The UK has agreed to a deal with Rwanda that all illegal asylum seekers will be sent to Rwanda to have their asylum claims processed. If successful, they would be allowed to settle in Rwanda. If unsuccessful, they will be returned to their country of origin.

They will not be allowed to return and settle in the UK. This includes a five-year asylum partnership arrangement under the Migration and Economic Development Partnership (MEDP) title. The UK Government has paid Rwanda £120 ($156) million in development funding. The UK will also pay for each relocated person's processing and integration costs. This has been estimated at £175,000 ($224,000) per person. In return, the UK will resettle some vulnerable refugees from Rwanda. This side of the arrangement has yet to be widely publicized.

The MEDP has come in for criticism as inhumane and contrary to Human Rights legislation. Rwanda has an appalling human rights record. Refugees have been shot and killed for protesting cuts in food rations. Critics of the government are treated harshly, jailed, tortured, and sometimes killed.

The MEDP forms a significant part of the UK's Illegal Immigration Bill, which is currently going through Parliament and is the subject of legal action. In December 2022, the High Court ruled that the plan was lawful and that Rwanda was a safe third country. Human rights organizations and the UN High Commission for Refugees challenged this.

On June 29th, the UK Court of Appeal ruled the deal unlawful because of the risk that asylum seekers could be returned to their home country despite fleeing that country due to persecution. This has led to a call from certain sections of the government to leave the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) because it had been used in several successful defenses against deportation.

There needs to be more clarity over the ECHR's role; some people believed that when the UK left the EU, they also left the ECHR, but they are separate entities. The Illegal Immigration Bill is undergoing what they call ping-pong politics in Parliament. The House of Commons sends the draft legislation to the House of Lords, who approve it or suggest changes. The bill then comes back to the House of Commons for further discussions. It is then returned to the House of Lords.

Because it is so controversial, particularly with the Rwanda scheme involved, this bill goes backward and forwards between the two houses like a game of ping pong.

Schemes like these have been used by different countries, notably Australia, Denmark, and Israel. Australia has had a scheme for about ten years, using Nauru as its processing center. Nauru had no experience dealing with asylum seekers, and anecdotal reports from participants are not good. Food and hygiene in the refugee camps were poor, and medical support was virtually non-existent. Several detainees died of medical negligence.

In Denmark, a scheme was set up with Rwanda but is currently on hold pending an EU-wide solution. Israel's Voluntary Departure Programme ran between 2014 and 2017. This was closed following reports that arrivals from Israel had their travel documents confiscated and were denied access to asylum processing.

Immigration will always be a problem while people flee persecution for a better life. Countries with a higher standard of living should show some compassion without being seen as a soft touch. Dealing with them is fraught with hard political decisions. Outsourcing the problem is akin to washing your hands of the problem. Ultimately, you either give foreign aid to improve the would-be refugee's living conditions in their home country or be prepared to accept and process, humanely and legally, refugees fleeing war and persecution.

“No one leaves home unless home is the mouth of a shark.” ― Warsan Shire, Teaching My Mother How to Give Birth