The Journal. - A Troubled Plan to Ship Migrants to Rwanda

Episode Date: July 2, 2024

After a steep increase in migration, the United Kingdom turned to a controversial plan: sending migrants to Rwanda. But the plan has faced years of delays and legal challenges. Max Colchester explains why the U.K. pushed ahead, and what Rwanda stands to gain.  Further Reading: - Britain’s Radical Plan to Tackle the Migrant Crisis Turns Into a Cautionary Tale  Further Listening: - Smuggling Migrants Toward the U.S. Is a Booming Business  - Texas Took On Border Security. Is It Working?  - What the End of Title 42 Means for U.S. Immigration Policy  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Over the past six years, thousands of migrants have crossed the English Channel, the waterway between France and the UK. Where are you from? From Sudan. From Sudan? Yeah. Where have you come from? Iran.

Where have you come from? You are put in a boat that's about nine foot long, that's made of the same material as a children's bouncy castle. And you get on this boat and you chug across the channel. That's our colleague Max Colchester. It can take over six hours. you know, the boat leaks water, and you effectively wait until you get into British waters, and then you hope you're rescued. Boats full of migrants used to be a rare sight in the English Channel, but not anymore. English Channel, but not anymore. In 2018, you had around 300 people who arrived on British shore and suddenly that number then exploded and reached 45,000 people in 2022 and has stayed

pretty high ever since and has since become a major headache for the British government. In response to this explosion in asylum seekers, the UK government tried different ways to discourage migrants from coming. And in 2022, it unveiled a new plan. The UK decided to try and make the UK as unappealing a destination as possible for asylum seekers arriving illegally. And a key plank of that was dangling the threat that if you came to the UK on a small boat

from France illegally, you would be sent to Rwanda in Central Africa to live. Rwanda, a small landlocked nation that has set itself up as welcoming to refugees and which has partnered with the UK to implement its plan. But that plan has proved to be controversial and very difficult to put into place. Welcome to The Journal, our show about money, business, and power. I'm Jessica Mendoza. It's Tuesday, July 2nd. Welcome to The Journal, our show about money, business, and power. I'm Jessica Mendoza. It's Tuesday, July 2nd. Coming up on the show, the UK's migration deal with Rwanda. It's 4 a.m. and you're sucking baby snot through a tube because she's congested.

If you love her that much, love her enough to make sure she's buckled in the right car seat. Find out more at NHTSA.gov slash the right seat. Brought to you by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and the Ad Council. by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and the Ad Council. When migrants arrive in boats to the UK's waters, British border authorities intercept them and bring them ashore. So they're picked up at sea on the whole and brought into the port of Dover in southern England, where they undergo a quick health check,

and then they are arrested for illegal entry. And then they are put into the British asylum system. Once ashore, migrants apply to be considered as a refugee, and they can stay in the UK until British officials decide their fate. While they wait, the UK government is legally bound to find housing for these migrants. Often, the migrants are housed in hotels, at great cost to taxpayers. By 2020, the rise in migration had started to worry the Conservative Party, which had led the UK government for about a decade. They realized that these more and more

people were arriving, so they had to dissuade them from coming. And they looked at various options. They at one point looked at using wave machines to push back these floating dinghies from British shores. Oh, my gosh. They looked at, you know, spraying them with water guns to push them away.

Like, that's just to, like, push them back? Literally, yeah. Like, literally, physically? Oh, my gosh. Yeah, that's just to, like, push them back? Literally, yeah. Like, literally, physically? Literally. Oh, my gosh. Yeah, because they basically thought, well, if we can't dissuade them, can we physically stop them, you know?

