Britain’s Conservative government finally passed its flagship immigration policy on Monday, moving a Rwanda deportation bill Human rights activists say it’s inhumane, immigration experts say it is not possible legal critics say Corrosive The country’s reputation for the rule of law.
The legislation is intended to allow the government to place some asylum seekers on one-way flights to Rwanda, where their applications will be processed by authorities in the Central African country. If they are subsequently granted refugee status, they will be resettled in Rwanda rather than the UK.
Since the plan was first proposed in 2022 under then Prime Minister Boris Johnson, experts have said it would breach the UK’s human rights obligations under domestic and international law.
Even after the new bill is passed, Strongly opposed in the House of Lords and effectively cover Following the UK Supreme Court ruling, any deportation attempts are likely to face a series of further legal challenges, making it unlikely that large numbers of asylum seekers will be sent to Rwanda.
However, current Prime Minister Rishi Sunak persist in On Monday, the government will operate multiple charter flights per month for 10 to 12 weeks. “Whatever happens, these flights will be cancelled,” Sunak said hours before the final vote. “It’s novel,” he said of the policy. “It’s innovative, but it’s going to be a game changer.”
The scheme’s rocky journey largely reflects the state of post-Brexit politics: a divided conservative partyDesperate to capitalize on immigration anxieties to close the polling gap with the opposition Labor Party, the policy has persisted for two years despite legal setbacks and deep doubts about its cost and feasibility.
While it is conceivable that the government could get some flights off the ground ahead of a general election expected in the autumn, doing so would only cost hundreds of millions of pounds and critics say it would damage the country’s reputation. A bastion of international and human rights law.
“It presses every button: the limits of executive power, the role of the House of Lords, the conflict between the courts, domestic and international law,” said Jill Larter, senior fellow at Changing Europe, a research group in the UK. “You’re playing constitutional binding bingo with this policy.”
The plan not only pits Mr Sunak against civil servants, opposition politicians and international court of justicewhich led the government to overturn the Supreme Court ruling — in the process, critics say, it effectively made up its own facts.
New legislation enshrines Rwanda as “a safe country” for refugees, ignoring court rulings based on overwhelming evidence, It is not. The legislation instructs judges and immigration officials to “finally consider the Republic of Rwanda a safe state” and gives the government the power to ignore future rulings by the International Court of Justice. There are no provisions to amend it if circumstances in Rwanda change.
While the African country has made great political and social strides in recent decades, even sympathetic observers note that it was rocked by genocide during a 1994 civil war now led by increasingly authoritarian leader Paul Kagame rules.Those who openly challenge him are at risk Arrest, torture or death.
“You can’t just say a country is safe and guarantee it is safe,” said David Anderson, a lawyer and member of the House of Lords who is not affiliated with any political party and also opposes the law. “This is absolutely ridiculous.”
Given all these responsibilities, it is surprising that Mr Sunak has embraced the plan as a means of delivering on his pledge to “stop the boats”. He expressed doubts when he was chancellor under Johnson, according to British newspapers.
Political analysts said Sunak’s decision reflected pressure from the right wing of his party, which strongly supports sending refugees to Rwanda. But he spent a lot of political capital during a lengthy campaign to pass the legislation and missed his self-imposed deadline to start flights in the spring. The often heated debate exposed divisions among Conservative MPs, with moderates warning the bill goes too far and hardliners complaining it doesn’t go far enough.
In the latest episode of legislative drama, the legislation went back and forth between the House of Commons and the unelected House of Lords as the latter sought to attach amendments to it, including one that would require an independent oversight panel , but without success. to verify if Rwanda is safe. On Monday, the House of Lords capitulated on the last amendment.
This clears the way for the House of Commons to pass legislation called the Rwanda Security Bill. The government said it addressed the Supreme Court’s concerns through a treaty with Rwanda in December. But critics say the British government still fails to guarantee that refugees will not one day be deported back to their countries of origin, where they could suffer potential violence or abuse.
Johnson’s embrace of the plan is unsurprising, as his bombastic, freewheeling style upends the tradition of careful, evidence-based British policymaking. This is also the legacy of Brexit, which Johnson campaigned for in 2016 when he promised to “take back control of Britain’s borders”.
“Whenever there are boats coming up and you can’t get away from people, it’s a symbol that you haven’t really taken back control,” said Ms. Rutter, who called the policy a “bastard child.” Brexit. “
Before Brexit, Britain worked with France to all but eliminate the flow of people smuggling across the English Channel by truck. But Johnson has a frosty relationship with French President Emmanuel Macron – and, having left the EU, Britain has fewer tools to put pressure on Paris.
At times, the British government’s desperation to stem the influx of barely seaworthy vessels seems almost comical, such as reports that it is considering trying to repel them with giant wave machines.
The European Court of Human Rights may still take action to block deportation flights to Rwanda. Labor has vowed to repeal the law if it comes to power. With the party so far ahead in the polls, the policy may end up being considered more of a political talking point than practical action to curb dangerous border crossings.
Analysts say even if Labor mothballs the plan, it could come back to haunt the party once it takes power. Another law introduced last year barred people arriving after March 2023 from applying for asylum, leaving them in limbo.
Anand Menon, professor of European politics at King’s College London, said: “Labour may find itself in a very sticky situation because these 40,000 people are being put up in hotels at huge cost to the taxpayer. “It’s not clear what you can do with them.”
He said the Rwanda debate reflected a broader problem facing Western countries in controlling migration. Other European governments are exploring the idea of processing asylum claims abroad but have stopped short of declaring that those granted refugee status should stay in those countries.
“There are difficult discussions about whether the convention signed after World War II is still fit for purpose,” Professor Menon said of legal protections for refugees. “The problem is that Western countries want to portray themselves as kind, generous and humanitarian. — and keep people out.”
Still, even if Britain managed to send some men to Rwanda, it seems unlikely that the policy would be considered a success.
“This has now become so dirty that most countries see it as a huge reputational risk,” Professor Menon said, noting that even Rwanda’s flag carrier reportedly refused Invitation to UK operated flights. “It doesn’t look good.”
