As the Trump administration heads into initial negotiations with Rwanda about sending US migrants to the African nation, Britain's recent — and expensive — experience with a similar strategy is coming as a warning. On Sunday, Rwanda's foreign minister confirmed talks with Washington, following the same controversial UK-Rwanda asylum agreement that ended up being abortive after years of lawsuits, public outcry, and runaway expenses, the New York Times reported.
Here's what the Trump administration might take away from the British government's failed Rwanda experiment.
A billion-dollar boondoggle
Britain's 2022 deal with Rwanda promised to send permanently asylum seekers entering the UK in small boats. But by the time it was abandoned in 2024, the policy had cost British taxpayers £715 million — close to $1 billion — with a mere four voluntary deportations to its credit. Government projections indicated that a fully funded programme could have cost over £10 billion for six years, including £150,000 per deportee for an introductory integration package lasting five years.
The Trump administration has not offered cost estimates for a possible agreement with Kigali, but comparable numbers could ignite intense budget scrutiny on Capitol Hill and among the public.
Rwanda's capacity is limited
With only 10,000 square miles of land and one of the highest population densities in Africa, Rwanda's ability to take in deported migrants is limited. In British court hearings in 2023, authorities conceded that Rwanda could only take in a limited number of asylum seekers to begin with, possibly no more than 1,000 within five years.
Any mass deportation from the US — which has much larger numbers of illegal migrants — would readily swamp the country's infrastructure and raise questions about feasibility and viability.
A history of broken promises
Files that emerged during the UK Supreme Court case indicated that under a comparable Israeli agreement from 2013 to 2018, removed asylum seekers were not safeguarded as promised. Eritrean and Sudanese migrants whom Israel had sent to Rwanda under promises of humane treatment and asylum consideration were instead secretly flown out to Uganda. The British court referenced that precedent in deciding that Rwanda was not to be relied upon to safeguard deportees' rights, a decision that brought the UK proposal crashing down.
If Trump's plan goes forward, it also could be questioned in court on Rwanda's human rights track record and previous treatment of deportees.
Legal and constitutional pitfalls
Britain's attempt to overrule human rights law with UK law failed after the UK's top court declared the Rwanda scheme illegal in November 2023. The court ruled that legitimate refugees may be exposed to being sent back to their home countries, breaking the UN Refugee Convention.
The Trump administration has already indicated legal insubordination, disregarding court rulings to repatriate erroneously deported immigrants. But constitutional safeguards, treaty obligations, and international law might still be formidable hurdles — and a wave of lawsuits from civil rights organizations and immigrant rights groups.
While the Trump administration claims outsourcing deportations might discourage illegal immigration, Britain's experience is to the contrary: huge expense with nearly nothing in return. Despite spending nearly a billion dollars on the attempt, the UK sent only four asylum seekers to Rwanda, all voluntarily and with cash incentives.
Additionally, the plan inflicted reputational harm and political backlash, particularly after courts ruled it was incompatible with elementary rights protections.
As negotiations between Washington and Kigali intensify, the Trump administration has a stark decision: go ahead with a contentious, legally dubious plan — or take note of the cautions from Britain's failed Rwanda experiment.
Discover the latest Business News, Sensex, and Nifty updates. Obtain Personal Finance insights, tax queries, and expert opinions on Moneycontrol or download the Moneycontrol App to stay updated!
