\n<\/p>\n
On a cold spring day last month, Mohsen, a 36-year-old from Iran, woke before dawn and was hurried by smugglers onto a rubber boat on the coast of France.<\/p>\n
The water was calm and the sky clear, but he knew the risks of the journey he was about to make, he said. Since 2018, at least 72 people<\/a> have drowned in the Channel while attempting crossings, according to the International Organization for Migration.<\/p>\n He fled Iran, he said, because police officers came to his home last year threatening to arrest him after he took part in anti-government protests<\/a>.<\/p>\n Mohsen, who asked to be identified only by his first name over concerns that having his full name published could affect his asylum claim, said he was willing to risk drowning for the chance of a new life in Britain. And he boarded the boat even though he knew about the British government\u2019s plan to deport some asylum seekers to the central African country of Rwanda, which was first announced in 2022<\/a>.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n \u201cWhat can I do? What other option did I have?\u201d he said. \u201cHonestly, I am worried, especially after Monday. Every day, the rules seem to change.\u201d<\/p>\n On Monday, Britain\u2019s Conservative government passed<\/a> a contentious law intended to clear the way for deportation flights to Rwanda to begin in the summer despite an earlier ruling by Britain\u2019s Supreme Court that deemed the country unsafe for refugees<\/a>. For months, the House of Lords, the upper chamber of parliament, tried unsuccessfully to amend the bill<\/a>, with a former Conservative chancellor saying<\/a> that ignoring the country\u2019s highest court set \u201can extremely dangerous precedent.\u201d<\/p>\n Under the plan, some asylum seekers will have their claims heard in Rwanda, and, even if approved, they would be resettled there and not allowed to live in Britain. Anyone who arrived in Britain after Jan. 1, 2022, and traveled by dangerous means, like small boats or covertly in trucks, or came via a \u201csafe third country,\u201d could be sent to Rwanda, according to government guidance<\/a>. The law and other recent government policies mean there are now very few ways to claim asylum<\/a> in Britain, with some exceptions including for Ukrainians and people from Hong Kong.<\/p>\n Charities and rights groups that support asylum seekers say many have expressed concern about Rwanda\u2019s troubled human rights record<\/a> and that fears of being sent away had added to the anxiety of living in limbo for months or even years.<\/p>\n Habibullah, 28, arrived by boat last year after fleeing Afghanistan when the Taliban took control and, he said, killed his father and brother. He asked that only his first name be used because of security concerns.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n \u201cIf I go to Afghanistan I will be dead,\u201d he said, but added that the prospect of going to Rwanda felt almost as daunting. He said he had been seeing a doctor for depression since receiving a letter from the British government last June informing him that he could be deported.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n He said his route from Afghanistan took him through Iran, Bulgaria, Austria, Switzerland and France, and he sometimes went without food. After all that hardship, he said, he couldn\u2019t bear to be sent away.<\/p>\n \u201cI came to the U.K. for the U.K.,\u201d he said, sitting in the harshly lit cafeteria of a South London hotel where he and other asylum seekers are being housed.<\/p>\n One of the hotel\u2019s residents said she had survived rape and torture in Botswana. Another had fled the Syrian civil war. They all said they feared ending up in Rwanda.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n Marvin George Bamwite, 27, said he left his home in Uganda, which neighbors Rwanda and has draconian anti-gay laws,<\/a> after his family found out that he was gay and condemned him.<\/p>\n \u201cTo other people, Rwanda might be safe, but not for everybody,\u201d he said. \u201cNot gay people. Rwanda is not safe for us.\u201d<\/p>\n Rwanda has transformed since its devastating genocide of 1994<\/a>. It has become prosperous, but the government has also been accused of repression and human rights abuses. While being gay is not illegal in Rwanda, it is often stigmatized, and Human Rights Watch has documented arbitrary detentions in the L.G.B.T.Q. community<\/a>.<\/p>\n Britain\u2019s Supreme Court declared the Rwanda policy unlawful in November. It found that there were substantial grounds for believing asylum seekers sent there would face a real risk of ill-treatment as a result of \u201crefoulement\u201d \u2014 meaning that refugees could be returned to their countries of origin and face potential violence or ill treatment, in violation of both British and international law.<\/p>\n The new law aims to override the court\u2019s ruling by declaring Rwanda safe, and instructing judges and immigration officials to treat it as such, a maneuver that lawyers in the House of Lords called a \u201clegal fiction.<\/a>\u201d On Monday, Prime Minister Rishi Sunak said the government would immediately begin detaining asylum seekers, with the first deportation flights scheduled for late June or early July. Legal challenges are expected, however, and they could prevent the flights from taking off.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n The government\u2019s policy rests on the theory that asylum seekers would reconsider traveling to Britain if they believed they would end up in Rwanda. But that remains to be seen. At least in the months since Mr. Sunak said he would continue to push for the plan, boat arrivals continued.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n