After a long battle in the courts and parliament, UK Conservative government secures passage of legislation on Monday aimed at allowing the country to send asylum seekers to Rwanda.
The legislation seeks to overturn a Supreme Court ruling last year: Plans to send asylum seekers to African countries considered illegal. The judge ruled that Rwanda was not a safe country where refugees could be resettled or where their asylum cases could be heard.
Plan Rwanda, which has become Prime Minister Rishi Sunak’s flagship policy at a time when his approval ratings are in trouble, appears closer than ever to becoming a reality.But critics say it raises concerns about legal rules and the separation of powers in the UK, which could affect thousands of asylum seekers. Rights groups have vowed to fight the plan in court.
Here’s what to know.
What is Rwanda’s policy?
The Conservative government has pledged to “stop the boats” as the number of asylum seekers arriving across the Channel increases after a lull during the coronavirus pandemic. Most people who arrive on small, unseaworthy boats apply for international protection in the UK through the asylum system, and many are later found to be refugees and allowed to settle in the UK.
Through a series of bills and agreements, the government introduced a policy that anyone arriving in the UK by small boat or any other “unconventional means” would never be allowed to seek asylum in the UK. Instead, they will be detained and sent to Rwanda, where their asylum cases will be heard and, if successful, they will be resettled.
The government argued that Rwanda’s policy would act as a deterrent and prevent tens of thousands of people from making the dangerous crossing from France to the UK each year. This has been questioned by some immigration experts, who say people on the small boats have risked their lives to get to Britain.
Rights groups and legal experts have warned against the policy, saying it violates The UK’s legal obligations towards refugees in accordance with international law and in violation of 1951 United Nations Refugee Convention.
How did we get here?
Early 2021, then-UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson began to float plans to send asylum seekers abroad. Controlling Britain’s borders was a core promise of the 2016 Brexit campaign championed by Johnson and Sunak.
In the summer of 2021, then-minister Priti Patel, who oversaw immigration and asylum, launched Nationality and Borders Act, making it a criminal offense to enter the country by irregular means, such as by boat and without a visa.The bill also gives authorities greater scope for arrests and arrests deport asylum seekers.
In April 2022, the UK announced a deal with Rwanda to send asylum seekers there in exchange for hundreds of millions in development funds, with the Nationality and Borders Bill becoming law later that month.
But due to legal challenges and a last-minute interim decision by the European Court of Human Rights, the planned first flight in 2022 stopped. By early 2023, then Home Secretary Suella Braverman reinstated the scheme through the Illegal Immigration Bill.
The legislation, which becomes law in July 2023, places a duty on her office to deport almost all asylum seekers who arrive in the UK “illegally”, meaning those who arrive without a visa or by other means, such as arriving clandestinely by boat or truck . (In practice, many asylum seekers do not arrive illegally, as genuine refugees have the right to enter and claim international protection.)
Asylum seekers will then be sent to their home country, “or to another safe third country, such as Rwanda”. Whatever the outcome of their claims, they will have no right to re-enter, settle or acquire British citizenship.
Those efforts were challenged in court, culminating in a Supreme Court ruling that the plan to deport asylum seekers to Rwanda was illegal.
The Rwanda Security Act and a treaty signed with the African country earlier this year aim to overturn the court’s decision, declare Rwanda legally safe and instruct judges and immigration officials to treat it as such.
How much did the UK spend on the scheme?
Although asylum seekers have not yet been sent to Rwanda, the UK’s independent public spending watchdog last month Government to pay Rwanda £370m foundBy the end of 2024, it will be approximately US$457 million. If flights do take off, the cost of implementing the policy will rise further.
For each person eventually deployed, the UK promised to pay Rwanda an additional £20,000 in development costs, plus £150,874 per person in operating costs. After sending the first 300 people, the UK will send a further £120 million to Rwanda.
Yvette Cooper, the opposition Labor minister responsible for immigration and other matters, called the cost “exorbitant” on Tuesday and argued the money should be used to “strengthen our border security.”
What has been the response to the program?
The policy has faced backlash almost since its introduction, with the UN refugee agency UNHCR warning in 2021 that it violated international law.
On Tuesday, UNHCR Commissioner Filippo Grandi said the law aimed to “shift responsibility for refugee protection, undermine international cooperation and set a worrying global precedent”.
Council of Europe human rights commissioner Michael O’Flaherty said the bill “raises significant questions about the human rights of asylum seekers and the wider rule of law” and urged the UK “not to act under this policy and overturn what the bill effectively infringes” Judicial independence”.
When will the first deportation flights take off?
Sunak initially promised to deport asylum seekers by spring, but on Monday he said the first flights would not take off until June or July.
he explain The government has put an airport on standby, booked commercial charter flights and identified 500 trained escorts who will accompany asylum seekers to Rwanda.
However, legal experts say the plan is deeply flawed and rights groups have vowed to oppose any plans to send asylum seekers to Rwanda.
Richard Atkinson, vice-president of the Law Society of England and Wales, the professional association for lawyers, said in a statement on Tuesday that the bill “remains a flawed and unconstitutional piece of legislation”.
More than 250 British human rights groups wrote to Sunak on Tuesday, vowing to fight the measures in European and British courts.
Individuals who do receive notices to be sent to Rwanda are expected to launch legal challenges to their deportations in UK courts, and some may also appeal to the European Court of Human Rights, which could issue another injunction halting flights.
Nick Cumming-Bruce Reporting from Geneva.
