UK approves contentious legislation to relocate asylum seekers to Rwanda following prolonged obstacles
After facing two years of hurdles, the UK government has successfully passed a controversial bill enabling the transfer of asylum seekers to Rwanda for their asylum claims to be assessed in the East African country.
The UK parliament has approved a controversial bill that permits the government to transfer asylum seekers to Rwanda for their cases to be reviewed by the East African country. Prime Minister Rishi Sunak faced obstacles from both Parliament and British courts due to opposition from lawmakers and activists concerned about human rights issues.
Sunak's failure to carry out the policy has led to a lot of embarrassment for the British government. They have sent millions of pounds to Rwanda for a program that has not shown any results yet.
The policy aims to discourage illegal migration into the UK, especially by those traveling on dangerous small boats from France, organized by criminal groups.
The legislation proposes that certain individuals arriving in the UK will be sent to Rwanda for their asylum claim to be reviewed. If their claim is approved, they will remain in Rwanda. However, if their claim is rejected, the bill states that they cannot be sent elsewhere other than the UK. It is uncertain what would occur in this situation.
Sunak, who has highlighted preventing small boats from entering as a significant goal, views the lack of any deportations under the scheme two years after its inception as a major disappointment.
Britain's Prime Minister Rishi Sunak spoke at the annual Conservative Party Conference in Manchester, northern England on October 4, 2023.
Britain's Prime Minister Rishi Sunak addresses delegates at the annual Conservative Party Conference in Manchester, northern England, on October 4, 2023. (Photo by Oli SCARFF / AFP) (Photo by OLI SCARFF/AFP via Getty Images)
Oli Scarff/AFP/Getty Images
Related article
Rishi Sunak is facing a lot of challenges lately. Last year, the UK Supreme Court made a decision about a policy. They said that the policy is not right because it could put asylum seekers in danger. The court said that if they are sent back to Rwanda, they might face harm.
Refoulement is when asylum seekers or refugees are sent back to a place where they could be harmed, which goes against important international human rights laws.
The judges also discovered that Rwanda's asylum system, its bad human rights history, and its past failures to follow non-refoulement agreements made it uncertain for the British government to ensure that asylum seekers would have their claims properly and safely reviewed.
The UK government criticized Rwanda in 2021 for issues like extrajudicial killings, deaths in custody, enforced disappearances, and torture. In response, the government introduced the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill in January of this year. This bill aims to establish in UK law that Rwanda is a safe country, despite the judges' concerns being overridden.
Home Secretary James Cleverly announced in a video shared on X on Monday that the Safety of Rwanda Bill has been approved by Parliament and will soon be enacted into law.
He emphasized that the new legislation aims to stop individuals from misusing human rights laws to avoid deportation. Additionally, it reaffirms the supremacy of the UK Parliament, granting the government authority to challenge temporary blocking measures imposed by European courts.
Even though the bill has been passed, there is a possibility that the government may face legal challenges in the European Court of Human Rights. This is because the UK is still a signatory to the European Convention of Human Rights, and the European court has previously blocked the UK from sending asylum seekers to Rwanda.
The bill has experienced significant delays due to efforts to make amendments to it. This process, known informally as “ping pong,” involves the two parts of the UK’s parliament – the House of Commons and the House of Lords – sending the legislation back and forth for months. Whenever the House of Lords makes changes to the bill, the House of Commons, where Sunak holds a majority, must vote to remove them.
The passage of the bill may not be a significant political victory for Sunak. Even if the policy successfully halts all small boat crossings as Sunak desires, it would only have a minimal impact on the UK's net migration numbers. In 2022, 45,744 people arrived by small boats, as reported by the Migration Observatory at the University of Oxford. During the same year, government data indicated that net migration stood at 745,000.
UK Prime Minister Rishi Sunak speaks during a news conference ahead of a crunch vote on the Rwanda legislation on April 22, 2024.
UK Prime Minister Rishi Sunak speaks during a news conference ahead of a crunch vote on the Rwanda legislation on April 22, 2024.
Toby Melville/PA
Sunak and his governing Conservative Party face a challenge as they prepare for a general election later this year. Parties on the right, including Reform UK led by Nigel Farage, are likely to emphasize the issue of illegal migration.
There is a risk that Sunak could become involved in a broader discussion about the UK's potential exit from the European Court of Human Rights if deportations are hindered by the court following the bill's approval. This issue has already created rifts within the Conservative Party.
The British government has spent £220m ($274m) on the Rwanda policy so far, with potential costs reaching £600m once the first 300 individuals are sent to East Africa. This has led to criticism from both the left and the right, who argue that the policy not only violates international human rights law but is also costly and inefficient.
The Labour Party, expected to win the next general election, has stated that it will eliminate the policy if it comes into power.
Editor's P/S:
The UK government's controversial Rwanda asylum policy has faced significant obstacles and criticism, despite its recent approval by Parliament. The policy, which aims to deter illegal migration, has been met with concerns about human rights violations and the lack of results after two years. The opposition from lawmakers, activists, and even the British courts highlights the challenges Sunak's government faces in implementing the policy effectively.
Moreover, the high costs associated with the Rwanda policy and the potential legal challenges in the European Court of Human Rights raise questions about its feasibility and sustainability. The Labour Party's pledge to abolish the policy if elected adds to the uncertainty surrounding its future. The issue of illegal migration is likely to remain a key topic in the upcoming general election, with the government's response under scrutiny and the potential for broader discussions about the UK's relationship with the European Court of Human Rights.
