Comment on this storyCommentAdd to your saved storiesSave
LONDON – At the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, British Foreign Secretary David Cameron was asked whether his country should be embarrassed over its plan to send asylum seekers to remote Rwanda.
Critics, including 46 percent of MPs in the House of Commons, say the British government is pursuing extraordinary legislation aimed not only at evading scrutiny from its own courts but also at avoiding its obligations under international human rights laws that it helped write .
But Cameron, the former prime minister responsible for the Brexit referendum, declared the Rwanda plan a model that other Western countries should consider.
It was “quite unorthodox in some ways,” he said, but embodied the “out-of-the-box thinking” needed to stop “horrendous” human smuggling.
Late on Wednesday, the House of Commons passed Prime Minister Rishi Sunak's bill declaring Rwanda a safe country for deportations – despite the fact that Britain's Supreme Court has declared it unsafe. The bill would allow the government to “not apply” parts of the Human Rights Act when it comes to Rwanda-related asylum claims.
UK Supreme Court rejects plan to deport migrants to Rwanda in blow to Sunak
With 80 million displaced people in the world, many of them fleeing poverty and violence, Britain is far from the only country trying to make illegal migration more difficult and move the asylum process offshore.
The question is whether deportation flights will go ahead – and whether other countries will follow Britain's example.
What is the British Rwanda policy?
The Rwanda plan is a bold – critics say unworkable and unlawful – proposal that aims to stop people crossing the English Channel in small inflatable boats by quickly sending those who land in Britain to Africa.
The plan was the brainchild of then-Prime Minister Boris Johnson, who promised to make good on his Brexit promise and “take back control of Britain’s borders.”
Johnson announced in April 2022 that migrants who meet strict asylum criteria would be flown 4,000 miles to Rwanda, where their asylum claims would be assessed. (Unaccompanied children would not be carried on planes.)
Britain wants to fly asylum seekers to Rwanda to prevent illegal sea crossings
Depending on the results, the refugees could remain in Rwanda, move on to third countries or be repatriated to their home countries.
They would never receive asylum in Britain.
How many migrants could be deported to Rwanda?
Johnson initially promised that “tens of thousands” of migrants could be sent to Rwanda.
According to media reports, 1,000 asylum seekers could be sent to Rwanda during the five-year trial period. So a few hundred per year. The British Home Office has sent letters to asylum seekers threatening their status.
Was anyone sent to Rwanda?
What is stopping the flights?
So far the courts. And the law, both national and international.
The British Supreme Court has initially approved the first flight for June 2022. But the European Court of Human Rights – which interprets the European Convention on Human Rights, which Britain helped draft and was one of the first to ratify – stopped the flight just hours before it was due to take off.
After legal challenges, Britain cancels flight to deport asylum seekers to Rwanda
The case moved back to Britain. The appeals court ruled that the plan was unlawful. The UK Supreme Court agreed in November.
Why is the Rwanda plan so controversial?
The Rwanda plan is Britain's most controversial policy since the great Brexit battles.
Legal scholars have alternately described it as courageous, radical, ruthless and quite extraordinary. London Major Sadiq Khan, a prominent voice in the Labor Party, called it “cruel, inhumane and unworkable, pursued by a weak government fixated on party rather than national interests” on Wednesday. Justin Welby, the Archbishop of Canterbury and head of the Church of England, said: “This immoral policy shames Britain.” The UN refugee agency claims it is “incompatible with international refugee law.”
Britain wants to send migrants to Rwanda, an extreme plan that others could copy
Human rights advocates say Britain wants to go further than most other countries and would expel asylum seekers without seriously examining the merits of their cases.
The Supreme Court also questioned the destination of Rwanda, noting that there are “significant reasons” to believe that sending asylum seekers there “would expose them to a real risk of ill-treatment,” in particular that they could be sent back to their countries of origin, where If she lives, she could face persecution. (Rwanda denies this.)
But the British government hasn't given up?
Sunak has promised to “stop the boats”. He and his Conservative Party face a difficult national election this year. The idea is that he needs to send a few flights to Rwanda to show that he has at least achieved something.
So Sunak's government did two things in December. It signed a new treaty with Rwanda that provided additional protections and introduced new laws reaffirming that Rwanda is a safe country for asylum seekers.
What happened to the new legislation?
In the House of Commons, Sunak faced off against rebels from his own party who complained the bill was not tough enough and continued to mount legal challenges. The hardliners pushed for a series of changes to make the bill more “bulletproof.” An amendment said that British and international law should not be used to “prevent or delay the deportation of any person to Rwanda”. Another wanted to block interim injunctions from the European Court of Human Rights in the case of deportations to Rwanda.
To dampen the desire for these declarative changes, Sunak's government said it would inform civil servants to follow the instructions of their departments and not be bound by injunctions from the European Court of Human Rights.
The Rwanda Security (Asylum and Immigration) Bill was passed by the House of Commons on Wednesday evening in third reading with a comfortable majority of 320 votes to 276 without any amendments.
The bill goes to the House of Lords, which could object and send it back to the House of Commons. But oddsmakers say it's likely to become law.
Asylum seekers may still have legal recourse, said Peter William Walsh, a senior researcher at Oxford University's Migration Observatory, claiming that the person in Rwanda is at “imminent risk of serious, irreversible harm.” Walsh warned that the route was narrow. A person would have to prove that Rwanda is dangerous – for the individual – rather than focusing on the prospect of being sent back to their own country.
The European Court of Human Rights could also get involved. Sunak would then have to decide whether he wanted to face a court and the international human rights laws his country helped shape.
How many asylum seekers come to the UK by boat?
According to government figures, 29,437 people crossed the English Channel last year.
Last weekend four died in the attempt.
A spokesman for the Home Office, which oversees the borders, said the government's priority remained stopping the boats, “which is why we have taken decisive action to tackle vile people-smuggling gangs, deter migrants from making dangerous crossings and, incidentally, ours.” French colleagues are interceptors.”
There is great frustration that asylum seekers can spend years in the UK while their claims are decided.
MP John Hayes said his Conservative Party colleagues in Parliament may have different ideas about how Sunak's plan should be implemented but are united in tackling “perhaps this country's biggest existential crisis”. , as he called it.
Hayes accused the recent surge in legal and illegal migration of having a “devastating impact on public services”.
Hayes said the “vast majority” of people arriving on small boats are not genuine asylum seekers but economic migrants.
How much does the Rwanda plan cost?
The Sunak government has paid Rwanda $300 million so far, with another $60 million due this year.
Citing government figures, the opposition Labor Party says sending refugees to Rwanda will cost $80,000 more than keeping them in Britain before they are either admitted or deported.