The UK government’s £ 3000 incentive for failed asylum seekers

BY dangling the sum of £ 3,000 ($ 3,836), as a carrot, to asylum seekers to move to Rwanda, Britain has unwittingly adopted a model on how immigration issues should not be handled. It is improper to engage in the act of ‘ choosing’ a country for refugees, who have had their applications to remain in the country rejected.

In fact, deporting asylum seekers and the choice of Rwanda portray a racial undertone, because asylum seekers are granted to do so in any country of choice. So, why ‘ show them the road’ to Rwanda when they chose to seek asylum in the UK? This redirection seems to apply to black people, though Britain had not specified that. This is equally worrisome given that Britain is known for human rights and adherence to international laws. Indeed, the UK should have been discussing reparation instead of blazing the trail in redirecting asylum seekers to a country where they did not intend to seek asylum.

Historically, asylum has been regarded as a place of refuge where one could be free from the reach of a pursuer. The word “asylum” is the Latin counterpart of the Greek word “asylon,” which means freedom from seizure. Under international law, individuals have an implied right to seek asylum. As such, people have a right to leave their own country, and in some cases, a right, implied from the non- refoulement duty of a state, not to be returned to a place where they would face persecution.

However, governments are more often motivated by self- interest than by considerations of humanity as exemplified by the UK government, which muted, incubated and hatched the idea to pay failed asylum seekers £ 3000 to move to Rwanda over backlog, instead of creatively and innovatively dealing with the excess. Recently justifying this development, Kevin Hollinrake, a junior business minister, said that the new policy was a sensible use of public funds because it costs a lot of money to keep people in the UK, who are failed asylum seekers. Essentially, Britain is more concerned about the cost of caring for asylum seekers without looking at the psycho- social aspect of this decision. This is worrisome! Britain should be more constructive and innovative in dealing with migrants, as migration is mutually beneficial to the source and destination countries. As a matter of fact, Britain did not blow up the gains of migrant residents in the country, but the pains of caring for those whose applications to remain in the country were rejected.

Britain ought to acknowledge ingenious migrants contributing to her socio- economic development in all spheres of human endeavour; rather it is crying foul on the cost of caring for asylum seekers. Yet, Britain cannot deny that she has been deriving benefits from the spending power of citizens from the asylum seekers’ home countries.

Many citizens of developing nations, particularly those Britain colonialised consume British goods; own real estate in Britain and are paying huge property tax on them; and have shares in companies quoted on the British Stock Exchange. Also, there are professionals living and working legally in Britain. Are these residents’ contributions to Britain not worth celebrating?

All said, Britain has benefitted from the influx of migrants and should accommodate the few whose applications to remain in the country were rejected, because it is not always a win- win situation, especially against the backdrop of colonial historical link with the source countries.

The history of Britain cannot be told without the sweat and blood of blacks. So, the country should ‘ enjoy’ the assets and liabilities. Britain cannot morally reject black people now. She should accept a winlose situation!

While the right of a state to grant asylum is well established in international law, which follows from the principle that every sovereign state is deemed to have exclusive control over its territory, and hence, over persons present in its territory; it is also important to recognise that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights provides in Article 14( 1) inter alia the right of each individual to “enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution”.

Though, stricto sensu the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is not a legally binding instrument, it has been declared to set forth “the inalienable and inviolable rights of all members of the human family and [ to constitute] an obligation for the members of the international community”.

Essentially, under international law, states have a right to grant asylum and a duty not to prevent those who wish to emigrate or seek asylum elsewhere from doing so. States parties to one or more international or regional treaties that prohibit refoulement also have a duty under such instruments not to return protected persons to states where they would face persecution. Therefore, the UK government seeking to move failed asylum seekers to Rwanda in eight to 10 weeks from now may be sending some of those asylum seekers close to where they may easily face persecution. As such, it may not improve the protection of persons fleeing persecution. In addition, refusing admission: closed borders, rejections, push- offs, movement to other countries and the like to prevent aliens from seeking asylum are not solutions to this issue. Hence, the UK government should revisit the payment of £ 3000 for failed asylum seekers to move to Rwanda.

There is no doubt that through illegal migration, some states find themselves with more asylum seekers at their frontiers than others. As such, a global system of burden sharing should be devised and implemented, which may require creatively spreading the responsibility of care for individuals in need of protection from persecution throughout the world community of states.

All said, while all states in the world community should share reasonably in the care of those in need of refuge, it may be appropriate to institute a global fund to which each State would contribute proportionally, and out of which each State incurs the costs of care of those in need of protection would receive compensation instead of moving asylum seekers geographically to countries that are not their intended destinations.

Nevertheless, the National Orientation Agency, Federal Ministry of Information, and National Agency for the Prohibition of Traffic in Persons and other Related Offence ( NAPTIP) should rise to the occasion and sensitise Nigerians on the implications of illegal migration and the need for proper official documentation of their migration.

They should highlight the fact that migration is not Eldorado; Nigeria is not hell; travelling abroad illegally will subject them to humiliation and less dignified life; and that they can stay in Nigeria and earn a living honourably. Also, religious leaders should preach about the ills of illegal migration. Civil Society Organisations ( CSOS) should intensify their public enlightenment on illegal migration.