A British flight was almost scheduled days ago to transport several asylum seekers from the UK to Rwanda. It was expected to take off minutes before it was canceled due to a last-minute legal challenge. The British government said with pride and arrogance that it would prepare a second trip to African countries and stressed that this plan would discourage people from crossing the English Channel.
Five years ago, the British government prepared a plan for some asylum seekers willing to be sent to other countries. This plan primarily targets unmarried males who have arrived illegally. Rwanda was nominated as one of the potential destinations where they can submit their asylum applications. Those expelled people may be granted permanent residence as refugees in Rwanda. If they do not obtain this type of residency, they can apply to settle there for various reasons, or they can seek asylum in a ‘safe’ third country.
The flight was initially scheduled to carry 37 people on June 14, but legal appeals reduced that number to about seven before the flight was canceled.
Under the agreement between Britain and Rwanda to absorb some of the refugees in Rwanda who are more vulnerable to damage to Britain’s conditions! Rwanda agreed on the need that this is only for some cases.
Hypothetical plan cost estimate
The British government says the scheme costs 1.5 billion pounds a year, with more than 4.7 million pounds paid daily to hotels to accommodate migrants until they are finally settled.
In addition, Minister Plenipotentiary in the Ministry of the Interior said that the British government would pay 120 million pounds as an advance to Rwanda, followed by other payments as the country addresses more issues.
Human forces confront
Charities and lawyers representing asylum seekers have launched a series of legal challenges against this policy. Critics question whether Rwanda is a ‘safe’ destination, arguing that the plan violates the European Charter on Human Rights. As a result, some individuals were already excluded from the trip. However, the British judiciary rejected a final attempt to prevent the journey entirely.
It is worth noting that the flight was grounded due to an intervention by the European Court of Human Rights. This court is not a body of the European Union but is part of the Council of Europe, of which the United Kingdom is still considered a member.
A recent opinion poll indicates a sharp division among British officials and some parties concerned with issues of humanitarian asylum over this plan. The results of the survey of 2,463 people were as follows: 44% supported the British policy of sending asylum seekers to Rwanda (of which 27% supported the policy ‘strongly’), while 40% opposed this policy (of which 28% ‘strongly’ opposed it).
The Supreme Court scheduled to hold a judicial review of the policy this July. Any asylum-seeker sent to Rwanda can be returned if it says that the policy is illegal. The British Home Secretary Priti Patel said she was “disappointed” but added that “preparation for the next trip begins now.”
Will this plan of transferring refugees from Britain to Rwanda prevent people from crossing the English Channel? The days are pregnant with severe crises, the most recent of which was the Russian war and the displacement of Ukrainians by the millions and no one expects what the next era will bring.