So in America, you guys can build a wall. It's hard to build a wall along your whole sea line. If they couldn't build a wall at sea, the UK government needed to find another solution. So they looked to other countries for ideas. And they found a potential solution on the other side of the world, in Australia. Starting in 2001, Australia set up a system to dissuade migrants from coming into the country on boats. The policy became known as the Pacific Solution. Those who did arrive would be sent to live on a small island in the

Pacific called Nauru, where they would wait until other countries offered to accept them. And so, you know, these people would be stuck there for years, basically. Almost like quarantined on this island. Yeah, effectively, yeah, waiting for another country to accept them. And it proved very effective in the sense that it stopped the boats coming. But, you know, it was hugely controversial, very expensive. Still, the program continued. The UK saw the drop in Australia's migration numbers and decided to develop a similar program. They just needed a country to partner with. And at first, this proved a massive issue, actually. I looked at some court documents on this. They couldn't find a country

which had a suitable human rights record to house migrants. So they then decided to go down a plan B. They say, well, why don't we find a country where, if we invest in that country, their legal system and their refugee management system could be brought up to a suitable level, and then they could house migrants. And that's when they then alighted on Rwanda. Rwanda is home to more than 13 million people,

making it one of the most densely populated countries in Africa. And it's a country with a painful history. In the 90s, Rwanda suffered through a brutal civil war and genocide. Since then, Rwanda has worked to transform itself economically under an authoritarian government. And the country has positioned itself as a safe haven for refugees. It's already taken in African migrants who traveled through Israel and Libya on their way to Europe. For the UK, looking for a place to send asylum seekers, Rwanda seemed to fit the bill.

In 2022, the two countries struck a deal. Can you take us back to the moment that this policy was announced? Well, I remember very clearly when it was announced. It was in 2022, and it was announced by the then Prime Minister Boris Johnson. Our new migration and economic development partnership will mean that anyone entering the UK illegally, as well as those who have arrived illegally since January the 1st, may now be relocated to Rwanda. I remember when he announced that, I thought it was a joke, to be honest.

Really? Yeah, I thought, this isn't serious. It was just such an outlandish idea to fly migrants to Central Africa to live. As part of the deal, asylum seekers who arrive in the UK on boats would be sent to Rwanda, and their application would be handled by Rwandan authorities. And regardless of the outcome, they would not be allowed to go back to the UK. Regardless of the outcome, they would not be allowed to go back to the UK. In return, the UK pledged the equivalent of about $468 million to bolster Rwanda's economy.

The UK would also provide for the migrants, about $190,000 per person to cover housing, food and medical insurance over five years. So Rwanda gets not only a big slug of money to invest in education or whatever other things it wants to invest in, but also the UK then covers the cost of housing those people. But soon after the plan was announced, the UK government faced a wave of backlash. No more deportations!

No more deportations! The plan was also challenged in court. Human rights organizations argued that Rwanda wasn't safe for migrants. They said asylum seekers could have their claims wrongly rejected and be sent back to their country of origin where they could face persecution. But despite the backlash and the legal challenges, the UK government moved forward with its plan. Two months after the announcement, in June of 2022, seven migrants boarded a chartered plane bound for Rwanda.

Minutes before this plane is about to take off, there is an injunction by a European Court of Human Rights saying you can't fly these people to Rwanda. Going nowhere. Boris Johnson's Rwanda plan to cut immigration grounded for now. The charter plane has now returned to its base. So the flights get junked, the migrants stay in the UK, and the policy is effectively then enters this no-man's land where it's stuck in a huge legal maw between human rights lawyers who say Rwanda isn't safe for refugees and the British government who says it is. For the next two years, both sides argued

in court over whether or not Rwanda was safe for migrants. To address some of the concerns, the UK government negotiated additional safeguards with Rwanda, including a promise to give permanent residence there even to those who lost their cases, and not to return them to their home country. And then, this spring, Parliament passed a law that reopened the possibility of sending migrants to Rwanda. And the UK government said it would start flights this summer. What awaits migrants in Rwanda? That's after the break.

It's 4 a.m. and you're sucking baby snot through a tube because she's congested. If you love her that much, love her enough to make sure she's buckled in the right car seat. Find out more at NHTSA.gov slash the right seat. Brought to you by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and the Ad Council. In May, Max flew from his home base in London to Kigali, the capital of Rwanda. Kigali is very, very well maintained. There are armies of people in high-visibility vests sweeping the streets. You can walk around at night and it's safe.

