The deportation bill mandates the sending of asylum seekers who arrive in the UK through irregular means to Kigali, Rwanda’s capital. However, critics have raised concerns about the efficacy and morality of the deportation plan
The controversial Rwanda deportation bill spearheaded by Chancellor Rishi Sunak is set to become law after a protracted battle between the Commons and the Lords. This development paves the way for potential legal showdowns over the fate of numerous asylum seekers.
After rounds of intense negotiation between the two houses of Parliament, the bill finally secured passage on Monday night when opposition and crossbench peers gave up. With the bill expected to receive royal assent on Tuesday, the Home Office has wasted no time in identifying a group of asylum seekers with tenuous legal claims to remain in the UK. These individuals are slated to be among the first group deported to East Africa in July.
At the heart of Sunak’s legislative push is the bid to curb the influx of small boat crossings in the English Channel. The bill mandates the deportation of asylum seekers who arrive in the UK through irregular means to Kigali, Rwanda’s capital.
Home Secretary James Cleverly hailed the bill’s passage as a significant milestone in the government’s efforts to reduce irregular migration. In a social media post, he emphasized that the Safety of Rwanda Act would prevent the abuse of human rights claims to obstruct removals and underscored the UK Parliament’s sovereignty in rejecting interim blocking measures imposed by European courts.
However, critics have raised concerns about the efficacy and morality of the deportation plan. Denisa Delić, director of advocacy at International Rescue Committee UK, lambasted the move as both ineffective and needlessly cruel. She urged the government to focus instead on fostering a more humane and orderly immigration system, emphasizing the importance of scaling up safe routes such as resettlement and family reunions.
The Home Office has identified approximately 350 migrants deemed to pose the least risk of mounting successful legal challenges against their deportation. Nevertheless, lawyers representing asylum seekers have vowed to mount legal challenges on a case-by-case basis, potentially derailing deportation efforts.
Under the provisions of the bill, detainees facing deportation can challenge their removal if they face a “real, imminent, and foreseeable risk of serious irreversible harm” upon being sent to Rwanda. The process entails lodging an appeal within eight days of receiving a deportation notice, followed by a series of subsequent appeals at various stages.
Critics have also raised concerns about the exorbitant cost associated with the deportation scheme. The National Audit Office confirmed that the deal would cost £1.8 million for each of the first 300 deportees. Despite the steep price tag, the scheme’s deterrent effect remains uncertain.
In an effort to ease concerns, the government assured that those eligible under the Afghan Relocations and Assistance Policy (Arap) would not be deported to Rwanda. However, skepticism persists among critics, with some decrying the erosion of statutory protections for the vulnerable and the circumvention of judicial scrutiny.
Prime Minister Boris Johnson announced plans for the first deportation flights to Rwanda to depart in the next 10 to 12 weeks, albeit missing the original spring target. He reaffirmed the government’s resolve to push through with the deportation flights, vowing not to let foreign courts block the process.
The bill’s passage marks a significant milestone in the government’s immigration agenda. However, it also sets the stage for potential legal battles and moral reckonings over the treatment of asylum seekers in the UK. As deportation efforts ramp up, the true impact and efficacy of the Rwanda deportation bill remain to be seen.