Responding to the Rwanda Bill

By Embrace coordinator, Lauren.

If you’ve been following politics even just a bit, you’ll have heard about the government’s Rwanda asylum plan. If you haven’t heard about it, here is a brief recap to get us started.

Under a new policy, anyone “entering the UK illegally” after 1 January 2022, could be sent to Rwanda. “Entering the UK illegally” is referring primarily to those entering the UK by irregular routes like the English Channel. Ministers have argued that by enacting this plan, people would be deterred from arriving in the UK via small boats.

Since its inception, there has been a plethora of challenges from those in government, charities, and the general public, arguing that Rwanda isn’t a safe place for asylum seekers, that the plan bypasses our responsibility for asylum seekers, that it will cost more than just giving asylum to someone in this country, and that it won’t work to deter asylum seekers crossing the Channel.

In November, the UK Supreme Court ruled unanimously that the Rwanda scheme was unlawful – that it breached the European Convention on Human Rights. Following this ruling, the government introduced the Safety of Rwanda Bill, to make clear that Rwanda is a safe country to send asylum seekers. It was first passed in the House of Commons in January, but since then, has been “ping-ponging” back and forth between the Commons and Lords, with Peers in the Lords making amendments that have been overturned when returned to MPs in the Commons.

Just this week, MPs rejected six amendments, one of which asked that modern slavery victims be exempt to the Rwanda scheme.

Downing Street has said it hopes the legislation will get through this week, so that planes can get off the ground “as quickly as possible.” It’s looking like it very well might be soon.

It’s plain and clear that we need to create a wider strategy for refugee policy in this country. The current system isn’t working, especially for the vulnerable asylum seekers caught in it. But is the Rwanda plan the way to fix it?

A slew of people (of all different faiths and political stances) would argue, no, that it is simply a PR stunt for the government and a way to outsource our legal and moral responsibilities for refugees and asylum seekers when other countries far poorer are already supporting multitudes more than we are now.

As Christians, how are we to think about this Bill?

The Archbishop of Canterbury responded to the Bill in January, providing his faith perspective on what is happening in Westminster, starting his argument against the Bill by quoting Jesus as saying ‘I was a stranger and you invited me in.’

Refugees and asylum seekers have slowly but very surely been stripped of humanity by the government and the media in very recent years, leading many to believe they are “invading” our shores. Rather than human beings, refugees and asylum seekers have been degraded as problems that need to be sorted by another country. This is a far cry from Jesus’s way of welcoming the stranger in.

But the fact is, most of us don’t have much power when it comes to the passing of this Bill, even if we disagree with it. We can write to our MPs about our concerns and be vocal about it in our communities, but disappointingly, it looks like it is heading into law.

What then?

It’s a matter for each of us to consider prayerfully, pouring over Jesus’s words through the Gospels.

Can we pray? Yes, as we feel led. For our leaders, for those making the dangerous journey on the Channel, for the countries from which people are fleeing, for those on the front lines helping refugees and asylum seekers.

Can we advocate politically for change? Of course. We can get in touch with our MPs, perhaps became MPs. We can use positions of power to call for accountability.

But most importantly, and probably the most feasible, we can ask ourselves how we are welcoming the stranger into our own lives? Are we contemplating their journeys, empathically trying to understand their reasons for coming to the UK by striking up conversations? Are we inviting them into our homes for dinner, or out for a coffee? Are we volunteering with charities supporting them? Are we looking for ways to extend Jesus’s love to them? How are our own hearts aligned with Jesus’s toward those fleeing to find safety?

No matter what the government decides on this Bill, we as followers of Jesus can still show love to refugees and asylum seekers. And it’s worth having a good think about what this might look like for us as individuals, families, and churches.




Dai HankeyComment