They call it the Switzerland of Africa because it's got these amazing rolling hills and everything's in the capital city, ridiculously clean and functions. Does that apply to the rest of the country? No, it doesn't apply to the rest of the country. And as soon as you get off the tourist trails in the main city, you're in a country that's still underdeveloped and very poor. Why did you want to go? What were you hoping to see or understand over there? Well, I was really intrigued to understand what they wanted out of this, because obviously there's the cash element, and you can see they're getting a lot of money. But I wanted

to see how they viewed the deal. And their take on it very much is that it's a way of getting an African country to present a solution to an African problem, potentially. You know, why should all migrants leaving Africa have to make the dangerous trip to Europe? Couldn't they seek a better life in Africa itself? That's how they pitched it. in Africa itself. That's how they pitched it. Max spoke to Rwandan government officials who said that since the plan was announced, they've made preparations to receive the migrants.

So from their perspective, is Rwanda ready to receive migrants at this level? So they say it is. The whole plan is very well funded from their perspective because the Brits are paying. And so they're like, this is incredibly humane. And we will offer the people who come here a very good life, actually. You are not going to be stuck in some camp. Rwandan officials also say that asylum seekers would be granted residence and work permits and receive

access to educational training courses. Rwandan government officials said was that it would be a way of getting people to come and work in Rwanda, potentially smart people who were fleeing difficult situations who would settle there, integrate, contribute to the economy, have families and so forth. great, contribute to the economy, have families and so forth. To get ready for the influx of migrants, Rwanda has made changes to its asylum system. It created an asylum appeals tribunal. And about 100 Rwandan lawyers have taken a special course in migration law to better process refugee claims. Rwanda has also set up a number of hotels to receive the migrants.

Max visited one of them, the Hope Hostel. It was like an upscale youth hostel with each room had two double beds in it and a wash basin. There were communal areas, a prayer room, a football pit, soccer pitch outside, you know, a barbecue area. And this thing had been hired with British taxpayer money two years ago and has sat empty for two years. But today, that hotel and others like it are still empty. You know, then the staff are there waiting for the migrants from Britain to arrive and they haven't arrived and they and you

know I was like are you guys not bored I mean you've been standing for two years waiting for your first customers and they're like well you know yeah a little bit but they're still getting paid yeah they're getting paid um and you know they change the bedding once a week and they you know trim the bushes. How surreal that must have been. It's really bizarre. A really bizarre place. That's because the flights planned for earlier this summer never left the UK. And it's likely those hotels in Rwanda will continue to sit empty.

Because the UK is set to hold a major election on July 4th, an election that is likely to shift the balance of power away from the Conservative Party. So what does that mean for the future of this policy? It means this policy is very unlikely to ever be implemented. The opposition Labour Party has said that it thinks it's a gimmick and that the Rwanda policy is unlikely to deter any migrants from coming to the UK, and so they're going to junk it as soon as they come into office. What does that mean for Rwanda? It means Rwanda actually gets to keep quite a lot of money without ever having to implement this policy.

I mean, as we speak now, they still have the contract with the British government. There are various payments that are due in the future from the British government if this policy is implemented, but essentially they get to keep the money they've been given. Despite the roadblocks that have gotten in the way of the UK's plan, other countries are looking at similar ideas. Italy has struck a deal to send migrants to Albania while their asylum applications get processed.

And 15 other nations have urged the European Commission to explore the possibility of processing asylum applications outside the European Union. In the US, advisers to former President Donald Trump are also studying the Rwanda plan. They've started identifying countries in Latin America, like Panama, that could become partners for asylum deals if he wins a second term. So this is something that's garnered a lot of interest across the world.

Which is interesting, right? Like, the Rwanda-UK deal has stalled, but all these other nations are looking at this policy. What do you think they're taking away from it? I think that they're taking away the fact that you need a deterrence. You know, when dealing with migrants coming illegally to your country, you either physically stop them being able to come to your country, or you find a way to remove them from your country and send them somewhere else.

Or the third option is to just try and make it so unpalatable coming to a country that no one bothers. And that third option actually in the end is the most practical. Even though it's an imperfect solution, it's the most easily actionable. And I think that's what we're seeing. What we're learning from the UK's experience is that you have to do it in a thought-through manner with a suitable partner nation.

It has to be safe. It has to be done in a humane way. And the question is finding a country or a system to enable that. That's all for today, Tuesday, July 2nd. The Journal is a co-production of Spotify and The Wall Street Journal. Additional reporting in this episode by Nicholas Barrio. Thanks for listening. See you tomorrow.