Context:

The Trump administration is considering a deal with Rwanda to take in migrants deported from the United States, similar to a previous agreement between Britain and Rwanda that failed. The British government spent approximately £715 million on the plan, but only four migrants were deported to Rwanda voluntarily, and the policy was ultimately scrapped due to legal and financial issues. Rwanda's capacity to take large numbers of deportees is limited, as demonstrated by its previous agreements with countries like Israel, where deported migrants were often moved secretly to Uganda. Legal challenges and human rights concerns played a significant role in the failure of the British plan, as the Supreme Court ruled it unlawful due to the risk of sending genuine refugees back to dangerous situations. The example of Britain's experience offers important lessons for the Trump administration, which may face similar hurdles if it pursues this type of agreement with Rwanda.

Dive Deeper:

• The British government's migration deal with Rwanda was costly, with £715 million spent on the initiative, yet it resulted in only four voluntary deportations, highlighting the financial risks of such agreements. Legal costs, detention center preparations, and other expenses added to the overall burden.

• Rwanda's capability to host large numbers of deportees is questionable, as the country is densely populated and has limited capacity. Reports indicated that only a few hundred individuals could realistically be accommodated, while Britain faced thousands of asylum seekers arriving annually.

• Historical agreements, such as Israel's deal with Rwanda, have shown that deported migrants often end up in other countries like Uganda, raising concerns about the true intentions and effectiveness of such deals. Assurances of processing asylum claims and respecting human rights were not upheld in practice.

• Legal challenges were pivotal in the downfall of the British plan, with courts ruling it violated human rights and the United Nations Refugee Convention. The risk of deporting genuine refugees back to perilous situations was a major legal and ethical concern.

• The Trump administration's interest in a similar deal with Rwanda may encounter similar obstacles, including legal scrutiny and human rights considerations, as evidenced by its past defiance of court orders regarding deportation cases.

• Yvette Cooper, Labour's home secretary, criticized the Conservatives for planning to spend over £10 billion on the Rwanda policy, arguing that the financial justification based on deterring migration was not credible given the minimal deportations achieved.

• The British experience underscores the complexities and potential pitfalls of international deportation agreements, emphasizing the need for careful consideration of legal, ethical, and logistical factors before pursuing such policies.