On a cold spring day last month, Mohsen, a 36-year-old Iranian, woke before dawn and was taken by smugglers on a rubber dinghy to the French coast.
The water was calm and the sky clear, but he knew the risks of the journey he was about to undertake, he said. Since 2018, at least 72 people drowned in the English Channel while trying to cross the Channel, according to the International Organization for Migration.
He fled Iran, he said, because police came to his house last year, threatening to arrest him after he participated in anti-government protests.
Mohsen, who asked to be identified only by his first name out of concern that publishing his full name could affect his asylum application, said he was willing to risk drowning for the chance at a new life in Great Britain. And he boarded the boat even though he was aware of the British government’s plan to deport some asylum seekers to the central African country of Rwanda, first announced in 2022.
“What can I do? What other option did I have? he said. “Honestly, I’m worried, especially after Monday. Every day the rules seem to change.
Britain’s Conservative government on Monday passed controversial legislation aimed at paving the way for deportation flights to Rwanda from the summer, despite an earlier British Supreme Court ruling deeming the country unsafe for refugees. For months, the House of Lords, the upper house of Parliament, tried unsuccessfully to amend the bill, with a former Conservative chancellor. saying that ignoring the nation’s highest court set “an extremely dangerous precedent.”
Under the plan, some asylum seekers will have their applications heard in Rwanda and, even if approved, they will be resettled there and not allowed to live in Britain. Anyone who arrived in Britain after January 1, 2022 and traveled by dangerous means, such as small boats or clandestinely in trucks, or passing through a “safe third country”, could be sent to Rwanda. according to government guidelines. The law and other recent government policies mean that there is now very few ways to apply for asylum in Great Britain, with a few exceptions, notably for Ukrainians and Hong Kongers.
Charities and rights groups that support asylum seekers say many have expressed concern over Rwanda’s troubled human rights record and that fear of being returned had added to the anxiety of living in uncertainty for months, even years.
Habibullah, 28, arrived by boat last year after fleeing Afghanistan when the Taliban took control and, he said, killed his father and brother. He asked that only his first name be used for security reasons.
“If I go to Afghanistan, I will be dead,” he said, although he added that the prospect of going to Rwanda seemed almost as daunting. He said he had been seeing a doctor for depression since receiving a letter from the British government last June informing him he could be deported.
He said his route from Afghanistan took him through Iran, Bulgaria, Austria, Switzerland and France, and at times he went without food. After all these difficulties, he said, he couldn’t bear to be fired.
“I came to the UK for the UK,” he said, sitting in the dimly lit cafeteria of a south London hotel where he and other asylum seekers are getting married.
One of the hotel residents said she had survived rape and torture in Botswana. Another had fled the Syrian civil war. They all said they feared ending up in Rwanda.
Marvin George Bamwite, 27, said he left his home in Uganda, a country neighboring Rwanda with draconian anti-gay laws, after his family discovered he was gay and condemned him.
“For other people, Rwanda may be safe, but not for everyone,” he said. “Not gay people. Rwanda is not safe for us.
Rwanda has transformed since the devastating 1994 genocide. It has become prosperous, but the government has also been accused of repression and human rights violations. Although being gay is not illegal in Rwanda, it is often stigmatized, and Human Rights Watch has documented arbitrary detentions in the LGBTQ community.
The British Supreme Court declared the Rwandan policy illegal in November. She found there were substantial grounds to believe that asylum seekers sent there would face a real risk of ill-treatment through “refoulement”, meaning refugees could be sent back to their countries. of origin and face potential violence or abuse, in breach of UK and international law.
The new law aims to overturn the court’s decision by declaring Rwanda safe and ordering judges and immigration officials to treat it as such, a move that House of Lords lawyers called “legal fiction.» On Monday, Prime Minister Rishi Sunak said the government would immediately begin detaining asylum seekers, with the first deportation flights expected in late June or early July. However, legal challenges are expected and could prevent flights from taking off.
The government’s policy is based on the theory that asylum seekers would reconsider traveling to Britain if they thought they would end up in Rwanda. But that remains to be seen. At least in the months since Mr Sunak said he would continue to push for the plan, boat arrivals have continued.
Hours after the policy was adopted, five people, including a child, who were aboard an overcrowded rubber dinghy died while attempting to cross from France. Mr Sunak said the deaths underlined the need for the plan for Rwanda.
“This is what happens tragically when they push people into the sea,” he said, referring to human smugglers, while speaking to reporters on Tuesday. “That’s why, out of compassion more than anything else, we must break this economic model and end this injustice against people coming to our country illegally.”
While several asylum seekers interviewed by The New York Times said they would have still tried to come despite Rwanda’s policies, Mr. Bamwite said he believed it could deter at least some African asylum seekers. potential.
“No one would come to the UK to be taken back to Africa,” he said.
According to the most recent UK government data, from Decemberaround 95,252 asylum files were awaiting a first decision.
Some, like Mohammed Al Muhandes, 53, have stayed in hotels, barred from work and dependent on government support.
Mr Muhandes, who fled Yemen after facing death threats amid the country’s civil war, sought asylum in Britain last July and spent months in a hotel in Leeds, England. northern England. “This tunnel is dark and there is no light at the end,” he said. “You just wait for someone to come and the light to shine.”
Due to the lack of clarity on who the Rwandan plan might apply to, a climate of fear has permeated hotels, shared houses and other places where many asylum seekers await answers about their cases.
“It’s really terrible, honestly,” said Reza Khademi, 24, who lives in Bradford, northern England. Mr. Khademi arrived from Iran last August after police showed up at his door, threatening to arrest him over his participation in anti-government protests and his critical posts on social media.
“I didn’t want to leave. I had a job, a family, a house, a car,” Mr. Khademi said. “Here I started from scratch.”
He said his mother and father called him crying when they heard about the latest legislation. Because of the way he traveled – by plane and non-stop in a “safe” third country – the law might not apply to him. Asked by The Times, the Home Office said it would not comment on individual cases.
Still, the uncertainty created stress, Mr. Khademi said, noting that gray strands suddenly appeared in his dark brown hair.
“Every day you hear about these bad things, about Rwanda, about how they want to send us there, and I feel very nervous,” he said. “You don’t know what could happen to you.”
