There is no evidence it works (BEN STANSALL/AFP via Getty Images)
Britain today is drastically different to the Britain I came to as a nine-year-old refugee almost 30 years ago. I left Kenya after burying my father, and travelled to Britain without my mother, with siblings I hardly knew. Somali families like ours fleeing war through Kenya in 1993 were often separated: some would never meet again. But this was a small price to pay for a potential new start somewhere else — and the chance of peace and security.
How easy my journey was compared to the challenges facing asylum seekers today. In a generation, I don’t recognise the nation we have become.
Last Tuesday, the British government failed to deport some 130 asylum seekers to Rwanda after a late intervention by the European Court of Human Rights. But it’s determined to try again. This week, Deputy Prime Minister Dominic Raab plans to unveil a new Bill of Rights that could give ministers powers to ignore injunctions from the ECHR and speed up the removal of asylum seekers to Rwanda.
Home Secretary Priti Patel insists the Rwanda plan is a “world-first” international partnership between “two outward-looking countries”. Except it is not a world first: it has been tried before and it failed.
The Rwanda plan is in fact a carbon copy of Israel’s “Voluntary Departure” programme that ran between 2014 and 2017. Its aim was to remove Eritrean and Sudanese refugees, all of them young men, to Rwanda and Uganda. These refugees, some of whom had lived more than five years in Israel, were given the choice between a life of misery in an Israeli jail, often somewhere in the desert, or to be given around $3,500 to be “voluntarily” deported to Rwanda or Uganda.
Yet Rwanda never fulfilled its side of the bargain. A harrowing report by Israeli researchers published in 2018 found that deportees from Israel had their travel documents confiscated on arrival in Rwanda, and were denied access to an asylum seeking process. Many were robbed of their money or incarcerated in a “hotel” on arrival. Just seven out of Israel’s thousands of deportees remained in Rwanda: the rest continued their life-threatening search for asylum elsewhere.
One Eritrean refugee, Isayas, described his experience: “I landed in Rwanda. We got off the plane… someone who works at the airport took all of our documents. We asked him why? They responded that they’ll give us something else instead… but they never gave us any documents… Once you leave Israel, no one knows who you are… They put us in a prison they called a hotel, a guard kept watch over us so we don’t leave… But the State of Israel says that you can get documents and receive asylum and that you’ll have a good life, like a dream.”
For a recent Tortoise podcast, I spoke to an early victim of the Israeli policy. Saimon Fsaha fled Eritrea aged 17 and worked in Israel for six years as a street cleaner before being deported. He told me, through a translator, that the Israeli government had promised there would be a refugee camp in Rwanda where he could apply for asylum — but on arrival there was no such thing.
Unable to find work, Fsaha was forced to undertake a horrific journey through South Sudan, Sudan, Libya and eventually to Germany where he was granted asylum. He endured war in South Sudan, eluded Eritrean spies in Sudan and was imprisoned in Libya. At one point, he fell out of a truck and was beaten by the drivers until he could no longer move his legs. His injuries were so severe he had to be carried onto the small boat taking him and 280 others to Europe in October 2015 — which had to be rescued in the Mediterranean.
Despite his traumatic experience, Fsaha is exactly the kind of person who would be marked for deportation to Rwanda under the government’s new scheme. Yet not only is the Rwanda policy shockingly inhumane: it also won’t solve the problem of migration to the UK. In fact, Fsaha explained that the Rwandan authorities were actually very helpful in facilitating the onward movement of refugees to Europe. They had no obligation to detain or process people, nor to help them find work or opportunities. So why would anyone stay?
It is absolutely remarkable that Priti Patel, having visited Rwanda, seemed to have no knowledge of Israel’s former policy. And it’s equally ludicrous to think the Rwanda policy will act as a deterrent, forcing asylum seekers to reflect more carefully before getting in boats across the channel. This fundamentally misunderstands the precise purpose and determination of these people.
