UK Asylum Seekers Expressing Concerns Over Rwanda Law: A Step Towards Resolving Anxiety
On Monday, the British Parliament finally approved a controversial bill allowing the government to send asylum seekers to Rwanda so that the East African country can consider their requests. British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak’s efforts were caught between opposition in both houses of Parliament and challenges in the British courts, where lawmakers and activists sought to invalidate the legislation on human rights grounds.
Sunak’s inability to implement this policy caused great embarrassment, as the British government sent millions of pounds to Rwanda to finance a scheme that has failed to achieve any results.The law is designed to deter illegal immigration to the UK, especially people traveling on illegal small boats on dangerous journeys from France arranged by criminal gangs.
In theory, the legislation would see some migrants to the UK sent to Rwanda, where their asylum claim would be considered. If their application is accepted, they will remain in Rwanda. If rejected, the bill states that Rwanda cannot deport them elsewhere. What will be determined in this scenario besides the UK is still being determined.
Two years after the law was first put in place, the lack of any deportations has been seen as a significant failure for Sunak, who has previously flagged stopping small boats as a critical priority. The UK Supreme Court ruled last year that the policy was unlawful “because there are substantial grounds for believing that the asylum seekers would face a real risk of ill-treatment by being forcibly returned to their country of origin if they were deported to Rwanda.”
Refoulement is the practice in which asylum seekers or refugees are forcibly returned to a place where they may face persecution or danger, which contravenes essential principles of international human rights law. The judges also found that Rwanda’s asylum system, its poor human rights record, and its previous failure to comply with non-refoulement agreements meant that the British government needed to be sure that asylum seekers would have their claims processed safely and correctly.
The judiciary also noted that until 2021, the UK government had criticized Rwanda for “extrajudicial killings, deaths in custody, enforced disappearances and torture. The British government responded by introducing the Rwanda Safety (Asylum and Immigration) Bill in January this year, which effectively states that Rwanda is a safe country, overriding the judges’ concerns.
British Home Secretary James Cleverly said, in a video clip posted on the “X” platform (formerly Twitter) on Monday, “The Rwanda safety bill has been approved in Parliament and will become law within days. He added that the law “will prevent people from misusing it through false claims about human rights to prevent deportations,” and continued: “The UK Parliament is sovereign, giving the government the power to reject interim measures imposed by European courts.
Even with the bill passed, the government could face legal challenges in the European Court of Human Rights, as the UK remains a signatory to the European Convention on Human Rights. The bill suffered long delays due to attempts to amend it, through what is known as the “ping-pong” process, in which members of the House of Commons and the Lords send legislation back and forth for months. Every time the House of Lords makes amendments to the bill, the House of Commons must vote, where Sunak has the majority, to repeal it.
Right-wing parties will push to do their utmost to tackle the issue of illegal immigration. There is also a risk that Sunak will be drawn into a broader debate about the UK leaving the European Court of Human Rights if the European Court blocks deportations after the bill is passed. This issue has already caused deep divisions between various sections of the Conservative Party.
