T
The government’s defeat in the court of appeal should mark the end of its ill-conceived and unacceptable plan to deport individuals to Rwanda. According to a bilateral agreement, asylum seekers would have their claims processed there and would be allowed to stay if successful. However, a recent ruling, with two out of three judges opposing, stated that Rwanda is not, as ministers claim, a “safe third country.”
Ever since Priti Patel introduced this scheme, it has been evident that it is neither a humane nor a practical solution for dealing with desperate individuals, including those arriving in England by boat from France. However, under the leadership of Suella Braverman, the current home secretary, the government’s commitment to this project seems to have only grown stronger. Ms. Braverman has even described this plan as her “dream” and “obsession.” In March, she bizarrely allowed only select news organizations to accompany her on a trip to Rwanda, where she posed for photos with a thumbs up gesture.
Recently, it was revealed that the estimated cost per deported person is £169,000. The claim that this scheme could deter individuals considering a dangerous Channel crossing was found to lack evidence. Moreover, it has been reported that the Rwandan government has spent £140 million of the UK’s funding, which was part of the agreement. Despite this, Rishi Sunak remains determined to pursue this policy as he had pledged to voters to “stop the boats.” Following Thursday’s decision, he announced the government’s intention to appeal to the supreme court.
Last year, the government faced criticism in the high court for its handling of individuals whose deportation flights were blocked. This week’s court ruling was due to judges concluding that there is a risk of asylum seekers in Rwanda being sent back to their home countries. The judges acknowledged that the Rwandan government’s assurances had been made in good faith but were deemed unreliable. A previous similar agreement between Israel and Rwanda had also failed.
The practice of offshore processing was first introduced by Australia. Starting in 2001, thousands of people who arrived by sea were transferred and detained in harsh conditions on two Pacific islands, Manus and Nauru, where they suffered human rights abuses. Tirana Hassan, the head of Human Rights Watch, recently criticized the UK for adopting a similar policy, stating that it was “reaching the bottom of the barrel” and warned about other countries following suit. The United Nations Refugee Agency (UNHCR) continues to raise concerns about the “externalization” of asylum responsibilities from wealthy nations to poorer ones.
This week’s ruling exposes the current asylum bill in parliament as a deceitful ploy. As Mr. Sunak desires, small-boat arrivals cannot be sent abroad if there is nowhere to send them. We were already aware that the government’s plans were cruel, unfeasible, expensive, and unpopular. Now, we can add illegal to that list.
With just 89,000 asylum claimants last year, the number in the UK is lower compared to many other countries. The Home Office should focus on improving processes, including those criticized by the judges, and addressing backlogs. To fulfill its legal and moral obligations, the UK requires a pragmatic and cooperative policy with its EU partners. The government should abandon the idea of outsourcing refugees, along with the usage of anti-migrant slogans.
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.