You will often hear the proponent supporters of this policy say, well, what is the alternative solution? Because the reality is that immigration is a hard issue to resolve for any nation, whether on the Mexican border, in Israel or in Australia. In my eyes, there are at least four possible strategic approaches, but they require a serious government focusing on the issue in a practical and sensible way, not sticking its neck in the sand and hoping that the trend of people seeking a better and safer life will just go away.
The first is to understand the route of travel and the way failed states are facilitating migration along it. Libya, for example, effectively trades in slaves and boats across the Mediterranean. There are plenty of people willing to prey on the desperate along these migration routes, so having a European-led presence along the coast at all times would be a step in the right direction to stem the flow.
The second is to have a coordinated European quota system which would allow for different nations to accept a certain number of asylum seekers every year. The smugglers will understand their business model no longer works if there is a viable route for people, with established processes, a clear criteria, and some assistance from UN refugee agencies. Germany and France already take more refugees than we do, it is time to step up and meet our international obligations.
Thirdly, we need to establish bilateral agreements with nations whose citizens have no right to seek asylum, so that they can be returned safely. This will allow for more effective and fair removal once appeal processes have been exhausted. On top of that, we need to invest heavily in border force staff, processing centres abroad, and administrative infrastructure so that better decisions can be made in a timely fashion. We saw just how far Britain fell short in this regard when we struggled to process Ukrainian refugees. And finally, it’s time to replace tough, empty rhetoric with competent leadership.
As someone who has lived through the asylum process, I would not wish it on anyone: the insecurity, the instability, the lack of certainty, the life of precariousness and lack of hope. There is absolutely no evidence that the Rwanda policy will be a deterrent: it is simply pure cruelty dressed up as the only viable option.
This is a country which I call home, but I am ashamed to see what is happening. That so many yearn to come here is the highest compliment to pay a nation, not a sign of weakness or ineffectual state. I’m ashamed that a government would think that this is a way to treat human beings, knowing and fully understanding that it will in all likelihood fail.
Hashi Mohamed is a barrister, broadcaster and author of People Like Us, a book about social mobility in modern Britain.
hm_hashi 
Surely the author doesn’t believe that this sort of thing will make the British public change its mind about the need to deport all illegal immigrants.
His “solutions” amount to doing things already being done or the old canard of new ‘legal routes’ which would just increase the flow of migrants.
Also the author’s ungrateful attitude to the nation that rescued his family when his own country descended into gang warfare betrays a serious lack of character that further undermines his argument.
Australia had a problem with illegal refugees for a number of years with boat smugglers. Our solution was to not let them set foot onshore where the leftie lawyers were waiting to advance there cause. Now we stop them at sea and send them to offshore facilities. The result has been successful as evidenced by no boat arrivals. Good luck to the Brit’s with there Rwanda plan
Exactly right Kevin.
I bet the aboriginal people whish they had done the same when the colonials had arrived.
Whenever I start feeling increased sympathy for migrants, I stumble upon something like this and snap out of it. Compassion and public finances are in limited supply and I prefer to save both for fellow citizens suffering from the consequences of uncontrolled immigration.
The author’s ungratefulness betrays a lack of character which undermines his argument. Not that there is much to undermine – his argument is basically to legalise illegal immigration – as if that will reduce numbers.
Why on earth should the UK or any other country accept an endless stream of migrants? The UK has a far smaller landmass than Africa. African nations have to get their act together to rid themselves of corruption & wars. To expect Western countries to address or remedy their situation is unreasonable.
Again, the same deflection, worrying about others and not attending to ourselves. I’ll give it to you straigth; British society IS traumatised to a terrible degree, the people are suffering in droves in England, it’s bad. Some statistics; almost 50% of white English children will be subscribed anti-depressants or anti-psychotics by the time they reach 20 years old, another 25% apparently don’t even visit a healthcare professional, upto 10% suffer eating disorders and get this; 9.8% of English and Welsh population are recorded to suffer from psychosis, that’s the worst psychological malady a human can suffer and incls. pschizophrenia and personality disorders. Seriously, I couldn’t care less what happens outside these borders, until everyone here accepts whats happening to the indigenous families, children and adults of England, scotland and Wales, and deals with it. There is no future for a society with such high levels of despair in it’s people. None.
