In an era marked by unprecedented and growing global migration, providing refuge to asylum seekers has become a complex and contentious challenge. As nations grapple with economic, spatial, and political barriers to accommodating and integrating migrants, it is imperative to prioritize ethical considerations when evaluating prevailing policies. The evolving policy of diverting migrants, specifically asylum seekers, has become the preferred policy in the United Kingdom.
The United Kingdom has faced an overwhelming influx of migrants in the last half century, creating a policy headache for Parliament. While hosting and settling migrants poses economic, spatial, and political concerns, it is unethical to divert asylum seekers to unsafe environments in the name of domestic stability.
In recent years, there has been an exponential spike in the number of asylum applications filed in the United Kingdom, jumping from 91,600 to 103,100 last year. According to University of Sydney sociologist Stephen Castles, while the rise in forced migration itself is alarming, global solutions and accommodations for the thousands of displaced peoples seem to be ever-dwindling. In the UK alone, there are roughly 170,000 victims of forced migration awaiting asylum approval, and many across the country are growing dissatisfied with the current government approach of housing asylum applicants within the country at a current cost of £8 million (10.2 million USD) per day. This has in part led to “as many as two-thirds of asylum applications [being] rejected in European countries,” says Castle. However, despite the economic barriers to streamlining asylum applications, forced migration must be treated with global empathy and the attention it deserves. This begins with understanding the background of those who are victims of forced migration.
Due to the overwhelming international displacement following the end of the Second World War and the Holocaust, the newly-formed United Nations was tasked with preserving the rights of 60 million people now without safe environments to call home. The establishment of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) aimed to guarantee that individuals unable to access their fundamental rights within their homeland could seek refuge elsewhere, ensuring their basic rights beyond borders. This essential safeguard is paramount when governments oppress their citizens, conflicts erupt, institutional structures collapse, famine or drought strike, or natural disasters render territories uninhabitable.
However, these specified guidelines do not offer protection to many migrants and asylum seekers today. Many individuals who are compelled to cross international borders in the present day defy the categories established nearly a century ago in 1951. Those escaping human rights deprivations in fragile or failed states, such as Zimbabwe, Somalia, Libya, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo in Africa, or Haiti, Afghanistan, and elsewhere in the world, closely resemble refugees. Despite the similarities, these individuals lack a guaranteed source of international protection. The aid they desperately need is not mandated by any institutional mechanism, including those outlined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights or those advocated for by the UNHCR. This deprivation of basic rights only begins to shed light on the horrifying struggles faced by the record breaking 45,755 people who arrived to the shores of southern England on boats in 2022 seeking asylum according to Michael Holden of the Explainer. Nevertheless, the antiquated definitions applied to modern-day asylum seekers and victims of forced migration constrict the rights of thousands of refugees each day.
A broader view of asylum seekers would categorize them as individuals who have crossed international borders in pursuit of protection, awaiting the resolution of their refugee status claims. Asylum seekers often find themselves in a protracted state of uncertainty and inaction, as the procedures for determination and appeals can extend over several years. Thus, when considering modern-day policies enacted to restrict or divert migration, it is an ethical imperative to recall these truths about migration and the difficult process of seeking asylum.
Returning to the newly surfacing policy of diverting migration in the UK, it is important to take into account the conception of the policy to fully understand its current implications. The policy was introduced in April 2022 by Boris Johnson, the prime minister at the time. Attempting to make good on a Brexit campaign promise to “take back control” of Britain’s borders, Johnson proposed that all asylum seekers arriving at British shores in small boats be deported to the East African country of Rwanda where they would be detained for the duration that their asylum claims are processed. After Johnson’s resignation, his eventual successor Rishi Sunak championed this plan in his campaign for the Conservative Party leadership last year. However, the highest court in Britain has recently asserted that Rwanda is not a secure haven for refugees. Justice Robert Reed, part of the five-judge panel overseeing the case, underscored that the proposed arrangement would contravene both British and international legal frameworks. In the court’s decision, Justice Reed articulated the substantial concern that asylum seekers, whose claims are processed in Rwanda, might be exposed to “refoulement.” This term denotes the risk of genuine refugees being sent back to their countries of origin, potentially subjecting them to violence or ill-treatment. Unfortunately, in response to the decision, Sunak did not attempt to reform the policy, instead promising to fast-track legislation declaring Rwanda to be a safe country for asylum seekers, thus overriding the high court’s judgment. In a social media post following the ruling, on December 12, Sunak contended that “The British people should decide who gets to come to this country — not criminal gangs or foreign courts.” This rhetoric only serves to perpetuate the lack of empathy that victims of forced migration and asylum seekers must contend with on a daily basis.
