The decision to cancel the flight limited three days of frantic lawsuits by immigration rights lawyers, who launched a series of case-by-case appeals to prevent the expulsion of those on the government list. Earlier in the day, British government officials said the plane would take off no matter how many people were on board. But after the appeals, no one was left. The British media reported that the number of possible deportees was more than 30 on Friday. Following the cancellation of the flight, Home Secretary Priti Patel said she was disappointed, but did not “discourage herself from doing the right thing.” He added: “Our legal team is considering every decision made for this flight and the preparation for the next flight starts now.” Prime Minister Boris Johnson has strongly defended Britain’s plan, arguing that it is a legitimate way to protect lives and to crack down on criminal gangs smuggling migrants across the Channel in small boats. Britain has seen an influx of migrants in recent years from places such as Syria, Afghanistan, Iran, Sudan, Iraq and Yemen. Johnson announced an agreement with Rwanda in April, according to which people entering Britain illegally will be deported to the East African country. In exchange for their acceptance, Rwanda will receive millions of pounds (dollars) in development aid. Deportees will be able to apply for asylum in Rwanda and not in Britain. Opponents have argued that it is illegal and inhumane to send people thousands of miles to a country where they do not want to live. The leaders of the Church of England joined the opposition, calling the government’s policy “immoral”. Prince Charles was among the opposite, according to British news. Activists have denounced the policy as an attack on refugee rights that most countries have recognized since the end of World War II. Enver Solomon, Συμβουλίου διευ σύμβ διευ διευ διευ διευ διευ διευ διευ διευ διευ διευ Εν Εν Εν Εν Εν Εν Εν Εν Εν Εν Εν Εν Εν Εν Εν Εν Εν Εν Εν Εν Εν Εν Εν Εν Εν Εν Εν Εν Εν Εν “The government should immediately reconsider an adult dialogue with France and the (European Union) on the division of responsibilities and try to operate a regular, humane and fair asylum system,” Solomon said. The UN refugee agency has condemned the plan out of concern that other countries will follow suit as war, repression and natural disasters force more and more people to flee their homes. Politicians in Denmark and Austria are considering similar proposals. Australia has operated an asylum processing center in the Pacific island nation of Nauru since 2012. “Globally, this unjustifiably punitive agreement further forgives the expropriation of the right to seek asylum in rich countries,” said Maurizio Albahari, an immigration specialist at the University of Notre Dame in Indiana, who described US policy. Many millions of people around the world have been displaced in the last two decades, putting pressure on the international consensus on refugees. The world had more than 26 million refugees in the middle of last year, double the number two decades ago, according to the UN refugee agency. Millions more have fled their homes voluntarily, seeking economic opportunities in developed countries. In Britain, these pressures have led to an increase in the number of people crossing the Channel with leaking inflatable boats, sometimes with disastrous consequences. Last November, 27 people lost their lives when their boat sank in the waters between France and England. Johnson, fighting for his political life amid concerns about his leadership and morale, responded by promising to stop such dangerous journeys. While Rwanda was the site of a genocide that killed hundreds of thousands of people in 1994, the country has built a reputation for stability and economic progress ever since, according to the British government. Critics say stability comes at the cost of political repression. Filippo Grady, the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, has called politics “all wrong”. If the British government is really interested in protecting lives, it should work with other countries to target smugglers and provide safe routes for asylum seekers, not just bypassing immigrants in other countries, Grandi said. “The precedent it creates is catastrophic for a concept to be shared, such as asylum,” Grady said Monday. The Archbishop of Canterbury and 24 other bishops from the Church of England joined the chorus of voices calling on the government to reconsider an “immoral policy that shames Britain”. “Our Christian heritage should inspire us to treat asylum seekers with compassion, justice and fairness, as we have done for centuries,” the bishops wrote in a letter to the Times of London. Britain’s Supreme Court refused to hear a final appeal on Tuesday, a day after two lower courts refused to block deportations. However, legal challenges continued, as lawyers filed case-by-case appeals on behalf of individual immigrants. Many immigrants prefer Britain as a destination for linguistic or family ties or because it is considered an open economy with more opportunities than other European nations. When Britain was a member of the European Union, it was part of a system that required refugees to seek asylum in the first safe country they entered. Those who arrived in Britain could be sent back to the EU countries from which they traveled. Britain lost that choice when it left the EU two years ago. Since then, the governments of Britain and France have worked to stop travel, with much controversy and little success. More than 28,000 migrants entered Britain in small boats last year, up from 8,500 in 2020. Nando Sigona, an immigration specialist at the University of Birmingham, said major principles were at stake if Rwanda’s policy stood. “How can we create any kind of high morale where we intervene in other countries, if we have not signed the provision of protection to those fleeing war and persecution?” asked Shigona.
Follow the AP’s immigration coverage at
