Even many critics of the Rwanda deportation policy are missing the point of why it’s wrong
Retrieved on:
Monday, February 5, 2024
Several recently attempted a rebellion against the latest bill, arguing that it failed to conclusively stop refugees from legally challenging their own deportation to Rwanda.
Key Points:
- Several recently attempted a rebellion against the latest bill, arguing that it failed to conclusively stop refugees from legally challenging their own deportation to Rwanda.
- Labour has said that it opposes the policy on the grounds that it is unworkable, a breach of international law, and unaffordable.
- Opponents of the policy on the left must reckon with the racist undertones of the policy and its prejudicial treatment of specific groups of refugees.
- Much recent discussion suggests that the policy is wrong primarily because Rwanda is not a “safe” place for refugees.
The real problem with the policy
- Instead, we have been left with a debate on the government’s own, self-serving terms.
- I would argue that what is wrong with the government’s policy has almost nothing to do with the destination of deportations, and everything to do with who is being sent there.
- There is, therefore, nothing random about the UK government’s choice of Rwanda.
- As such, it is on the government’s own racist bait that much of what has recently counted for dissent has been caught.
- Critics of the plan have also raised concerns that under Rwanda’s authoritarian regime, many refugees’ basic human rights may be violated.
The humanity of refugees
- The UK government has had no trouble recognising the humanity of numerous other groups of refugees.
- Yet the current debate now, almost exclusively, focuses on questioning Rwanda’s safety, and the cost of the policy to the British taxpayer.
Ẹniọlá Ànúolúwapọ́ Ṣóyẹmí is a Board Member of Internews Europe.