What is the opinion of the Supreme Court of the UK regarding the deportation of asylum seekers?
What is the opinion of Suella Braverman, the Home Secretary of the UK, about the expulsion of asylum seekers from the UK?
What is the European Court of Human Rights’ opinion regarding the deportation of asylum seekers from the UK?
How much economical cost does the plan to deport asylum seekers from the UK to Rwanda have?
The British Supreme Court on Monday, December 19, issued a ruling that was considered a victory for the London government and confirmed the controversial and far-reaching plan to deport refugees from this country to Rwanda, which is facing widespread protests from human rights organizations. Opponents believe this plan is inhumane and challenges the British economy at the height of the cost of living crisis. The refugee crisis in the UK has become a problem for the new government.
Approval of the program of deportation of asylum seekers
Judge Clive Buckland Lewis claimed that the London government’s plan was compatible with the Migrant Convention, with the requirement that the Home Secretary scrutinise each asylum seeker’s case. According to him, the conditions of the first group that was supposed to be transferred to Rwanda seven months ago had not been appropriately investigated. According to this program, the UK intends to send immigrants to this country illegally and smuggle or through small boats to Rwanda. Then they can wait there for asylum application processing. According to this program, applicants whose asylum is accepted must still stay in Rwanda. The refugee crisis in the UK is escalating.
Suella Braverman’s acceptance of the plan to deport asylum seekers
The refugee crisis is due to the UK government’s insistence on deporting them. Announcing the plan to deport asylum seekers, British Home Secretary Suella Braverman said she is committed to implementing the government’s policy and welcomed the Supreme Court’s ruling. She said: “We have always maintained that this policy is lawful, and today the court has upheld this.”
The opinion of the European Court of Human Rights on the deportation of asylum seekers
The European Court of Human Rights has criticised the creation of the refugee crisis by the UK government. A few months ago, the first British flight to forcibly deport refugees to Rwanda was cancelled at the last minute by the European Court of Human Rights. The European Court of Human Rights stated in its ruling that based on the evidence, asylum seekers sent from the UK to Rwanda would not have access to fair and efficient procedures for assignment. By sending asylum seekers to a place six thousand kilometres from this country, the UK government intends to imitate Australia’s previous policy in this field and discourage asylum seekers from immigrating to this country.
Protests against the plan to deport refugees to Rwanda
The refugee crisis has caused domestic and foreign criticism. Rwanda’s plan has brought widespread protests internationally and domestically. A high-ranking official of the United Nations considered the method of the UK government against international regulations and standards. Gillian Triggs, UN Assistant Secretary-General and Assistant High Commissioner for Protection with UNHCR, says that the government’s attempt to outsource the responsibility of migrants to another country is unacceptable, and the United Nations Refugee Agency strongly condemns such action.
Costly plan to deport refugees to Rwanda
In addition to the anti-human rights aspects, the refugee crisis has many economic costs. Gillian Triggs added that based on experience, asylum seekers have left the sending countries after a while and started to immigrate again. Accordingly, the UN official stated that this is not a deterrent and effective way to control refugees. But inside charities have warned that the government’s cruel and despicable decision to move asylum seekers thousands of kilometres away will not only fail to respond to the migration crisis but will lead to further humanitarian chaos and about 1.4 It will cost billions of pounds.
Warning of charities and human rights activists
More than 160 charities and human rights activists, in an open letter to the British Prime Minister, condemned the government’s plan in this regard and called it cruel and shameful. “Sending people seeking asylum to Rwanda will cause immense suffering, with the most vulnerable people bearing the brunt. It is a shamefully cruel way to treat people who have come to the UK to seek protection, fleeing persecution or conflict,” the letter said. Criticising Rwanda’s human rights record, human rights activists called the government’s plan cruel and immoral.
The negative reaction of refugee support groups
This decision met with a negative reaction from refugee support groups. Enver Solomon, the chief executive of the charity organisation known as Refugee Council, stated that this verdict caused a lot of despair for this organisation. “Treating people in search of safety like human cargo and shipping them off to another country is a cruel policy that will cause great human suffering,” he said.
The objection of the Archbishop of the UK to the plan to deport asylum seekers
Also, in a rare statement, the Archbishop of the UK expressed his objection to this illegal plan and considered the government’s decision to be against religious standards. Justin Welby said last month that outsourcing the responsibility of asylum seekers is not a good idea. He said that examining the plan’s details is the work of politicians but pointed out that God’s satisfaction should be considered.
Violation of national values by the UK government
This Christian cleric stated that the government’s plan should not violate the national values formed based on the beliefs of the Christian religion. Accordingly, he pointed out that sending refugees to Rwanda is against religious teachings and divine nature. However, these judges clarified in their ruling that the UK government did not consider the individual circumstances of those it tried to deport; A comment that could trigger further legal challenges before the asylum seeker even gets on the plane to be extradited to East Africa.
The possibility of stopping the agreement between the UK and Rwanda
A hearing for this case is scheduled to be held next month, and there is a possibility of appeals for this verdict. Recently, several asylum seekers, aid groups and a union of border guards in the UK filed a lawsuit to stop the British Conservative government’s deal with the Rwandan government to implement these extraditions, which was concluded to stop migrants from trying to enter the UK through the English Channel.
Calling the plan of the UK government legal
Clive Lewis, one of these judges, said: “The court has concluded that it is lawful for the government to make arrangements for relocating asylum-seekers to Rwanda. Asylums claim to be determined in Rwanda rather than in the United Kingdom.” But they added that the government “must decide if there is anything about each person’s particular circumstances”, which meant they should not be sent to Rwanda and had failed to do that for the eight claimants in the case.
44,000 refugees arrive in the UK from the English Channel
According to the Associated Press, more than 44,000 asylum seekers who have crossed the English Channel in small boats have entered the UK this year, and some of them have died while trying to do so. A few days ago, one of these boats carrying migrants capsized, and four people died in the very cold weather. In recent years, the illegal travel of asylum seekers, especially from France to the UK, has created a challenge.
Boris Johnson’s government had argued that moving refugees to Rwanda would prevent people from being trafficked through the English Channel, but opponents say the policy is costly and inhumane. Human rights groups have called the UK government’s agreement with Rwanda illegal and ineffective. They have said that sending people to a country several thousand miles away in which they do not want to live is inhumane. They also argue that deporting refugees from the UK to Rwanda at the height of the economic crisis and rising living costs is not logical and will impose many costs on the British.