On Sunday, Rwanda Foreign Minister said his country were in “early stages” talks with Trump’s administration on an agreement to get immigrants expelled from the United States.
These news had a well-known ring in Britain, where the former Conservative government agreed to agree to an agreement in 2022 to deport asylum seekers to Rwanda, then spent two years and hundreds of millions of pounds trying to do so.
When the British Supreme Court ruled that the proposal had broken the human rights law, the conservative government tried to use new legislation to bypass the decision. But in the end, politics proved to be almost complete failure, and the new government of labor, which was elected last year, abolished it, referring to its huge expense and weakness.
Here are some lessons that the British disaster for Trump’s administration can take.
Could be expensive.
The British government spent £ 715 million, about $ 955 million, on the plan, which claimed to prevent illegal immigration.
In addition to the pounds of pounds of pounds paid directly to the Rwanda government, millions others continued to prepare expulsion, ready -made detention centers and IT systems and payment for staffing and legal expenses. But in the end, only four immigrants ended up being sent to Rwanda – and voluntarily went and paid £ 3,000 each to do so.
Official documents show that the data was a small fraction of what would have been spent if the deal had been fully made. The British government had agreed to pay Rwanda £ 150,000 for each deported person, an amount that would pay for a five -year incorporation package of “stay, food, medical services and education.
After abolishing the deal, Rwanda said she would not pay any money back, as there was no compensation clause.
Yvette Cooper, the secretary of the labor, said the conservatives were eventually planning to spend more than £ 10 billion on Rwanda’s policy for a six -year period.
The Conservatives claimed that the cost is worth it, because fewer people would try to come to Britain on small boats if they were afraid to be sent to Rwanda.
Rwanda probably can’t get a large number of expelled.
The Central African country is about 10,000 square miles, about the same as Massachusetts.
Trump’s administration has not revealed how many people may want to send to Rwanda, which is already one of the most densely populated nations in the world.
During the hearing of the Supreme Court of the British Supreme Court in 2023, a lawyer representing the government acknowledged that the number of asylum seekers that Rwanda could take was “initially low” and reported the need for “building capacity”.
Reports of British news during their time suggested that the maximum of 1,000 people could be transferred from Britain to Rwanda for five years. In 2022, the year the deal was hit, at least 45,000 people arrived in Britain on small boats.
Under an Israeli deal, immigrants sent to Rwanda disappeared.
Any agreement with Washington will be the last one in a series of immigration agreements that hit Rwanda. The African nation is already hosting hundreds of African refugees from Libya, who are awaiting re -establishment under an agreement agreed six years ago with the United Nations Refugee Service and the African Union.
The British treaty was never fully tested before it was dissolved. However, a secret agreement signed with Israel in 2013 operated for five years before governing the Israeli Supreme Court illegally. Details of this agreement were discussed during the British legal battle.
According to the Israeli agreement, Eritrea and Sudan asylum seekers who had called for refuge in Israel were deported to Rwanda with “clear businesses” that they would consider their allegations and “enjoy human rights and freedoms”
But the British judges found that Rwanda had not complied with these assurances and that asylum seekers deported from Israel “were ordained illegally to Uganda” leading to the border or flying.
The Rwanda government did not immediately respond to requests for comments for this article.
There could be legal challenges.
Trump’s administration has already shown the willingness to defy the courts, as it has so far refused to comply with the orders to return at least two men who were incorrectly deported to an infamous prison in El Salvador.
However, in the case of Britain, the fact that the plan would violate many domestic laws imposing human rights, as well as the UN refugee contract, have contributed to the final failure of the plan. Under the terms of the agreement, Rwanda was to take the immigrants without documents and to process asylum applications. Even if the immigrants were later found to meet the conditions for refugee status, they were expected to reinstall themselves in Rwanda and never return to Britain.
The British Supreme Court ruled in November 2023 that the plan was illegal because of the risk that genuine refugees could be sent to the abandoned countries, endangering their safety.
Abdi Latif Dahir They contributed reports.
