The two candidates to succeed Boris Johnson in the UK are from the same Conservative Party and have focused the campaign so far on economic issues. It is in this field, after all, that Rishi Sunak and Liz Truss fiercely disagree over whether or not to cut taxes in response to the cost-of-living crisis.
But if the way the economy divides them, the former finance secretary and the current foreign secretary are attuned to at least one other issue: the tougher policy against irregular immigration, already tested during the administration of the resigned Boris.
The two candidates for the leadership of the party and, consequently, for the post of prime minister, fought in the last week a kind of competition involving the issue. Among promises to stop the landing of irregular migrants on the sea coast, in the end both pledged to keep sending deportees to Rwanda.
The measure, promptly criticized by human rights organizations, was announced in April by the British government, which supported it. The first flight of the project, however, was prevented from taking off in June, at the last minute, after a legal battle that included injunctions to a number of migrants.
The topic has gained relevance again in the United Kingdom because between 2019 and 2021 the number of irregular immigrants who arrived in small boats increased more than 15 times, from 1,843 to 28,500 in 12 months. According to the Ministry of the Interior, this year, between January and March, 4,540 people have already arrived in the country, a rate three times higher than in the same quarter of the previous year.
As the peak is usually recorded in the Northern Hemisphere summer, the annual total can be exceeded. Between 11 and 17 July alone, around 1,400 migrants crossed the English Channel, crossing through France and coming mainly from Iran and Iraq.
“People are tired of seeing small boats arriving in this country and the authorities seeming powerless to stop them,” Sunak said, announcing a ten-point program to tackle the situation, in which he promises to implement the so-called partnership with Rwanda. “There’s nothing racist about wanting to have secure borders that work.” The candidate is the grandson of Indian immigrants.
Truss revealed her key measurements on the same day. Among them are the expansion of the deportation policy to other countries, the 20% increase in the forces that guard the borders and the intention to “not cower” in front of the European Court of Human Rights.
“Rwanda’s policy is correct. I am determined to promote its full implementation and also to look to other countries for similar partnerships,” he said. In the past, Ghana and Albania have rejected similar British proposals.
The deportation program is surrounded by obvious controversies. The British government has already paid £120m for the African country to receive migrants seeking refuge – although none have been sent so far. A new court decision on the legality of the measure is expected in early September, the same period when the name of the next prime minister is expected to be announced.
There are also doubts about the capacity to receive deportees from the UK, after authorities in Kigali admitted that only 200 places would be available.
“Sunak and Truss have many differences, but the two bet on this controversial policy, showing themselves to be even more determined [do que Boris] in making it work,” says Peter Walsh, a researcher at the University of Oxford’s Migration Observatory. “They both try to sound tough on immigration.”
The dispute between who has the most stringent promises in the area seeks to convince members of the Conservative Party – who will decide in an internal vote who will be the next (or next) head of government – about who is more faithful to one of the main objectives of Brexit, the to “take back control of the borders”.
The ads for both campaigns were criticized by organizations working with immigrants in the United Kingdom. Amnesty International has accused the candidates of making election promises while putting aside real problems, such as the collapse of the asylum application system. About 110,000 foreigners are currently waiting inside the country for a response to their request for protection, which, on average, has taken more than a year. “It’s a slow process, and none of the policies mentioned by the candidates include measures to make it more agile,” says Walsh.
For the researcher, in addition to the controversies surrounding the deportation program, there is no solid evidence to conclude that Rwanda’s policy has the effect of deterring immigrants from trying to enter the country illegally. “The possibility of going to Rwanda can be seen as one more risk, in addition to all the others, that these people accept to take when they get on a boat.”
