In the UK, 65% of the population believes the right to seek asylum should be protected. It is difficult to imagine a more excruciating spectacle than our multi-millionaire prime minister placing bets on the fates of some of the most vulnerable people in society – asylum seekers. Three weeks have passed since Rishi Sunak publicly bet Piers Morgan £1000 that he would succeed in deporting illegal migrants to Rwanda. The agreement which he refers to aims to deter illegal migration via small boat crossings by deporting the UK’s asylum seekers to Rwanda and was signed between the two countries in April 2022.
The Conservative party frequently tell the media that refugees should take ‘safe and legal routes’ if they wish to claim asylum in the UK, but when questioned as to what these routes are, they crumble. A significant example is the excruciating moment in November 2023 when Tim Loughton MP questioned former Home Secretary Suella Braverman on what safe and legal routes are currently available to refugees, to which she nervously mumbled some vague and contradictory sentences, before desperately resorting to the invitation of suggestions from colleagues. As a Home Secretary who frequently weaponized the situation of illegal immigration in this country in order to garner far-right support, condemning small boat crossings and preaching the use of safe and legal routes, it was her job to know specifically what those routes were. Her bold statements and lack of evidence are perfect characteristics of the government she is (thankfully), no longer a part of.
Apart from the country-specific resettlement schemes for Afghan and Ukrainian refugees, there are currently no ways for refugees to obtain legal access to the UK unless they have a family member who already lives here. The government website states that asylum seekers around the world can currently arrange resettlement in the UK through UNHCR, however, the UNHCR website states that: ‘to apply for asylum in the UK, you must be physically in the UK’, which would mean the only way for many refugees to claim asylum here is by arriving illegally, which explains the rising numbers of illegal immigrants we are seeing each year as political tensions worsen in their home countries.
Basic empathy, as well as consideration for the desperate situations individuals face in their home countries, leading them to undertake life-threatening journeys across the channel to access safer land, is lacking throughout the British media. This deficiency fuels public discontent directed at immigrants instead of the government, whose actual responsibility it is to deal with issues such as illegal migration. Instead of working to reduce illegal migration to the UK by organizing safe and legal routes to facilitate the arrival of asylum seekers or seeking to improve the conditions from which they flee, this government has once again proven its incompetence with this deportation policy, which will come at a cost of £400 million to the taxpayer. Failing to address the root causes of illegal migration and simply throwing money at the problem is comparable to putting a plaster on a bullet wound. It begs the question – why won’t this government provide safe and legal routes to these refugees as they have done before?
I don’t need to remind anyone of the Homes for Ukraine Scheme, which saw the government sponsor households £350 per month, increasing to £500 after one year, to house refugees in this country after their war with Russia began. Homes for Ukraine cost the government 150 million and has successfully re-housed 174,000 Ukrainian refugees in the UK. When you compare the compassion and efficiency for refugees from Ukraine with the structure and hazardousness of the Rwanda scheme (with primarily small boat arrivals), it is difficult not to view the government’s attitudes to refugees as racially influenced. A popular sentiment in the UK during the outbreak of the Russia-Ukraine war was that the people suffering were ‘just like us’, which begs the question – what makes refugees from Ukraine more deserving of the right to claim asylum here than those fleeing persecution in the Global South?
The first flight was scheduled to transport seven asylum seekers on the 14th of June 2022, but was stopped after the European Court of Human Rights issued an injunction two hours before the flight. In November 2023, the scheme was blocked by the Supreme Court, which declared that based on Rwanda’s poor human rights record, systematic defects in its asylum system, and its previous failure to uphold the principle of nonrefoulement (in which a country cannot send asylum seekers back to their country of origin), Rwanda is not a safe country and therefore is unfit for asylum seekers. The scheme is also in breach of the 1951 Refugee Convention, which declares the legal obligation of states to protect refugees on their territory.
Since the rejection, the government has introduced the ‘Safety of Rwanda Bill’ which restricts the power of the Supreme Court to prevent the scheme, by legally declaring Rwanda a safe country, despite the absence of any new evidence to suggest that Rwanda is a safe country[EPB1] . It also prevents UK courts from ruling it unlawful to send an individual there. This means that even when there is clear evidence that an individual sent to Rwanda could face human rights abuses or be returned to the country they’ve fled, immigration officials must make their decision as if Rwanda is safe for asylum seekers. This bill not only violates human rights laws but also the principles of democracy; restricting the power of a Court to give an honest and fair ruling is a form of censorship, a powerful pillar of authoritarianism, and we should be worried about what other attacks on freedom this government might attempt in pursuit of their agendas.
The Introduction of the ‘Safety of Rwanda Bill’ not only disregards fundamental human rights but also undermines the very principles of democracy and judicial independence. By limiting the Supreme Court’s authority and preventing fair and honest rulings, this bill sets a dangerous precedent of governmental overreach. It represents a stark departure from the values of justice and accountability that should underpin any democratic society. Over 260 organisations, including Amnesty International, are signatory of a statement which calls on the House of Lords to reject the Rwanda Bill, in light of these violations.
Zahra Munir.
26th February 2024.
References
GOV.UK. (2023). Irregular migration to the UK, year ending September 2023. [online] Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/irregular-migration-to-the-uk-year-ending-september-2023.
GOV.UK. (n.d.). Safe and legal routes. [online] Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/illegal-migration-bill-factsheets/safe-and-legal-routes#what-safe-and-legal-routes-does-the-uk-offer [Accessed 26 Feb. 2024].
UNHCR (1951). The 1951 Refugee Convention. [online] UNHCR UK. Available at: https://www.unhcr.org/uk/about-unhcr/who-we-are/1951-refugee-convention.
UNHCR United Kingdom. (n.d.). Asylum in the United Kingdom. [online] Available at: https://help.unhcr.org/uk/asylum/#:~:text=UNHCR%20assist%20me%3F-.
Walsh, P.W. (2024). Q&A: The UK’s policy to send asylum seekers to Rwanda. [online] Migration Observatory. Available at: https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/commentaries/qa-the-uks-policy-to-send-asylum-seekers-to-rwanda/#:~:text=The%20Rwanda%2DUK%20treaty [Accessed 26 Feb. 2024].
Walsh, P.W. and Sumption, M. (n.d.). Ukrainian migration to the UK. [online] Migration Observatory. Available at: https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/ukrainian-migration-to-the-uk/#:~:text=Around%20174%2C000%20people%20had%20moved.
The Amnesty 
Leave a comment