The first flight to transport asylum seekers from the United Kingdom to Rwanda was halted shortly before its departure on Tuesday, the latest upheaval in a battle for a government policy that critics have called inhumane and “disgusting”. Experts say the agreement – which instructs Rwanda to accept and resettle migrants who arrived in Britain illegally after crossing the English Channel – will set a dangerous precedent for other countries to use the same gap in international refugee law. “It’s a really embarrassing case for a rich country trying to evade its minimal refugee protection obligations,” said Audrey Macklin, a professor and chair of human rights law at the University of Toronto. “So it’s a pretty disgusting move.” The story goes on under the ad
Read more: As the West opens its doors to Ukraine, millions more refugees are suffering around the world
The Court of Appeal in London on Monday rejected an attempt by human rights groups and activists to stop the first flight under the policy, refusing to issue an interim injunction while a case challenging its legality is moving to the courts. But on Tuesday, shortly before the flight departed, the European Court of Human Rights intervened, ruling that the policy posed a “real risk of irreversible harm” to the asylum seekers involved. See what you need to know about the controversial plan and what will happen next. Controversial one-way ticket: United Kingdom plans to send asylum seekers to Rwanda Controversial one-way ticket: United Kingdom plans to send asylum seekers to Rwanda – 14 April 2022
What is the agreement between the United Kingdom and Rwanda?
The agreement between Britain and Rwanda was announced and signed in April and will initially last five years, according to the Rwandan government. The story goes on under the ad The deal came with an advance to the African nation of 120 120 million ($ 188 million) to help pay for resettlement and integration. The UK has promised to make additional payments based on the number of people deported. The plan will see some people arriving in Britain as smugglers in trucks or small boats picked up by the UK government and flown 6,400km to Rwanda on a one-way trip. Asylum applications will then be processed there and, if successful, immigrants will be allowed to stay. British Prime Minister Boris Johnson has said the policy will act as a deterrent to human trafficking networks and stem the flow of migrants risking their lives crossing the English Channel – it has long been used as a starting point for refugees fleeing war or poverty. African and Middle Eastern countries. 1:47 Relief groups respond to Channel tragedy, say migrants need better options Relief groups respond to Channel tragedy, say migrants need better choices – November 25, 2021 The government says the number of migrants making these crossings is increasing. Last year, 28,526 arrivals were identified, up from just 299 in 2018. Dozens have lost their lives all these years, including 27 people in November when a single boat capsized. The story goes on under the ad Rwandan Foreign Minister Vincent Biruta said in April that the agreement “is about ensuring that people are protected, respected and empowered to pursue their own ambitions and settle permanently in Rwanda if they so choose.” Trending Stories
Microsoft will withdraw Internet Explorer after 27 years, push users to the Edge browser COVID-19: Canada will update its definition of “fully vaccinated”.
He said his country was already hosting more than 130,000 refugees from countries such as Burundi, Congo, Libya and Pakistan. Critics have expressed concern that Rwanda is not the safe haven the Johnson government has designated. The UN has said Rwanda, whose human rights record is being scrutinized, does not have the capacity to process the claims and there is a risk that some migrants will be repatriated to countries from which they had fled. Risks facing migrants in Rwanda include “indefinite detention, ill-treatment including torture in detention, lack of independent justice and also very, very worrying that all forms of dissent are being abolished in Rwanda,” said Yasmine Ahmed , Director of the United Kingdom. for the Observatory of Human Rights. Multiple court appeals were filed shortly after the agreement was signed, arguing that it violated the 1951 Refugee Convention signed by members of the United Nations – including the United Kingdom. The story goes on under the ad Macklin explains that under the Refugee Convention, refugees seeking asylum cannot return to the country from which they are leaving. However, the document does not say anything about whether these refugees can be sent to a third country. “This is simply because no one thought a country would resort to it,” Macklin said. “It was hard to imagine this happening in 1951, so it was not included. It was not even on the horizon. “
Read more: 27 migrants dead after boat sinks across the Channel
He said the United Kingdom and other European nations that had taken a hard line on immigration, including Denmark, had interpreted the omission as a third country use, which he called “dishonest”. The case challenging the legality of the deal is set to be heard by the London High Court in July. Meanwhile, humanitarian groups have been trying to block flights to Rwanda until the case is settled. After a judge refused to issue an interim injunction on Friday, a coalition of immigration advocates and civil servants filed an appeal, which was rejected on Monday. Under UK law, a court must find that there is strong evidence that government policy is likely to be deemed illegal before it can issue an interim injunction. The story goes on under the ad At least three more legal challenges to evacuate people were heard on Tuesday. 3:19 Global migration crisis worsens during pandemic Global migration crisis worsens during pandemic – January 2, 2022 Amid legal challenges, the number of people bound for Rwanda on Tuesday’s flight plummeted. The charity Care4Calais said Monday that all but six of the 37 migrants who initially said they would be on the first flight had their tickets canceled after lawyers questioned the value of the individual deportation orders. The story goes on under the ad The migrants, originally scheduled to be on the flight, included people fleeing Afghanistan and Syria, as well as Iran and Iraq, according to the charity. Tuesday’s last-minute order meant that these remaining migrants would no longer be heading to Rwanda. “I have always said that this policy will not be easy to implement and I am disappointed that the legal dispute and last minute claims mean that today ‘s flight could not depart,” said UK Home Secretary Priti Patel. “It is very strange that the European Court of Human Rights has intervened despite our repeated previous successes in our national courts.” He said the government would not be discouraged and would prepare for the next flight. 3:16 Debate on immigrants divides Europe Debate on immigrants divides Europe – 18 June 2018 If a judicial review of the agreement next month finds the policy illegal, it could result in anyone transferred to Rwanda being sent back to the UK, resuming their asylum claim there. The story goes on under the ad Macklin, meanwhile, says further legal challenges and ongoing pressure from protesters and supporters will be needed to try to delay or stop the plan. “Anything that naturally makes it impossible for a flight to depart, where people are hindering the implementation of this policy, is definitely a one-way street,” he said. “But it is difficult to be optimistic when no court has so far acknowledged the irreparable damage it will do to an untold number of people, as long as we wait to see if the policy is followed.” – with files from Redmond Shannon of Global, Reuters and the Associated Press © 2022 Global News, part of Corus Entertainment Inc.
