Why the Rwandan threat won’t deter asylum seekers.
How the policy of threatened deportation fails to understand the psychology of migrants in Calais and Dunkirk.
Over 10,000 asylum seekers have crossed the channel so far this year, including over 1,000 since the Rwandan threat was announced in mid-April. Indeed, numbers arriving in the UK via the channel are significantly higher this year compared with 2021 and there is no evidence that people are being put off.
So why is this? The answer isn’t obvious.
I was recently involved in conducting a survey of the migrants here in Calais on behalf of Care4Calais, one of two refugee charities my wife and I have been volunteering for over the past few weeks.
We asked the migrants if they had heard about the Rwandan proposal. All had. We asked what they thought of it. All thought it was de-humanising, merciless, cruel, evil even. One Sudanese man had lived in Rwanda and knew it to be an unsafe, dangerous, country … an opinion endorsed by Amnesty International, and even the Home Office who, tellingly, have accepted asylum seekers from Rwanda. We then asked our interviewees if they were still trying to reach the UK. All but one said that they were. They were undeterred. Finally we asked: ‘But why? Why have you not been put off? We weren’t able to get any clear answers. Strangely they seemed unable to even entertain this question.
To understand why the Rwandan threat won’t work, and isn’t working, we need to understand the context of the people trying to cross the channel. There are about 1,500 migrants in total around Calais, and nearby Dunkirk, Since the violent dissolution of ‘the jungle’ a few years ago they are spread out in a number of make-shift camps. The camps are in a constant state of flux — with numbers changing up and down as people succeed in getting to the UK, or are turned back, or as new migrants arrive. Some elect to apply for permission to stay in France but the majority are attempting to cross the channel. The camps are mostly divided according to country of origin — for example there is a camp of Eritreans in one place, Sudanese in another, Kurds, Afghans, Iraqis and Iranians in others. We only met two Ukrainians — as they have alternative, difficult but safer, routes to the UK. Every few days the camps are routinely broken up by the CRS — a heavily armed branch of the French police, sometimes violently. They force the migrants away from the sites, usually just a short distance but occasionally bussing them many miles to other parts of France where they are dumped. Either way they usually come straight back. These guys are determined to reach the UK.
All the main migrant groups originate from unsafe countries where life can be unimaginably difficult. Eritreans are routinely imprisoned or killed by the tyrannous regime there if they speak out against it, or follow an outlawed religion. The same is true for Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan. The Kurds don’t even have a country to return to — the four countries they mostly reside in are all hostile to them. Sudan has an ongoing religious and ethnic war. The UK home office accepts that there is a danger of persecution in all of these regions because it grants refugee status to some of those who get to the UK. So, the migrants in and around Calais are not just economic migrants — as the government might have us believe — they may have economic reasons too, but primarily they are there because the conditions in their home country are intolerable.
Most too have endured terrible journeys, often taking many months, if not years, to get to Calais. Along the way they experience significant hardships and dangers. Many have risked their lives crossing the Mediterranean. Many come via Libya- a country known for imprisoning migrants in forced labour camps and killing those who try to escape. Other routes into Europe can be equally difficult. For instance, the border from Serbia to Croatia, where, if caught, the migrants are routinely beaten up or tortured by the Croatian police before being turned back to try again.
Migrants that succeed in getting to the Calais region are just the tip of the iceberg — the vast majority of those trying to get to the UK never get that far. We know that most asylum seekers end up in third world countries, and most end up, also, in countries bordering their country of origin. So the ones that get to the Calais region, who are mostly young men, are the toughest, and most determined. It would be misleading to call them lucky, however, because by the time they arrive they are mostly destitute, exhausted and traumatised … but still determined to reach the UK.
There are two main strategies for getting to the UK. First is to pay for a boat crossing. This is about £2,500 per person usually for a better boat, and often it’s arranged in the home country (e.g. by relatives), or £1,500 for a boat arranged in France — not usually such good quality. The smugglers mostly operate from the home country — I was told they would take the first £2000 before the migrant sets out, and then have a middleman in Calais who would take £500 for arranging the boat etc. So the big fish, as it were, are out of reach for the most part (not that I consider smugglers to be evil terrorists). Once a boat is arranged and filled, the middleman abandons the migrants to make their own way across the channel in the dark, as best they can. They know the boat is non-recoverable and don’t want to be associated. One morning in Calais we saw a group of people in a layby near the beach, surrounded by police. We think their boat had floundered on account of the engine breaking down — so they had had to come back to France. France, of course, is not keen to have them back, so, presumably, only intervenes with those who flounder.
