverage. Instead, you may have heard options Israel gave to outsource asylum seekers to other states, plans the UN immediately rejected stating, “No! They must stay in a war zone! Who do you think they are, 7 million Ukrainians?”
Migration itself is complicated, which is why pretending any plan is a solution is insulting. Poll after poll shows voters in the UK and US want stricter migration rules, while the online discourse is saturated with open-borders utopianism. i.e. You think everyone agrees one way or another depending on if you spend no time online or are terminally on Instagram, Reddit or TikTok, where Chinese and Russian bots have really cultivated the “What could go wrong with open borders… for you” ideology. Digital culture calls for tear-down-the-walls idealism, and it costs the left elections.
Both sides ignore nuance. Migration is essential. People shouldn’t be punished just for being born in poor, usually Islamofascist, states. We also should not listen to said states on anything. Still, unlimited migration without vetting is a recipe for backlash and broken systems. That’s why merit-based visas, quotas, and careful vetting are necessary.
Balancing compassion with self-preservation is tough. It just doesn’t have any sexy slogans. Nobody chants for it.
I imagine getting into the shower: You turn both knobs and adjust as needed. You’re an absolute lunatic if you think only turning on the hot or cold water will provide a comfortable shower.
If we actually cared about solutions, not blame, we’d focus on making states more livable. This means promoting secular rights and stable economies, not encouraging more failed sharia states that have no plan except praying to G-d and praying for reperations. Encouraging reform beats encouraging dependency. But of course, the UK and UN never go for the hard fix. They prefer grandstanding, hypocrisy, and wasting money. It’s their only real talent.
If you want to see how a successful mass migration project actually looked—the polar opposite of UNRWA’s permanent failure—check out my piece on UNKRA: Remembering UNKRA. If you want more rants about England being the eternal problem child, read: From Colonizers to Crybabies: Britain’s Pathetic Fall.
And leave a comment if you’ve got a unique take on migration.
