After a protracted battle in the courts and parliament, Britain’s Conservative government on Monday secured passage of legislation aimed at allowing the country to send asylum seekers to Rwanda.
The legislation aims to overturn a Supreme Court ruling last year, which found the plan to send asylum seekers to the African country unlawful. The judges ruled that Rwanda was not a safe country where refugees could resettle or have their asylum cases processed.
The Rwanda plan, which has become a flagship policy of Prime Minister Rishi Sunak at a time when his party’s popularity has fallen, now appears closer than ever to becoming a reality. But critics say it raises deep questions about the rule of law and the separation of powers in Britain, and could impact thousands of asylum seekers. Rights groups have vowed to challenge the plan in court.
Here’s what you need to know.
What is the Rwanda policy?
As the number of asylum seekers arriving via the English Channel rose after a lull during the coronavirus pandemic, the Conservative government vowed to ‘stop the boats’. Most people who arrive in small, often unseaworthy boats apply for international protection in Britain through the asylum system, and many later turn out to be refugees and are allowed to settle in Britain.
Through a series of bills and agreements, the government introduced a policy that stated that people arriving by small boat or other “irregular means” would never qualify for asylum in Britain. Instead, they would be detained and sent to Rwanda, where their asylum cases would be heard, and if successful, they would be resettled there.
The government has argued that the Rwanda policy will act as a deterrent and stem the flow of tens of thousands of people who make the dangerous crossing from France to Britain every year. This has been questioned by some migration experts who say people on small boats are already risking their lives to travel to Britain.
Rights groups and legal experts have warned against implementing the policy, saying it breaches Britain’s legal obligations to refugees under international law and breaches the 1951 UN Refugee Convention.
How did we get here?
In early 2021, then Prime Minister Boris Johnson began plans to send asylum seekers abroad. Taking control of Britain’s borders was a central promise of the 2016 Brexit campaign, championed by Mr Johnson and Mr Sunak.
In the summer of 2021, Priti Patel, then the minister responsible for overseeing immigration and asylum, introduced the Nationality and Borders Bill, which will make it an offense to enter the country illegally, for example by boat and without a visa . The bill also gave authorities more room to make arrests and remove asylum seekers.
In April 2022, Britain announced a deal with Rwanda to send asylum seekers there in return for hundreds of millions in development funding, and later that month the Nationality and Borders Bill became law.
But amid legal challenges and a last-minute interim decision from the European Court of Human Rights, the first scheduled flight in 2022 was halted. In early 2023, Suella Braverman, the then Minister of the Interior, revived the plan with the Illegal Migration Bill.
That legislation, which came into force last July, gave her office a duty to remove almost all asylum seekers who arrived in Britain ‘illegally’ – that is, without a visa or through other means such as secret arrivals by small boat or truck . (In practice, many of these asylum seekers would not arrive illegally, as genuine refugees have the right to enter and claim international protection.)
The asylum seekers would then be sent to their home country, “or to another safe third country, such as Rwanda.” Regardless of the outcome of their claims, they would have no right to return, settlement or citizenship in Britain.
These efforts were all challenged in court and ended with a Supreme Court ruling that found the plan to deport asylum seekers to Rwanda unlawful.
Rwanda’s Security Law and a treaty with the African nation earlier this year aim to override the court’s ruling by declaring Rwanda legally safe and instructing judges and immigration officials to treat the country as such.
How much did Britain spend on the plan?
Although no asylum seekers have yet been sent to Rwanda, Britain’s independent public spending watchdog found last month that the government will have paid Rwanda £370 million, or about $457 million, by the end of 2024. And the costs of implementing the policy will rise even further. further when flights take off.
For every person ultimately deployed, Britain has pledged to pay Rwanda a further £20,000 in development funds, plus £150,874 per person in operational costs. After the first 300 people have been sent, Britain will send a further £120 million to Rwanda.
Yvette Cooper, the opposition Labor minister responsible for a portfolio that includes migration, on Tuesday called the costs “excessive” and argued that the money should instead be put into “strengthening our border security.”
What are the reactions to the plan?
The policy has faced fierce opposition almost from its inception, with the United Nations refugee agency UNHCR warning in 2021 that it violated international law.
Filippo Grandi, the UNHCR commissioner, said on Tuesday that the law aims to “shift the responsibility for refugee protection, undermine international cooperation and set a worrying global precedent.”
Michael O’Flaherty, the Council of Europe’s human rights commissioner, said the bill “raises important issues about the human rights of asylum seekers and the rule of law generally”, and urged Britain ” to refrain from removing people under the policy and to reverse the bill’s “effective infringement of judicial independence.”
When could the first deportation flights depart?
Mr Sunak initially promised to deport asylum seekers in the spring, but on Monday he said the first flights would not depart until June or July.
He said the government had put an airport on standby, booked commercial charter planes and identified 500 trained escorts to accompany asylum seekers to Rwanda.
However, legal experts say the plan is seriously flawed, and rights groups have vowed to fight any plan to send asylum seekers to Rwanda.
Richard Atkinson, the vice president of the Law Society of England and Wales, a professional association for lawyers, said in a statement on Tuesday that the bill “remains a flawed, constitutionally inappropriate piece of legislation.”
On Tuesday, more than 250 British rights groups wrote to Mr Sunak vowing to challenge the measures in the European and British courts.
Individuals who receive notice that they will be sent to Rwanda are expected to take legal action against their deportation in British courts, and some may also appeal to the European Court of Human Rights, which is once again could issue an order to stop flights.
Nick Cumming-Bruce contributed reporting from Geneva.