It is good that the author makes suggestions about how to stem the flow, but none of them seem very realistic.
I can’t believe you would take this autor seriously enough to reply. You get an A+ on respectful dialogue. Not only are these suggestions unrealistic they are downright laughable.
Frankly, there may be a reason to leave your home country to seek refuge from genuine persecution but there is NEVER a reason to enter the country you hope will give you that refuge illegally & certainly not without declaring to the relevant authorities that you are here at the earliest possible moment, so that a proper investigation into your case can be undertaken. AND, if you can pay people smugglers to get you here illegally you are, prima facie, NOT a genuine asylum seeker fleeing persecution.
Under Joe Biden two million illegal immigrants have entered the US. The government has a policy now of busing or flying them into the interior of the country so everyone can share the wealth. It goes without saying the vast majority of Americans are opposed to this stealthy plot. Despite all his claims, Donald Trump did nothing to resist the flood of mostly illiterate (in any language) illegals.It is a conspiracy againt the native population by the wealthy and political elites of both parties.
It’s all very well suggesting that safe routes are established and European nations share the burden of migrants but will there be an upper limit to this? The populations of sending nations have more than quadrupled in the last 50 or so years (the Nigerian population was 45 million in 1960, it’s now 206 million. The Somalian population has increased eightfold since 1960). Add climate change-related migration into the mix and the numbers are only going to go up. Plus, we are an overcrowded country, have to import 30-40% of the food we eat and there are water shortages in the south. Given this, surely citizens – if they were to accept such a scheme – have a right to the numbers first? This is the detail that’s usually lacking.
There is a problem with setting an upper limit. What do you do when your annual limit has been reached and more migrants keep coming?
Even if you allowed in a million a year you’d still have to deter or deport the arrivals above that figure. There’s nothing in this article to acknowledge that fact, or suggest how it might be done.
Yes, I agree, it’s wildly impractical for the reasons you cite – the numbers will keep growing and there will be no upper limit.
The simple fact is we don’t need more persons incapable or unwilling to work. We have a vast duty to our own elderly who not only paid their way throughout their lives but also fought for us to exist as a free nation. We also have a duty to care & assist those citizens who are, through no fault of their own, unable to manage. They now see illegal immigrants, on higher benefits than their own pensions, getting free housing, education & healthcare without having put a single penny into the system & with no intention of doing so. Even when they bother to get a job it is, due their education & inability to speak English, unlikely to be on more than minimum wage (if they are paid ‘on the books’ most insist on cash in hand) leaving then still open to getting all the aforementioned benefits.
“Step up and meet our obligations “you say. The uk has increased its population by ten million 20% in the last 35 years predominately through immigration. England has the densest population in Europe . Call us when other EU countries match the uk numbers
Thank you for informing me as to how the Israelis do things. We could definitely learn a thing or two from them about ending mass-migration.
And, in his rush to decry Israel, he forgets to mention that they are OUT of Israel now, which was the sole purpose of Israel’s actions.
The most effective thing Israel did was to erect a fence on the southern border. Israel is the first free country that you get to with a rule of law and an above-average attitude to human rights, when you start walking north from Eritrea or Sudan. So after being robbed, beaten and otherwise abused in the various countries on their journey, the Eritrean and Sudanese migrants made Israel their destination. The attempts to try to intern and/or deport the illegal migrants came to nothing as the courts thwarted any of the government plans. The government then went back to the well tried and tested strategy of hiding its head in the sand and hoping the problem will go away. Which of course it doesn’t. Surprise.
“That so many yearn to come here is the highest compliment to pay a nation…”
That’s the best you’ve got?
Well sorry, but it doesn’t cut it. There are 3 billion people in Africa, Asia etc. who are likely to want to come here. Our collapsing social systems, and our culture cannot even deal with the 0.1% of that number who have arrived so far. That tiny percentage alone, has ruined our culture, ruined our NHS, ruined our education system, and left us with a country that many of us can barely recognise as the one we were born in.
