But Cameron, the former prime minister responsible for the Brexit referendum, declared the Rwanda plan a model other Western countries should consider.
He said it was “a bit unorthodox in some ways”, but represented the “outside the box thinking” necessary to crack the “horrific” human smuggling.
Late on Wednesday, the House of Commons passed Prime Minister Rishi Sunak's bill declaring Rwanda a safe country for deportees, regardless of the British Supreme Court declaring it unsafe. This legislation would allow the government to “reject” sections of the Human Rights Act when it comes to asylum applications related to Rwanda.
With 80 million displaced people in the world, many of them fleeing poverty and violence, Britain is not alone in seeking to make illegal immigration more difficult and move the asylum process “offshore”.
The question is whether it will accept any deportation flights on the ground, and whether other countries will follow Britain's example.
What is Britain's policy in Rwanda?
Rwanda's plan is a bold proposal – which critics say is impractical and illegal – to deter people from crossing the English Channel in small rubber boats by quickly sending those who land in Britain to Africa.
The plan was the brainchild of then-Prime Minister Boris Johnson, who pledged to make good on his Brexit promise to “take back control” of Britain's borders.
Johnson announced in April 2022 that migrants who met strict asylum criteria would be flown 4,000 miles to Rwanda, where their asylum claims would be assessed. (Unaccompanied children will not be placed on aircraft.)
Depending on the results, refugees may remain in Rwanda, move to third countries or be returned to their countries of origin.
They will never be granted asylum in Britain.
How many migrants might be deported to Rwanda?
Johnson initially promised that “tens of thousands” of migrants could be sent to Rwanda.
Media reports now indicate that 1,000 asylum seekers may be sent to Rwanda during the five-year trial period. So, a few hundred a year. The UK Home Office sent letters to asylum seekers threatening their status.
Has anyone been sent to Rwanda?
What stops flights?
Courts so far. And the law at the local and international levels.
Britain's High Court of Justice initially approved the first flight in June 2022. But the European Court of Human Rights – which interprets the European Convention on Human Rights, which Britain helped draft and was one of the first countries to ratify – halted the flight just hours before. that. It was scheduled to take off.
The case returned to Britain. The Court of Appeal ruled that the plan was illegal. The UK Supreme Court agreed in November.
Why is the Rwanda plan so controversial?
The Rwanda plan is the most controversial policy in Britain since the major Brexit battles.
Legal scholars have described it – alternately – as bold, radical, reckless and downright extraordinary. London Major Sadiq Khan, a leading voice in the Labor Party, on Wednesday described the measure as “cruel, inhumane and impractical, followed by a weak government focused on the party’s interest rather than the national interest.” “This immoral policy shames Britain,” said Justin Welby, Archbishop of Canterbury and leader of the Church of England. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees insists it is “incompatible with international refugee law.”
Human rights advocates say Britain seeks to go further than most other countries, in that it will deport asylum seekers before their cases are seriously considered.
The Supreme Court also disagreed with Rwanda's finding, finding “good grounds” that sending asylum seekers there “would expose them to a real risk of ill-treatment”, specifically that they could be returned to their countries of origin, as they could not return to their countries of origin. He could face persecution. (Rwanda denies this).
But the British government did not surrender?
Sunak has promised to “stop the boats”. He and his conservative party face difficult national elections this year. The idea is that he needs to send two flights to Rwanda to show that he has achieved at least something.
So, in December, the Sunak government did two things. It signed a new treaty with Rwanda, which stipulated additional guarantees, and introduced new legislation confirming that Rwanda is a safe country for asylum seekers.
What happened to the new legislation?
In the House of Commons, Sunak faced off against rebels in his own party, who complained that the bill was not tough enough and would continue to spark legal challenges. Hardliners have pushed for a series of amendments to make the bill more “bulletproof”. One amendment stated that British and international law could not be used “to prevent or delay the deportation of any individual to Rwanda.” Another sought to prevent the issuance of interim injunctions by the European Court of Human Rights in the expulsion case to Rwanda.
To discourage such declaratory amendments, Sunak's government said it was telling civil servants to follow their departments' orders and not abide by interim orders issued by the European Court of Human Rights.
The Rwanda Safety (Asylum and Immigration) Bill passed through the House of Commons by a comfortable majority of 320 votes to 276 without any amendments on Wednesday night on its third reading.
The bill goes to the House of Lords, which can raise objections and return it to the House of Commons. But experts say it is likely to become law.
Peter William Walsh, a senior researcher at Oxford University's Migration Observatory, said asylum seekers may still have some legal recourse, with claims the individual faces an “imminent risk of serious and irreparable harm” in Rwanda. Walsh warned that the road is narrow. The person must prove that Rwanda poses a risk – to the individual person – rather than focusing on the possibility of being returned to their country.
The European Court of Human Rights may also intervene. Next, Sunak will have to decide whether to take on the court and the international human rights laws his country helped create.
How many asylum seekers arrive by boat in Britain?
The government reports that 29,437 people crossed the English Channel last year.
Last weekend, four died trying.
A spokesman for the Interior Ministry, which oversees the border, said the government's priority remains stopping the boats, “which is why we have taken strong measures to crack down on despicable people smuggling gangs, deter migrants from making dangerous crossings, and alongside our French counterparts are intercepting the ships.”
There is deep frustration that asylum seekers can spend years in Britain while their claims are adjudicated.
Lawmaker John Hayes said his Conservative colleagues in parliament may have different ideas about how to implement Sunak's plan, but they are united in facing what he called “perhaps the biggest existential crisis facing this country.”
Hayes said recent increases in legal and illegal immigration are having a “devastating impact on public services”.
Hayes said the “vast majority” of people arriving on small boats are not genuine asylum seekers, but economic migrants.
How much does the Rwanda Plan cost?
Sunak's government has paid Rwanda $300 million so far, with an additional $60 million due this year.
Citing government figures, the opposition Labor Party says sending refugees to Rwanda would cost $80,000 more than keeping them in Britain before accepting or deporting them.
