After a protracted battle in the courts and Parliament, Britain’s Conservative government on Monday secured passage of legislation that aims to allow the country to send asylum seekers to Rwanda.
The legislation aims to overturn a Supreme Court ruling last year that deemed the plan to send asylum seekers to the African nation illegal. The judges ruled that Rwanda was not a safe country in which refugees could be resettled or have their asylum cases reviewed.
The Rwanda plan, which has become a signature policy of Prime Minister Rishi Sunak at a time when his party’s approval ratings have faltered, now looks closer than ever to becoming a reality. But critics say it raises deep questions about the rule of law and the separation of powers in Britain and could affect thousands of asylum seekers. Human rights groups have vowed to fight the plan in court.
This is what you should know.
What is Rwanda’s policy?
As the number of asylum seekers arriving across the English Channel increased after a lull during the coronavirus pandemic, the Conservative government pledged to “stop the boats”. Most of those who arrive in small, often unseaworthy boats apply for international protection in Britain through the asylum system, and many are later found to be refugees and allowed to settle in Britain.
Through a series of bills and agreements, the government introduced a policy that said people arriving by small boat or any other “irregular means” would never be admissible to apply for asylum in Britain. Instead, they would be detained and sent to Rwanda, where their asylum cases would be heard and, if successful, they would be allowed to be resettled there.
The government has argued that Rwanda’s policy will have a deterrent effect and stop the flow of tens of thousands of people making dangerous crossings from France to Britain each year. This has been questioned by some migration experts, who say people traveling in small boats are already risking their lives to travel to Britain.
Human rights groups and legal experts have warned against the policy, saying it contravenes Britain’s legal obligations towards refugees under international law and violates the 1951 UN Refugee Convention.
How do we get here?
In early 2021, Boris Johnson, then prime minister, began discussing plans to send asylum seekers abroad. Taking control of Britain’s borders was a central promise of the 2016 Brexit campaign, championed by Johnson and Sunak.
In summer 2021, Priti Patel, then the minister responsible for overseeing immigration and asylum, introduced the Nationality and Borders Bill, which criminalized entering the country by irregular means, for example by boat and without a visa. . The bill also gave authorities more leeway to make arrests and deport asylum seekers.
In April 2022, Britain announced a deal with Rwanda to send asylum seekers there in exchange for hundreds of millions in development funding, and the Nationality and Borders Bill became law that same month.
But amid legal challenges and a last-minute interim ruling by the European Court of Human Rights, the first flight planned for 2022 was halted. In early 2023, Suella Braverman, the then Interior Minister, revived the plan with the Illegal Immigration Law.
That legislation, which became law last July, gave his office the duty to expel almost all asylum seekers who arrived in Britain “illegally” – that is, without a visa or by other means, such as disguised arrivals. in small boats or trucks. (In practice, many of these asylum seekers would not arrive illegally, since true refugees have the right to enter and claim international protection.)
Asylum seekers would then be sent to their countries of origin, “or another safe third country, such as Rwanda.” Regardless of the outcome of their claims, they would have no right to re-enter, settle or obtain citizenship in Britain.
All of these efforts were challenged in court, ending with the Supreme Court ruling that the plan to deport asylum seekers to Rwanda was illegal.
The Rwanda security bill and a treaty with the African nation earlier this year aim to overturn the court’s ruling by declaring Rwanda safe under the law and instructing judges and immigration officials to treat it as such. .
How much has Britain spent on the plan?
Although no asylum seekers have yet been sent to Rwanda, last month Britain’s independent public spending watchdog found that the government will have paid Rwanda £370 million, or about $457 million, by the end of 2024. And the costs of carrying out the policy will rise further if flights take off.
For each person ultimately sent, Britain has agreed to pay Rwanda an additional £20,000 in development fees, plus £150,874 per person for operational costs. After sending the first 300 people, Britain will send an additional £120 million to Rwanda.
Yvette Cooper, the opposition Labor minister responsible for a portfolio that includes migration, on Tuesday called the cost “exorbitant” and argued that the money should go to “improving our border security.”
What has been the reaction to the plan?
The policy has faced intense opposition almost since its inception, and the United Nations refugee agency, UNHCR, warned in 2021 that it violated international law.
On Tuesday, Filippo Grandi, UNHCR commissioner, said the law sought to “deflect responsibility from refugee protection, undermining international cooperation and setting a worrying global precedent.”
Michael O’Flaherty, the Council of Europe’s human rights commissioner, said the bill “raises important questions about the human rights of asylum seekers and the rule of law more generally” and urged Britain to “refrain from expel people under this policy and reverse the bill’s “effective violation of judicial independence.”
When could the first deportation flights take off?
Sunak 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 put an airfield on standby, booked commercial charter planes and identified 500 trained escorts who would accompany asylum seekers to Rwanda.
However, legal experts say the plan is seriously flawed and human rights groups have vowed to fight any plan to send asylum seekers to Rwanda.
Richard Atkinson, vice-president of the Law Society of England and Wales, a professional association for lawyers, said in a statement on Tuesday that the bill “remains a flawed and constitutionally incorrect piece of legislation.”
On Tuesday, more than 250 British human rights organizations wrote to Sunak pledging to oppose the measures in European and British courts.
People who receive notifications that they will be sent to Rwanda are expected to take legal action against their deportation in the 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.
Nick Cumming-Bruce contributed reporting from Geneva.