After facing legal challenges, Britain’s Conservative government successfully passed legislation allowing the country to send asylum seekers to Rwanda. The plan was previously ruled unlawful by the Supreme Court, citing safety concerns for refugees in Rwanda. The policy, championed by Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, aims to deter asylum seekers arriving by small boats in the English Channel. Critics argue that the plan raises concerns about the rule of law and could impact thousands of asylum seekers, leading to vows of opposition by rights groups in the courts.
The Rwanda policy was introduced as a response to an increase in asylum seekers arriving through irregular means during the pandemic. The government aims to prevent these arrivals by sending them to Rwanda for their asylum cases to be heard. Critics argue that the policy violates international laws and obligations, such as the U.N. Refugee Convention. Plans to send asylum seekers abroad were first floated in 2021 by then Prime Minister Boris Johnson, with the Nationality and Borders Bill introduced by Home Secretary Priti Patel criminalizing entry by irregular means.
Legal challenges and a last-minute decision by the European Court of Human Rights thwarted the first planned deportation flight to Rwanda. However, the government persisted with the Illegal Migration Bill, giving the Home Secretary the authority to remove asylum seekers who arrived illegally and send them to their home countries or other safe third countries like Rwanda. After facing court challenges, the Safety of Rwanda Bill and a treaty with Rwanda were introduced to bypass the Supreme Court ruling and allow for the deportation of asylum seekers.
Despite having not yet deported any asylum seekers to Rwanda, Britain is expected to have paid Rwanda a significant amount for the plan. The costs per person sent include development fees and operational costs, with additional funds promised to Rwanda for accepting the asylum seekers. The opposition has criticized the cost as extravagant and called for investment in boosting border security instead of pursuing the deportation plan. The reaction to the plan internationally has been negative, with the UNHCR warning of legal violations and concerns about setting a precedent for refugee protection.
Deportation flights were originally planned for the spring but have since been delayed to June or July. The government has made preparations, including booking charter planes and training escorts to accompany asylum seekers to Rwanda. However, legal experts and rights groups have continued to oppose the plan, citing flaws in the legislation. More than 250 British rights organizations have vowed to challenge the measures in both European and British courts. Asylum seekers who receive deportation notices are expected to launch legal challenges in British courts, potentially appealing to the European Court of Human Rights to halt the deportation flights.
In conclusion, the ongoing battle over the Rwanda deportation plan highlights profound questions about the rule of law and the treatment of asylum seekers. Despite legal challenges and international criticism, the Conservative government is forging ahead with its plans, raising concerns about the impact on refugees’ rights and the precedent set by the policy. As the government prepares for potential deportation flights, opposition from rights groups and legal experts remains strong, setting the stage for further legal battles in the courts.
