UK passes bill to send asylum seekers to Rwanda

The bill proposed by Rishi Sunak to deport individuals from Rwanda will now be established as a law since the members of the House of Lords have refrained from modifying it. Hence, this decision could result in numerous legal conflicts concerning the expulsion of many asylum seekers.

Following a long and intense debate on the crucial legislature between the House of Commons and the House of Lords, the bill was ultimately approved on Monday evening after dissenting peers from different political parties conceded. The disagreement had been ongoing for a considerable amount of time, similar to a game of "ping pong."

The bill will likely receive approval from the monarch on Tuesday. People from the Home Office have indicated that they've already pinpointed a group of individuals who are seeking asylum but have a flimsy case for staying in the UK. In July, this group will be sent to East Africa, marking the initial phase of the process.

Sunak's primary focus to stop small boats from crossing the Channel is to implement a bill that would send back asylum seekers who come to the UK by unconventional routes to the capital city of Rwanda, Kigali.

The Minister of the Interior, James Cleverly, expressed that it was a significant event in our strategy to prevent the boats from coming.

On a social media post, he declared, "The Security of Rwanda Bill has been approved by Parliament and will soon be enforced as a legal statute."

The new legislation aims to stop the misuse of the law where individuals make untrue claims about their human rights to prevent themselves from being deported. Additionally, it clarifies that the UK Parliament holds ultimate authority, enabling the government to dismiss any temporary measures put in place by European courts to prevent deportation.

I vowed to take all the essential measures to make way for the initial flight. And indeed, we achieved that. At this point, we're putting in efforts tirelessly to ensure successful takeoffs and landings of flights on a daily basis.

On Monday, Denisa Delić, the director of advocacy at the International Rescue Committee UK, stated that the passing of the safety of Rwanda bill does not change her opinion on the matter. She still believes that sending refugees to Rwanda is not a good idea because it is both ineffective and inhumane. Additionally, she believes that this approach is expensive and not worth the cost.

Instead of seeking outside help to uphold its obligations to international law, we implore the authorities to drop this misguided proposal and concentrate on improving a more compassionate and organized immigration process within the country.

This consists of expanding secure pathways, like moving to a new location and reuniting with family, and protecting the privilege to apply for refuge.

The Home Office has reduced the number of migrants who may be deported from a long list to 350. These migrants are considered to be less likely to go to court and petition against their deportation, which makes the process less risky.

Attorneys have informed the Guardian that they will make legal objections on behalf of discrete asylum seekers. They are authorized to contest their expulsion individually, which may result in their exclusion from a schedule of flights.

The proposed law permits contests in case a prisoner confronts an actual, impending, and expected danger of severe and permanent damage if deported to Rwanda.

When an individual receives a deportation letter, they are required to submit an appeal within eight days. From there, the Home Office will have a few days to provide a response. In the event that their appeal is denied, the individual seeking asylum will have a week to submit a final appeal to a higher tribunal court. This court will make a determination on their claim within an additional 23 days.

The National Audit Office has confirmed that the first 300 deportees will be charged for a total of £1.8 million.

Matthew Rycroft, who holds the highest position in the civil service of the Home Office and has been in charge of the program for two years, has previously stated to members of parliament that he lacked proof to demonstrate that the initiative had a preventive influence that would justify its cost.

The staff at the Home Office have expressed their concerns in private that when they begin the process of deporting asylum seekers, there is a possibility that thousands of them may flee to avoid receiving any information that they are going to be relocated to Kigali.

Beforehand, Members of Parliament removed changes to the legislation that were previously added by the House of Lords. Independent and Labour members of the House of Lords declared their intention to reintroduce comparable revisions, sparking a clash of determination.

A Home Office minister informed lawmakers during one of the evening discussions on Monday that the government won't be sending individuals who qualify under the Afghan Relocations and Assistance Policy (Arap) to Rwanda.

According to Lord Sharpe, the government won't send people who were deemed eligible to go to Rwanda based on their connections to Afghan specialist units, to Rwanda after the assessment is complete. This only applies to those individuals who are already living in the UK as of now and have received a positive decision regarding their eligibility after the review.

Lord Browne, a previous defence secretary from the Labour party, had been demanding a guarantee like this one. He commented that the minister doesn't see it as a compromise, as he has already been communicating this message in a different way before.

At the same time, a prominent attorney and impartial member of the House of Lords, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, expressed his opinion on the Rwanda program. He stated that it is unclear what advantages the program will provide, but it will undoubtedly come at a price. The cost won't only be financial, but also in terms of compromised principles such as disregarding our international obligations, neglecting legal protections for vulnerable individuals, and eliminating judicial oversight regarding the safety of Rwanda.

The leader of the government revealed that the initial air travel relocating individuals seeking asylum to Rwanda have been scheduled to leave in approximately 10 to 12 weeks. This will result in the delay of his previously intended release during the springtime.

During a press conference held on Monday morning, he made it clear that the government would not permit a foreign court to impede flights to Rwanda and he emphasized that he was determined to put an end to the legal complications involved in deportation flights.

"I'm done waiting," he declared. "No further stalling or postponing. Parliament will convene tonight and cast their vote regardless of how late it lasts. Absolutely no exceptions or excuses. These flights are bound for Rwanda."

The Labour party stated that Sunak was incorrect in holding the party's members responsible for impeding the progress of the Rwanda bill.

Yvette Cooper, who is the opposition representative in charge of home affairs, claimed that the Conservative Party has the majority of seats in both chambers of Parliament. However, they could have chosen to schedule the final stages of the proposed legislation a month ago. Instead, they deliberately postponed it so that they could shift the responsibility onto others.