The other method for getting to the UK, for those with insufficient money, is to jump on a lorry — options for jumping on a train or boat have largely been closed down on account of a huge investment, paid for by the UK, of tall razor wire fences all around the port and tunnel. Jumping a lorry has also become much harder — as lorries now have secure places in which to park, so this now has to be done whilst they are moving. I was told that a common method to do this is to jump the lorry at the point that is turning, say at a roundabout. The aim is to get into the gap between the cab and the trailer part of the lorry. One problem with this technique is that the migrant has to move each time the lorry changes direction. If they fail to do this, they get crushed. Many do get injured, sometimes fatally. We saw several people on crutches as testimony to this and I understand, from a previous visit to Calais that there is a hospital there with one ward devoted to caring for migrants with head injuries.
Once the migrant has successfully got on the lorry their next worry is whether or not the lorry is actually going to the UK. If it does not turn off towards the port then their usual strategy is to bang on the cab roof. Most lorry drivers then stop — at which point the migrant runs off. When a driver does not stop the next step is to use a knife to cut through some of the cables connecting the front and back of the lorry — forcing the driver to stop — and affording another opportunity to run. If, instead, the lorry turns towards the UK then the migrant uses the knife to try and cut a hole into the back part of the lorry and slip inside. Even this is just the start of the process because there are heat sensors and dogs at the borders to locate stowaways. It is a wonder that anyone makes it this way, but many do. Migrants also use any other means they can to hitch a ride. Once, when we got back from the supermarket after collecting groceries, I opened the back of the van to find a Sudanese man hiding there. He had somehow slipped in un-noticed. So clever, and I hated to disappoint him.
Migrants around Calais want to reach the UK, specifically, for various reasons. Most importantly many have friends or relatives in the UK. Another is that they speak English. Some also believe that it will be easier to survive unofficially in the UK, as the UK doesn’t require identity cards. There is also still a terrible myth, believed by some, that Britain is a land of milk and honey with equal opportunities for all…
But none of these reasons are sufficient to explain why people are still attempting to reach the UK even now, despite the huge risks, and the Rwandan threat.
I think the main explanation is psychological. The migrants reaching Calais have already taken huge risks to try and make their lives better. It has become an obsession to reach the UK, almost like a game. Indeed at least twice I heard people referring to it as a game, and the migrants on the Serbia/Croatian border routinely refer to it as ‘the game’. They are gamblers to the core with determination hardened by adversity. Moreover, their experience of being alive has been so difficult thus far, that they have less to lose, and less attachment than most westerners to staying alive. They are not going to be deterred by anything now and are solely concerned with reaching the UK, having sacrificed so much already.
This is a version of ‘the sunk cost fallacy’ — a problem that gamblers have. Once they have lost a lot of money, they can’t stop gambling, they have to keep going, in the hope recovering all their investment by making good in the end. For migrants having got this far the possibility of success, however slim, is too much to sacrifice. Moreover, their courage in getting this far has become a badge of honour and part of their identity.
The migrants around Calais have lost pretty much everything in their attempt to reach the UK. Most importantly they had to leave their family and friends behind. Many were also sponsored by their relatives to try and succeed in the west in order to send money back. So, their families were gambling too, and have invested heavily in them being successful. And, like all gamblers, the migrants highlight their successes thus far — and there is indeed some truth for them in this, for they are indeed amongst the very small proportion, of those who set out, who have made it thus far. They know, too, of other migrants who have successfully reached the UK ahead of them. To expect them to turn back at this stage is akin to asking someone 99 percent of the way up Everest to turn back because the weather looks like it might turn nasty.
For these reasons the proposal to deport these desperate, traumatised, people to Rwanda isn’t only cruel, it also displays a profound ignorance by the British Government of the true situation and context. The migrants around Calais are not primarily economic migrants, as portrayed. They are determined gamblers who will never give up their attempt to try and find salvation for themselves and their families.
As such, this sadistic policy, if it goes ahead, will fail in its stated intention of deterring migrants.
What makes the policy all the more contemptible is that there is an easy and merciful solution to stopping the dangerous channel crossings. Just allow migrants a legitimate way to claim asylum in the UK, as is their right under the 1951 UN refugee convention. Once properly assessed if they don’t have a valid claim to asylum then they could be sent home — but if they do then we could show some mercy and allow them to stay.
I remember a long time ago being brought to tears by a (probably apocryphal) tale about one of Canada’s airports. Apparently when people were queueing at passport control a voice on the tannoy announced “Will all asylum seekers please come to the front of the queue … we know you have had a difficult journey.” They then went on to offer them accommodation, support and employment. If only the UK might show such compassion.
If you have found this article interesting — or have comments you would like to make or anything to say that progresses our thinking about the refugee crisis, do please get in touch. We need to think together! I can be contacted via the site or by email- wyonstansfeld@gmail.com
