The process to implement the plan has been underway for several years, but the passing of controversial legislation by the British Parliament moves the country closer to sending asylum seekers to Rwanda. After lengthy wrangling in the courts and Parliament, Britain’s Conservative government on Monday won approval for a law aimed at allowing the country to send asylum seekers to Rwanda.

The law seeks to reverse a Supreme Court ruling last year that deemed plans to send asylum seekers to the African country illegal. The judges ruled that Rwanda was not a safe country for the resettlement of refugees or for hearing their asylum applications.

The plan for Rwanda, which has become Prime Minister Rishi Sunak’s signature policy at a time when his party’s approval ratings are declining, is now closer to becoming a reality. However, critics argue that this raises serious concerns about the rule of law and separation of powers in the UK, and could potentially affect thousands of asylum seekers. Human rights groups have vowed to challenge the plan in court.

What policies will be implemented towards Rwanda?

As asylum seekers arrive in the English Channel after a lull during the coronavirus pandemic, the Conservative government has promised to “stop the boats”. Most of those who arrived in small boats applied for international protection in the UK through the asylum system, and many turned out to be refugees who were allowed to remain in the UK.

Through a series of bills and agreements, the government introduced a policy stating that people arriving by small boat or other “unofficial means” would never be eligible to apply for 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 allowed to resettle there.

The government argues that Rwanda’s policy will have a deterrent effect and stop the flow of tens of thousands of people making the dangerous crossing from France to the UK every year. However, some migration experts question this, arguing that people traveling in small boats are already risking their lives to reach the UK.

Human rights groups and legal experts have warned against the policy, arguing that it goes against the UK’s legal obligations towards refugees under international law and violates the 1951 UN Refugee Convention.

How did it get to this point?

In early 2021, Boris Johnson, the prime minister at the time, began discussing plans to send asylum seekers abroad. Taking control of Britain’s borders was a key promise of the 2016 Brexit campaign, championed by Johnson and Sunak.

In the summer of 2021, Priti Patel, then the minister responsible for overseeing immigration and asylum, introduced the Nationality and Borders Bill, which stated that entering the country by irregular means, such as arriving by boat and without a visa, was a crime. This bill also gives authorities the freedom to arrest and 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, and the Nationalities and Borders Bill became law the same month.

The bill, which became law last July, gives his office responsibility for expelling almost all asylum seekers who arrived in the UK “illegally,” meaning without a visa or by other means, such as arriving in disguise by small boat. or truck. Asylum seekers would then be sent to their home country or another “safe third country,” such as Rwanda. Regardless of the outcome of their claim, they have no right to return, reside or acquire citizenship in the UK.

How much money is the UK spending on this scheme?

While no asylum seekers have yet been sent to Rwanda, last month Britain’s independent public spending watchdog found that the government had paid Rwanda £370 million, or about $457 million, by the end of 2024. And the costs of implementing the policy would be enormous. increases further if the flight takes off.

For each person sent, Britain agreed to pay Rwanda an additional £20,000 in building costs, plus £150,874 per person in operational costs. After sending the first 300 people, the UK will send an additional £120 million to Rwanda.

Yvette Cooper, the opposition Labor minister in charge of the portfolio covering migration, called the costs “extremely expensive” and argued that the funds should be used to “improve the security of our borders.”

What has been the reaction to the plan?

The policy has faced strong opposition since it was first implemented, and the UN refugee agency, UNHCR, warned in 2021 that the policy violates international law.

On Tuesday, Filippo Grandi, the UNHCR commissioner, said the law seeks to “shift responsibility away from refugee protection, undermine international cooperation and create a worrying global precedent.”

Michael O’Flaherty, human rights commissioner at the Council of Europe, said the bill “raises important questions about the human rights of asylum seekers and the rule of law generally” and urged the UK to “refrain from expelling people affected by this policy and reverse that policy. ‘effective violation of judicial independence’ in the bill.

When can the first deportation flights take off?

Sunak initially promised to deport asylum seekers in the spring, but on Monday said the first flights would not leave until June or July. He said the government had prepared an airfield, ordered commercial charter planes and identified 500 trained bodyguards to accompany asylum seekers to Rwanda.

However, legal experts say the plan is deeply flawed and human rights groups have vowed to reject plans to send asylum seekers to Rwanda.

Richard Atkinson, vice president of the Law Society of England and Wales, a professional association for barristers, said in a statement on Tuesday that the bill “remains flawed and constitutionally incorrect legislation.”

On Tuesday, more than 250 British human rights organizations wrote to Sunak and vowed to challenge the move in European and British courts. People who receive notification that they will be sent to Rwanda are expected to take legal action against their deportation in British courts, and some may also appeal to the European Court of Human Rights, which could again issue a court order to stop the flights.

Water fountain: New York Times

You may be interested: UK to increase defense spending due to threats from Russia