The Effectiveness of the Rwanda Migration Plan as a Deterrent for Asylum Seekers
The recent announcement of the UK's plan to send asylum seekers to Rwanda has sparked intense debate about its potential impact on illegal immigrants and asylum seekers. This policy, aimed at deterring individuals from crossing the English Channel, has been met with both support and criticism. This article dives deep into the effectiveness of this plan as a deterrent for asylum seekers.
Rwandan Deterrent: An Aforementioned Fiction?
The Irish scenario highlights how the idea of sending individuals to Rwanda can indeed deter some immigrants. In light of events like the discovery of illegal immigrants in Ireland, this plan has already begun to have an impact. The journey to the UK, riddled with perilous conditions and long odds, makes the prospect of going to Rwanda seem less daunting by comparison.
Immigrants well aware of the risks involved in their journey to the UK would likely be deterred by the idea of resettlement in a distant country like Rwanda. Additionally, the ease with which these individuals can abscond from Rwanda and pursue their goals elsewhere also reduces the effectiveness of this policy. People traffickers are already establishing operations in neighboring countries, such as Burundi and Congo, to move these individuals.
Effective Impact on Illegals Crossing the Channel Only
The policy is likely to have the most significant impact on illegal immigrants attempting to cross the Channel. The notorious dangers associated with this crossing, including life-threatening conditions and the risk of drowning, would make any alternative seem more appealing. The fear of being sent to Rwanda, even if it is a bluff, will significantly reduce the number of individuals making this perilous journey.
Rwanda Plan: A Sliver of Influence on Skilled Migrants
From an optimistic standpoint, this plan might prompt some highly-qualified professionals to reconsider their choice of the UK. For instance, a medical doctor from India, my friend S, who moved to the UK for employment-based reasons might be dissuaded by this policy. However, these effects are likely to be marginal. Most immigrants who have obtained visas to come and work in the UK understand that sending them to Rwanda is purely a bluff.
Legitimate asylum seekers, having applied for and been granted visas, do not face the prospect of relocation to Rwanda. It would be unjust to conflate these individuals with those who use fabricated asylum claims or fraud to enter the country.
The claim that this policy is a bluff highlights the current state of governance and the necessary impetus to address the root causes of illegal immigration effectively. The government must act decisively to stop these illegal crossings, thereby making the policy a real deterrent. The hope is that this plan will see a drop in the number of illegal immigrants before the next election, where the well-being and effectiveness of such policies will be put to the test.
Conclusion
While the UK's plan to send asylum seekers to Rwanda may have some impact on illegal immigrants, especially those attempting the perilous Channel crossing, it is not a silver bullet. The policy serves as a warning rather than a genuine deterrent for most legitimate asylum seekers. What the government needs is a comprehensive and effective strategy to address the root causes of illegal immigration and make genuine changes to ensure the safety and well-being of the UK's citizens.