As an American who cares about the UK, it’s painful to watch how poorly the country is handling its borders. While the U.S., especially under Trump’s leadership, has taken tough action to deal with illegal immigration, the UK seems to be going in the opposite direction—giving in to pressure from international courts like the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) instead of protecting its own borders.
Suella Braverman recently expressed this frustration. When she found out that Rwanda is now accepting deported migrants from the U.S., she called it “humiliating” that the UK couldn’t follow through with its own similar plan. That plan, which aimed to send asylum seekers to Rwanda, was cancelled by the Labour government as soon as they came into office. Many people feel this was a weak and cowardly move, especially at a time when the country needs strong leadership to deal with border control.
In the U.S., Trump took a more direct and firm approach. Data shows that under his policies, the number of people crossing the U.S.-Mexico border without permission dropped significantly from January 2024 to January 2025, illegal crossings fell by 85%. The Trump administration even launched a pilot program to send certain deportees to Rwanda, inspired by the UK’s original plan. Ironically, while the UK dropped the idea, America picked it up and made it happen.
By March 2025, the U.S. had already deported an Iraqi national to Rwanda, officially beginning a program that sends people to a third country instead of keeping them in the U.S. Just a few weeks later, two more deportees a Syrian and a Somali arrived in Rwanda, and the country agreed to take at least eight more. Although human rights groups like Amnesty International strongly criticized the decision, the Trump administration didn’t back down.
They focused on national security rather than trying to please international critics. Trump even faced lawsuits over similar deportations to El Salvador, but he pushed through. This showed determination and a strong belief in protecting the country’s borders without waiting for approval from foreign courts—something the UK currently struggles with.
The plan the UK originally came up with was called the Migration and Economic Development Partnership. It was supposed to discourage people from making dangerous trips across the English Channel in small boats by processing their asylum claims in Rwanda instead of the UK. But the plan never took off.
In 2022, the ECHR stopped the first planned flight over concerns that Rwanda wasn’t safe enough. Later, the UK’s Supreme Court agreed, and the plan was shelved. When Labour came to power in July 2024, they officially cancelled the scheme. Braverman and many others saw this as giving in to foreign pressure and going against the will of British voters who want stricter border control.
The Labour government tried to defend their decision by pointing to some numbers: out of the 5,700 asylum seekers who were supposed to be sent to Rwanda, about 3,000 had their cases handled in the UK instead, and around 60% were allowed to stay as refugees. Critics say this only encourages more people to risk the journey, especially ahead of elections.
Reform UK, a political party pushing for stronger border policies, warned that Labour’s actions would lead to even more illegal crossings. This whole situation also makes many people feel like the UK didn’t truly get the independence it hoped for after Brexit. The ECHR, which has influenced UK law since the Human Rights Act of 1998, still holds a lot of power, and many voters are fed up.
Why is this so important? Because uncontrolled migration can create serious problems. It can stretch public services, put pressure on housing and healthcare, and even pose risks to national security. The U.S. has seen this first-hand at its southern border, especially under President Biden and Vice President Harris. While Trump’s tough stance made it harder for people to cross illegally, the UK has failed to stop the boats, despite promising “strong borders.” In 2024 alone, more than 30,000 people crossed the Channel—a record number—and that figure has continued to rise in 2025. Understandably, a lot of people in the UK are angry and frustrated. Many hope this frustration will lead to Labour losing seats in the next election.
From my view across the Atlantic, the UK needs to take a clear path forward. First, it should seriously consider leaving the ECHR. A lot of people who supported Brexit believe this step is necessary to regain full control over British laws and policies. The ECHR often puts the rights of asylum seekers ahead of the decisions of elected governments. Leaving the court would give the UK the freedom to act in its own national interest, just like the U.S. does.
Second, the UK should bring back the idea of partnering with countries like Rwanda. This kind of agreement helps manage migration and sends a clear message that illegal entry won’t be rewarded. Rwanda has already said it’s willing to work with the U.S., though it warned that regional instability means things must be handled carefully. Still, it’s a step toward a more practical and independent policy.
Finally, the UK needs political leaders with courage. The Conservatives spent half a billion pounds trying to get the Rwanda plan off the ground but only managed to send four people—and they went voluntarily. The idea was solid, but the execution failed. Now is the time to bring it back and do it properly.
In the end, the UK’s border crisis didn’t come from outside it came from within. It’s a result of weak decisions, legal entanglements, and fear of international backlash. Meanwhile, Trump showed what can happen when a leader puts their own country first and takes firm action. Until the UK finds that kind of resolve, the small boats will keep coming. And if Labour refuses to act, it’s up to the voters to step in because a country without proper borders is no longer truly in control of its future.
