Kenya must refuse to receive rejected EU asylum seekers

Migrants expelled from the United States in a shared outdoor area at a hotel in Kinshasa on April 22, 2026. [AFP]

Reports suggest that Kenya is among countries being considered as a potential destination for rejected asylum seekers under the European Union's expanding migration externalisation agenda. While no agreement has been concluded, and Kenyan officials have publicly denied that a formal deal exists, the very fact that Kenya is being discussed as a viable option should alarm anyone concerned with sovereignty, human rights, and the unequal relationship between Europe and Africa.

The proposed deal is one in a long list of examples of the Global North increasingly attempting to outsource its responsibilities under international law by paying countries in the Global South to shoulder burdens it no longer wishes to carry.

The proposal to have asylum seekers moved outside of Europe reflects a broader shift in European migration policy. Faced with growing electoral pressure from anti-immigrant parties, European governments are searching for ways to reduce the number of asylum seekers who remain within European borders. Increasingly, that has meant negotiating agreements with countries outside Europe to host migrants. The United Kingdom attempted to have its asylum seekers hosted by Rwanda only a few years ago.

The international refugee law was never intended to work this way. Following the horrors of the Second World War, the international community adopted the 1951 Refugee Convention, later expanded by the 1967 Protocol, to establish a shared framework for protecting people fleeing persecution. Central to that framework is the principle of non-refoulement, which prohibits states from returning refugees to territories where they face persecution, torture, or other serious harm. States that receive asylum seekers are expected to examine claims fairly and provide protection where warranted.

The convention is built on the understanding that refugee protection is a collective international responsibility. However, much has changed since the end of the Second World War. At the time, refugees were fleeing from one Global North country to another. As the western world had begun to expand its definition of whiteness to include even the Irish, the Italians and the Jews, resettlement of even these populations was seen as being not too much of an interference on the whiteness of a nation.

Since then, however, the nature, colour and religion of the typical refugee have changed drastically. As the western world has moved away from infighting and now chooses to destabilise countries outside of its region, refugees have increasingly come from Africa and the Middle East. In the United States (US), there are also likely to be migrants fleeing from the Americas, which is the US's personal playground where violence and instability can be practiced. That the refugees are coming from Africa, Asia and the Americas means that they will decidedly not be white, which presents a problem in our current political climate.

The politics driving these proposals cannot be separated from the resurgence of the European far right. Across much of Europe, anti-immigrant rhetoric has become mainstream political currency. Refugees are portrayed as invaders rather than people escaping war or persecution, while Muslims are routinely framed as threats to national identity, being seen as invading hordes who are likely to change the entire culture of whatever country they step into. Election campaigns increasingly revolve around promises to "take back control" of borders and preserve European culture from supposed demographic change.

Britain offers a particularly stark illustration. Recent anti-immigration demonstrations in London drew thousands of participants calling for mass deportations and stricter border controls, echoing familiar narratives that migrants are "taking over" Britain. Similar rhetoric has become common in France, Germany, Italy and the Netherlands. The language often focuses on integration, security, or culture, but the underlying fear remains consistent: That immigration is making Europe less white.

The possibility that Kenya could now be considered a destination for rejected asylum seekers, with the understanding of the politics driving these settlements, means that we are considered as a place that would be complicit in this racist settlement of refugees. The very people who drafted and approved the Refugee Convention are now changing how it works, and Kenya could potentially be the nation that sets the precedent to have refugees distributed according to race and religion.

- Ms Njahira is an international lawyer