A British court has ruled that a government plan to send asylum-seekers to Rwanda in an attempt to deter migrants from making risky journeys across the English Channel is unlawful.

In a split two-to-one ruling, three Court of Appeal judges said Rwanda could not be considered a “safe third country” where migrants could be sent.

But the judges said that a policy of deporting asylum seekers to another country was not in itself illegal, and the government said it would challenge the ruling at the U.K. Supreme Court. It has until July 6 to lodge an appeal.

Human rights groups say it is immoral and inhumane to send people more than 4,000 miles (6,400 kilometers) to a country they don’t want to live in, and argue that most Channel migrants are desperate people who have no authorized way to come to the U.K. They also cite Rwanda’s poor human rights record, including allegations of torture and killings of government opponents.

Britain has already paid Rwanda 140 million pounds ($170 k) under the deal, but no one has yet been deported there.

  • socphoenix@midwest.socialEnglish
    0·
    1 year ago

    Sunak has pledged to “stop the boats” — a reference to the overcrowded dinghies and other small craft that make the journey from northern France carrying migrants who hope to live in the U.K. More than 45,000 people arrived in Britain across the Channel in 2022, and several died in the attempt.

    The U.K. and Rwandan governments agreed more than a year ago that some migrants who arrive in the U.K. as stowaways or in small boats would be sent to Rwanda, where their asylum claims would be processed. Those granted asylum would stay in the East African country rather than return to Britain.

    The U.K. government argues that the policy will smash the business model of criminal gangs that ferry migrants on hazardous journeys across one of the world’s busiest shipping lanes.

    Human rights groups say it is immoral and inhumane to send people more than 4,000 miles (6,400 kilometers) to a country they don’t want to live in, and argue that most Channel migrants are desperate people who have no authorized way to come to the U.K. They also cite Rwanda’s poor human rights record, including allegations of torture and killings of government opponents.

    Britain has already paid Rwanda 140 million pounds ($170 million) under the deal, but no one has yet been deported there.

    That feels kind of insane to me that they’d even consider forcing people to apply for asylum in a random this country at let. Especially Rwanda!

    • ⓝⓞ🅞🅝🅔@beehaw.orgOPEnglish
      1·
      1 year ago

      I’m certainly having a lot of trouble processing this as a solution in any way. The worst part is that it’s not even novel. In the USA, governors on border states are loading illegal immigrants onto buses and having them sent to other states and cities of political opposition. It’s absolutely terrible to use people as pawns this way.