Sunak’s steadfast commitment to the Rwandan diversion policy not only raises ethical concerns but also practical ones. Despite the substantial financial contribution made by the UK government—amounting to £240 million ($302 million), a significant portion of Rwanda’s GDP—no progress has been made in relocating migrants to the East African nation. Furthermore, the lack of evidence supporting the effectiveness of such flights as a deterrent to migrant arrivals is glaring.
Only through a concerted effort to tackle the underlying factors driving migration can the UK hope to effectively manage this complex issue.
Instead of addressing the root causes of migration or implementing more sustainable solutions, the government’s reliance on punitive measures demonstrates a shortsighted approach to a complex issue. Moreover, the decision to deport individuals to Rwanda, a country with a questionable human rights record and deemed unsafe by British courts, is deeply troubling. It disregards the principles of international law and human rights and undermines the UK’s commitment to upholding these values. By outsourcing its asylum responsibilities to an autocratic regime, the UK government is abdicating its moral and legal obligations to protect the rights of vulnerable individuals. This approach not only jeopardizes the safety of asylum seekers but also undermines the credibility of the UK’s judiciary in upholding fundamental rights and freedoms. Additionally, the government’s insistence on pursuing this policy, despite legal challenges, highlights a worrying disregard for the rule of law. By circumventing established legal frameworks and due process, the government sets a dangerous precedent that undermines the principles of democracy and accountability.
In light of these concerns, it is imperative that the UK government reevaluates its approach to migration policy. Instead of resorting to punitive measures and outsourcing its responsibilities, it should prioritize the development of comprehensive and humane solutions that address the root causes of migration and uphold the rights and dignity of all individuals. Only through a concerted effort to tackle the underlying factors driving migration can the UK hope to effectively manage this complex issue.
While diverting migration to clearly unsafe environments is an unethical option, the UK’s dwindling space and increasing economic strain of housing asylum seekers remains, and thus begs the question: is there an ethical way to divert migration? Australia pioneered a system of housing asylum seekers in offshore detention centers. Subsequently, Israel terminated a comparable arrangement with Rwanda in 2018, deeming it unlawful. The Israeli Supreme Court’s decision was rooted in Rwanda’s failure to adhere to promised human rights protections.
As various nations consider measures to fortify their borders, some European Union countries are navigating this terrain without compromising the well-being of asylum seekers. Notably, Italy has embarked on a strategy that diverges from the offshore model. Instead of offshore detention, Italy plans to construct reception centers in Albania for processing migrants arriving by sea. This approach allows for a more gradual integration of asylum seekers into the host country. In contrast to the Australian model, this signifies a shift towards a system that seeks to balance border control with humane and considerate practices in managing the challenges associated with migration.
Yet with these considerations, a seemingly middle route emerges, one that considers the economic and spatial strain incurred by the UK while also prioritizing the safety and human rights of asylum seekers. Diverting migration to safer areas with more concrete protections and assurances of asylum application consideration would be a far more ethical alternative for the UK government.
Current policies focused on diverting migration worldwide must be overhauled to comply with the moral considerations outlined by the UNHCR to promote human rights and preserve the safety of asylum seekers. With the rise of alternative measures in migration policy, considering the causes and struggles faced by victims of forced migration is instrumental in creating ethical policies. Thus, despite economic, spatial, and political obstacles to housing and settling migrants in the UK and globally, it is unethical to divert asylum seekers to unsafe environments.
Noor Huda ‘27 studies in the College of Arts & Sciences. She can be reached at h.noor@wustl.edu.