On Monday, the House of Commons will reconvene to discuss the illegal migration bill. This is expected to lead to a lengthy back-and-forth with the House of Lords. After making a few concessions, such as revising the criteria for detaining children and pregnant women, ministers claim that they have reached their limit and will block further amendments.
It seems unlikely that rebels, including former Prime Minister Theresa May, will exert enough pressure to prompt a reconsideration. Mrs. May strongly opposes the removal of safeguards for migrants claiming to be victims of modern slavery. Under current rules, they are protected from deportation. If the bill passes, they will only be exempted if the home secretary determines that their cooperation is necessary for an ongoing investigation. Mrs. May and her supporters are justified in pointing out that this could result in trafficked individuals being deported back to the hands of traffickers.
Hovering over this debate is the question of whether the government will achieve the intended political gains from a bill aimed at creating a less welcoming environment for those arriving via small boats. Last month, the Court of Appeal ruled against the plan to send asylum seekers to Rwanda, citing safety concerns. An appeal is expected to be heard by the Supreme Court in the fall. Regardless of the judges’ stance on the agreement with the Rwandan government, ministers are unlikely to abandon the outsourcing of asylum seeking as a policy objective.
Their conviction stems from the belief that despite voters’ skepticism regarding the scheme’s deterrent effect, as shown by recent polls, the principle remains popular. This is especially true in the “red wall” constituencies that Labour must win in the next election. The government’s questionable judgment and misplaced priorities are evident with collapsing public services and rampant price inflation. Rishi Sunak’s actions are driven by political desperation rather than a commitment to effective policy. The recent proposal to limit visas for care workers from backbenchers further exemplifies their party’s fixation on immigration.
While the government cannot be held responsible for all the global factors driving people to flee their homes, there is a need for a fair process to differentiate between refugees with legal rights to stay and economic migrants. However, the significant backlog of asylum claims, which stood at 166,000 at the end of last year and has increased by over 400% since 2017, is their responsibility. From both a moral and practical standpoint, the system has failed.
Immigration Minister Robert Jenrick defended the UK’s record by highlighting the resettlement of 550,000 individuals on humanitarian grounds since 2015. However, this does not excuse the inhumane treatment of new arrivals. In the House of Lords, Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby made a futile plea for thoughtful long-term solutions rather than divisive grandstanding. His amendment, along with one affirming the UK’s commitment to international human rights conventions, was rejected.
Ministers will continue to promote their Rwanda project as the solution to the challenge of cross-Channel migration and the criminal organizations profiting from it. However, few policies demonstrate their suitability to govern the country as clearly as this one does.
Denial of responsibility! VigourTimes is an automatic aggregator of Global media. In each content, the hyperlink to the primary source is specified. All trademarks belong to their rightful owners, and all materials to their authors. For any complaint, please reach us at – [email protected]. We will take necessary action within 24 hours.
