increase in migration, the United Kingdom turned to a controversial plan: sending migrants to Rwanda. But the plan has faced years of delays and legal challenges. Max Colchester explains why the U.K. pushed ahead, and what Rwanda stands to gain.

Further Reading:

- Britain’s Radical Plan to Tackle the Migrant Crisis Turns Into a Cautionary Tale

Further Listening:

- Smuggling Migrants Toward the U.S. Is a Booming Business

- Texas Took On Border Security. Is It Working?

- What the End of Title 42 Means for U.S. Immigration Policy

Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

1d:T4b2,In April the UK government announced that they had signed a deal that would see asylum seekers to the UK processed instead in Rwanda, some 6,500km away. This caused outrage, with rights groups and campaigners calling the deal cruel, saying the asylum seekers who come to the UK have already faced gruelling and treacherous journeys and shouldn’t be sent to another country for their papers to be processed. The British government argued that the plan was designed to deter people-trafficking. Rwanda said every single asylum seeker would be welcomed and get full protection under Rwandan law. But days before the first flights were due to take off from the UK, charities supporting the migrants took the British government to the courts. However they were unsuccessful as both the High Court and the Court of Appeal ruled that government's first flight taking asylum seekers to Rwanda can go ahe

A Troubled Plan to Ship Migrants to Rwan...