After a long battle in the courts and parliament, Britain's Conservative government on Monday secured passage of a bill that would allow asylum seekers to be sent to Rwanda.
The bill aims to overturn last year's Supreme Court ruling that illegalized plans to send asylum seekers to African countries. The judges ruled that Rwanda is not a safe country for refugees to resettle or have their asylum cases heard.
The Rwanda Plan has become Chancellor Rishi Sunak's flagship policy even as his party's approval ratings slump, and it now looks closer than ever to realization. But critics say it raises serious questions about the UK's rule of law and separation of powers and could affect thousands of asylum seekers. Human rights groups have vowed to fight the plan in court.
Here's what you need to know:
What is the Rwanda policy?
The Conservative government has promised to “stop the boats” as the number of asylum seekers arriving across the English Channel rises after the coronavirus pandemic subsides. Most people arriving in small, unseaworthy ships apply for international protection in the UK through the asylum system, and many are later identified as refugees and allowed to settle in the UK.
Through a series of laws and agreements, the government introduced a policy that would ensure that people arriving by small boat or other “irregular means” would never be granted asylum in the UK. Instead, they will be detained and sent to Rwanda, where their asylum cases will be heard and, if successful, allowed to be resettled in Rwanda.
The government claims its Rwanda policy will act as a deterrent and stop the tens of thousands of people who make the dangerous crossing from France to the UK each year. Some immigration experts have questioned this, arguing that people on the small boats are already risking their lives to reach the UK.
Rights groups and legal experts have warned against the policy, saying it breaches Britain's legal obligations to refugees under international law and breaches the 1951 UN Refugee Convention.
how did we get here?
In early 2021, then-Prime Minister Boris Johnson began discussing plans to send asylum seekers overseas. Taking control of Britain's borders was a central promise of the 2016 Brexit campaign supported by Mr Johnson and Mr Sunak.
In the summer of 2021, Priti Patel, the then-minister responsible for overseeing immigration and asylum, introduced the Nationality and Borders Bill, which would make it a crime to enter the country by irregular means, such as by boat without a visa. did. The bill also gave authorities more leeway to arrest and deport asylum seekers.
The UK announced a deal with Rwanda to send asylum seekers to Rwanda in exchange for hundreds of millions of dollars in development funding by April 2022, and the Nationality and Borders Bill was passed later that month.
But the first flight, planned for 2022, was scrapped amid legal challenges and a last-minute interim ruling by the European Court of Human Rights. By early 2023, then Home Secretary Suela Braverman revived the plan in her Illegal Immigration Bill.
The law, passed in July last year, requires the removal of almost all asylum seekers who enter the UK “illegally”, meaning without a visa or by other means, such as arriving clandestinely in small boats or trucks. was given to her office. (In reality, many of these asylum seekers will not be in the country illegally, since genuine refugees have the right to enter the country and claim international protection.)
Asylum seekers will then be sent to their home country or to a safe third country, such as Rwanda. Whatever the outcome of their claims, they have no right to readmit, settle or obtain citizenship in the UK.
All of these efforts were challenged in court and ended with the Supreme Court ruling that the plan to return asylum seekers to Rwanda was illegal.
The Rwanda Safety Act and a treaty with African states earlier this year override court rulings by declaring Rwanda legally safe and instructing judges and immigration officials to treat it as such. The purpose is to
How much did Britain spend on the project?
No asylum seekers have yet been sent to Rwanda, but Britain's independent public spending watchdog said last month that the government will pay Rwanda 370 million pounds, or about $457 million, by the end of 2024. revealed. And the costs of implementing the policy will increase. Even more so once the plane takes off.
The UK ultimately promised to pay Rwanda £20,000 in development costs for each person sent and £150,874 in operational costs for each person sent. After the first 300 people are deployed, the UK will send an additional £120 million to Rwanda.
Opposition Labor Minister Yvette Cooper, whose portfolio includes immigration, called the cost “exorbitant” on Tuesday and argued the money should be invested in “strengthening border security instead.”
What was the reaction to that plan?
The policy has faced fierce opposition almost since its inception, with the United Nations refugee agency UNHCR warning in 2021 that the policy violates international law.
UNHCR Director-General Filippo Grandi said on Tuesday that the law aims to “shift responsibility for refugee protection, undermine international cooperation and set a worrying global precedent.”
Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights Michael O'Flaherty said the bill “raises serious questions about the human rights of asylum seekers and the rule of law more generally”, and said the bill “raises serious questions about the human rights of asylum seekers and the rule of law more generally”, and said the bill “raises serious questions about the human rights of asylum seekers and the rule of law more generally”, and said the bill “raises serious questions about the human rights of asylum seekers and the rule of law more generally”. “We asked them to refrain from excluding people and to withdraw it.” The bill is a “de facto violation of judicial independence.”
When will the first deportation flight depart?
Mr Sunak had initially promised to deport asylum seekers by spring, but on Monday said the first flights would not depart until June or July.
He said the government had kept airfields on standby, booked commercial charter flights and identified 500 trained bodyguards to accompany asylum seekers to Rwanda.
But legal experts say the plan has major flaws, and human rights groups have vowed to oppose any plan to send asylum seekers to Rwanda.
Richard Atkinson, vice president of the Law Society of England and Wales, a professional body for lawyers, said in a statement on Tuesday that the bill “remains a flawed and constitutionally inappropriate bill”.
More than 250 British rights groups wrote to Mr Sunak on Tuesday, pledging to oppose the action in European and British courts.
Individuals who receive notices that they will be sent to Rwanda are expected to launch legal challenges to their deportations in UK courts, with some also potentially appealing to the European Court of Human Rights, which will decide whether to fly again. An injunction may be issued.
Nick Cumming-Bruce Contributed to report from Geneva.