The UK government has faced criticism and internal division over a new bill that would allow it to bypass a part of the country’s human rights law in order to send asylum-seekers to Rwanda. This move comes after the UK Supreme Court ruled last month that the government’s plan to send refugees to Rwanda was illegal, as Rwanda is not considered a safe country for refugees. In an attempt to overcome this obstacle, Britain and Rwanda have since signed a treaty to strengthen protection for migrants, with the UK government arguing that this will enable them to pass a law declaring Rwanda a safe destination. However, critics argue that it is unethical and unworkable to send asylum-seekers thousands of kilometers away with no chance of ever settling in the UK.
The bill, known as the Safety of Rwanda Bill, would allow the UK government to disapply sections of the country’s human rights law specifically related to Rwanda-related asylum claims. Home Secretary James Cleverly has made it clear that the legislation may violate international human rights rules, but he is urging lawmakers in Parliament to pass it regardless.
The bill is now set to face a battle in Parliament, with some lawmakers from the Conservative Party’s authoritarian wing arguing that it does not go far enough and that the UK should completely withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights. On the other hand, centrist Conservative lawmakers are opposed to breaching the country’s human rights obligations.
Rwandan Foreign Minister Vincent Biruta has emphasized the importance of both the UK and Rwanda acting lawfully, stating that his country would scrap the deal if Britain did not adhere to international law.
The UK government sees the troubled Rwanda plan as crucial to its aim of stopping unauthorized asylum-seekers from crossing the English Channel in small boats. Under the plan, migrants who cross the Channel would be sent to Rwanda, where their asylum claims would be processed. The government believes that this approach will discourage others from making the risky sea crossing and disrupt the business model of people-smuggling gangs.
However, critics argue that the plan is both unethical and unfeasible, questioning the practicality of sending migrants to a country thousands of kilometers away with no path for settlement in the UK. So far, no one has been sent to Rwanda under the plan due to multiple legal challenges. If the new bill is passed, it would make it more difficult to challenge the deportation orders in court.
The opposition Labour Party has condemned the government’s approach, pointing to the resignation of Immigration Minister Robert Jenrick after the bill’s publication as evidence of total chaos within the Conservative Party.
The future of the plan remains uncertain, as opposition from various quarters and concerns about breaching international law continue to pose challenges. The bill’s progress through Parliament will undoubtedly be closely watched as debates unfold over the UK’s approach to asylum-seekers and human rights.
