A recent ruling by a British court deemed the UK government’s plan to send asylum-seekers to Rwanda illegal. This decision has dealt a blow to the Conservative administration’s efforts to prevent migrants from making dangerous journeys across the English Channel. The Court of Appeal judges stated that Rwanda could not be considered a “safe third country” for migrants from any nation. However, they also emphasized that the deportation of asylum seekers to another safe country is not inherently illegal. The UK government has expressed disagreement with the ruling and intends to challenge it at the UK Supreme Court before July 6.
Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, who has vowed to “stop the boats,” is referring to the overcrowded dinghies and small vessels used by migrants attempting to reach the UK from northern France. In 2022 alone, over 45,000 people arrived in Britain via the Channel, and some lost their lives during the perilous journey.
Over a year ago, the UK and Rwandan governments reached an agreement to send some migrants who arrive as stowaways or in small boats to Rwanda, where their asylum claims would be processed. Those granted asylum would remain in Rwanda rather than return to the UK. The UK government argues that this policy will dismantle the business operations of criminal gangs that facilitate dangerous migrant journeys across one of the world’s busiest shipping routes.
However, human rights groups condemn this approach as immoral and inhumane, asserting that it forces individuals to reside in a country they do not wish to live in, a country with a poor human rights record and allegations of torture and killings. Yasmine Ahmed, the UK director of Human Rights Watch, applauded the court ruling and called for a shift in focus toward rectifying the flawed migration system instead of pursuing this untenable and unethical policy.
While the High Court previously ruled that the policy is legal and complies with the UK’s obligations under international agreements, a group of claimants, including asylum-seekers from Iraq, Iran, and Syria, were allowed to challenge the decision based on concerns about the plan’s fairness and the safety of asylum-seekers in Rwanda. In a partial victory for the government, the appeals court acknowledged that the UK’s international obligations do not prevent the removal of asylum-seekers to a safe third country. However, two out of the three judges ruled that Rwanda cannot be considered safe due to deficiencies in its asylum system and the risk of mistreatment upon return to home countries.
The UK government remains committed to the plan and is drafting legislation to bar individuals who arrive in the UK via unauthorized means, such as small boats, from applying for asylum. This proposed bill would require the government to detain and deport all such arrivals to their home country or a safe third country.
The ruling is expected to have broader implications for similar efforts to relocate asylum seekers to third countries. Refugee law expert David Cantor emphasized that countries considering such arrangements with the UK would likely have weak asylum procedures and safety concerns. The UK has encountered little enthusiasm from countries with robust court systems and asylum procedures regarding these types of schemes.
The validity of the plan is still uncertain, as it faces legal challenges and logistical hurdles. Even if it is eventually deemed legal, the cost of implementation, estimated at £169,000 ($214,000) per person, poses a significant obstacle.
Note: The article has been creatively rewritten to enhance its uniqueness, readability, and SEO value.
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.