And you think that the fact that the remaining 99.9% “yearn to come” should flatter us? That, and a guilt trip is the best you can do? No thanks! We’ve had enough. The fault lies with the fact that no politician has ever been honest with us over this, But it doesn’t matter where the fault lies.
NO MORE.
People who are suffering and want a better life nevertheless don’t have a right to find it in my apartment. As for the Israeli experiment, why would they have to be in prison? Illegal entry? Generous of them and I’m not speaking ironically. Why should the Israeli public pay to house them, even in a prison, and feed them?
Britain has the military intelligence and police and military ( Special Forces, ideal for the mission) ability, and experience to seek out the source of the people traffickers, expose them, and stop them- no different to ops in Northern Ireland passim., or police ops against drug smugglers, arms smugglers and terrorists?
So why has this option never been aired, or suggested by our government?
So, trim away the emotional rhetoric and what we have is someone waving everybody in despite the overpowering evidence that citizens of the country involved, the ones who pay the bills, don’t want to be flooded with illegal or even legal immigration. Don’t they count?
We can all see the flood coming as the pandemic response, and Ukrainian war, devastate third world economies.
It is apparent our government should be doing something to prepare for it and the suggestions given here have much more of a grown up feel to them than the Rwanda scheme.
What is still missing is a sensible debate on “how many.” Alas that is now almost impossible.
The suggestions given here are not “grown up” however they may feel to you.
In fact the Rwanda plan is the first sensible solution that has been proposed. The Australians were very successful with a similar scheme. A fact that the authors conveniently fails to mention.
On your “how many?” question. The public’s answer is already known – as close to zero as possible. Asylum should take place in the countries closest to the problem and distant countries should support that effort with funds. No person should be allowed to travel round the world to claim asylum in Britain. Once you allow that, and if you have no way of deporting them once they arrive, there is no limit on the number of people that will take that opportunity.
My problem with pieces like this is always the selective use of language and tone and facts, in persuit of agendas underlying. That is not a political point, both the right and left do this, although in my observation the progressive left are particularly prone.
It will undoubtedly be the case that this author, as other authors, will be aware of a whole host of complexities and countervailing arguments of which they will remain deliberately silent about, because it undermines the case they are attempting to make. This is in essence a lawyerly stance, which has little to do with presenting a full and honest picture of what is actually happening. It is easy enough to pick holes in the stories the author presents. Just one very simple example (and I could give multiple) – it is absolutely the case that for any grouping of migrants, a certain level of money and resources are needed to actually engage in the process of coming illegally to the West – you need to pay/bribe a whole chain of people for transport across countries, not least the various sets of traffickers. The poorest and most victimised in war torn countries more often than not don’t have anywhere near the means to persue migration – in effect a class system exists within the migration industry, which the author is implicitly asking us to endorse. So more often than not the migrants in question are people who have significant resources, which they are expending to get themselves and their loved ones out into Western prosperity – totally understandable, as you or I would do the same in the same situation. But just as a single simple counter, I look at Ukraine, and although there has been unavoidable huge migration out of the country, there is also, a very obvious and equal willingness to stand and fight, from Zelensky who refused an escape hatch, downwards – to try and improve the situation of the hell they find themselves in.
My question is, why would not the author and others, put forward the full complex picture of migration of this type, rather than leave out facts they know to be true, but deem inconvenient?
Israel no longer has a problem. Britain does. And this stupid article offers no suggestion other than to capitulate and surrender the country. You know, Israel is just about always right. It really is.
An excellent argument that resonates with anyone who has direct knowledge of the issues of distress migration. An honest recognition that there are no easy answers. Well done to Unherd for publishing an opinion that won’t be popular.
Yes thanks for publishing this piece. It shows just how impossible it is to save migrants from themselves. The opinion is not only “unpopular” … it is ridiculous. Migrants should stay in their own countries and clean up the mess they’ve made. Not Europe’s responsibility.