Although a last-minute intervention by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) grounded a plane of migrants from the United Kingdom to Rwanda, the UK government seems determined to leap over legal hurdles and send unwanted asylum-seekers back to Rwanda, where they face an uncertain future. In support of British Prime Minister Boris Johnson, furious Conservatives have called on Britain's government to abandon a European human rights pact after the judge's dramatic decision to block its plan. 

Their deportation to Rwanda is part of a five-year deal signed between Britain and Rwanda that would see the latter send back migrants from various countries who enter Britain illegally.

Many of these asylum-seekers come from conflict zones and other war-torn countries, and have crossed the English Channel that connects Britain and France on makeshift boats. They are attracted to Britain's welfare system, considered one of the most generous in Europe.

Sending them back is inhumane and goes against values the UK stands for.

They could find themselves in a small African country thousands of miles away from relatives they hoped to join in the UK. Their dreams of starting a new life in a country with abundant opportunities would be shattered.

For its part, Rwanda says it is ready to welcome them and promises to take care of them.

The Church of England condemned the deportation deal, calling it an "immoral strategy that shames Britain."

The decision by European judges was timely and could allow human rights activists and lawyers to push for the total scrapping of the deal.

The deal

British Home Secretary Priti Patel had traveled to Rwanda in April this year and struck a deal with Rwandan authorities to return thousands of asylum-seekers from various countries to stem the flow of migrants who make dangerous trips across the English Channel from France.

Under the deal, the British government would pay up to 120 million pounds ($157 million, €144 million) for asylum seekers to be "integrated into Rwandan communities." This is equivalent to trading humans for money and should be avoided at all cost.

Boris Johnson says this should serve as a deterrent and limit the number of illegal migrants who arrive in the country.

Yet Johnson and Patel (herself having a migrant background), who signed the deal with the Rwandan government, are not likely to achieve their goal of preventing would-be asylum-seekers from entering Britain via the Channel. Regardless, numerous conservative lawmakers and politicians back them.

Human rights concerns

Activists point out that Rwanda has a poor record on human rights, is lacking freedom of speech, and cracks down on political dissent, among other conditions making it a problematic country for asylum-seekers.

However, Rwanda has for decades been hosting refugees from neighboring countries including Burundi, the Democratic Republic of Congo, and Uganda, according to the UN refugee agency UNHCR.

Others arrive from from Chad, Guinea, Angola, Somalia, and Afghanistan. UNHCR statistics show that Rwanda currently hosts at least 127,000 refugees.

To his credit, the government of Rwanda's President Paul Kagame took in refugees from South Sudan, Eritrea, and Ethiopia who were stranded in Libya after many failed attempts to cross the Mediterranean in search of greener pastures in Europe.

But unlike those who would be deported from the UK, these refugees were under the direct care of the UNHCR and awaiting relocation to third countries.

Sadly, it seems rights groups have not attempted to follow up on the refugees currently living in Rwanda to see if their rights are respected and whether they enjoy all their freedoms.

A difficult integration

Perhaps the most critical aspect human rights activists are missing, which could give weight to their case, is how people moved back from the UK will integrate in Rwanda — a country with no clear or known integration curriculum.

For various reasons, it would take migrants from the UK many years to fully integrate to religios and social life in Rwanda. Most Rwandans are Christians, and the small number of Muslims there are virtually all Sunnis.

It could be an uncomfortable experience for migrants from deeply conservative countries who perhaps belong to different Muslim sects to live in Rwanda. Another challenge could be not being able to find their traditional foods in Rwanda, which would help them connect to their roots.

Several EU summits on migration in Brussels have also failed to devise a successful plan for dealing with migrants, particularly for those who remain stranded in Libya or those who are on the French side and wish to cross the English Channel.

Without a proper plan, many will continue to make dangerous attempts to cross waterways like the English Channel — and perhaps end up being deported to Rwanda as unwanted migrants.