UK passes bill to send asylum seekers to Rwanda

.

ER Editor: The Daily Mail also has this. See —

Rwanda Bill is FINALLY passed by the House of Lords with unelected peers bowing to MPs after months of wrangling… so now can Rishi Sunak get deportation flights in the air by July?

Note the applicable number of migrants this bill could apply to – 350. What’s REALLY going on here?

Readers may also be interested in this (Daily Mail) —

What is the Rwanda scheme? Your questions answered

Of note:

Will there be legal action?

Probably. Migrants who are told they are facing removal to Rwanda are expected to lodge individual appeals. 

Pro-migrant charity Care4Calais said last week it planned to initiate challenges as quickly as possible.  …

How much will it cost?

The Government will pay Rwanda £370 million under the deal, plus a further £120 million once the first 300 migrants have been sent to Kigali. 

On top, there will be a cost of £20,000 per individual removed and £150,874 per head in ‘processing and operational costs’.

****

Some tweeted reactions —

And it got passed last night, to be given royal assent today, St. George’s Day. A comm or pure coincidence?

********

UK passes bill to send asylum seekers to Rwanda

Lawyers prepare for legal battles on behalf of individual asylum seekers challenging removal to east Africa

RAJEEV SYAL, KIRAN STACEY and TOM AMBROSE

Rishi Sunak’s Rwanda deportation bill will become law after peers eventually backed down on amending it, opening the way for legal battles over the potential removal of dozens of people seeking asylum.

After a marathon battle of “ping pong” over the key legislation between the Commons and the Lords, the bill finally passed when opposition and crossbench peers gave way on Monday night.

The bill is expected to be granted royal assent on Tuesday. Home Office sources said they have already identified a group of asylum seekers with weak legal claims to remain in the UK who will be part of the first tranche to be sent to east Africa in July.

Sunak has put the bill, which would deport asylum seekers who arrive in the UK by irregular means to Kigali, at the centre of his attempts to stop small boats crossing the Channel.

The home secretary, James Cleverly, said it was a “landmark moment in our plan to stop the boats”.

In a video posted to social media, he said: “The safety of Rwanda bill has passed in parliament and it will become law within days.

“The act will prevent people from abusing the law by using false human rights claims to block removals. And it makes clear that the UK parliament is sovereign, giving government the power to reject interim blocking measures imposed by European courts. (ER: perhaps an important sub-theme?)

“I promised to do what was necessary to clear the path for the first flight. That’s what we have done. Now we’re working day in and day out to get flights off the ground.”

Denisa Delić, director of advocacy at International Rescue Committee UK, said on Monday: “Irrespective of today’s passage of the safety of Rwanda bill, sending refugees to Rwanda is an ineffective, unnecessarily cruel and costly approach.

“Rather than outsourcing its responsibilities under international law, we urge the government to abandon this misguided plan and instead focus on delivering a more humane and orderly immigration system at home.

“This includes scaling up safe routes, such as resettlement and family reunion, and upholding the right to seek asylum.”

The Home Office has whittled the list down to 350 migrants who are deemed to pose the least risk of submitting successful legal challenges blocking their deportation.

Lawyers have told the Guardian that they will prepare legal challenges on behalf of individual asylum seekers. They can challenge their removal on a case-by-case basis, which could lead to their being taken off a flight list.

The bill allows challenges if a detainee faces a “real, imminent and foreseeable risk of serious irreversible harm if removed to Rwanda”.

They must lodge an appeal within eight days of receiving a deportation letter. The Home Office would then be given several days to respond. If their appeal is rejected, the person claiming asylum will then be given seven days to lodge a final appeal to an upper tribunal court, which will decide their claim within a further 23 days.

The deal will cost £1.8m for each of the first 300 deportees, the National Audit Office has confirmed.

Matthew Rycroft, the most senior civil servant in the Home Office who has overseen the scheme for two years, previously told MPs he did not have evidence to show that it had a deterrent effect that would make it value for money.

Home Office staff have privately warned that there is a risk of thousands of asylum seekers disappearing once removals begin, keen to avoid receiving notification that they are being sent to Kigali.

Earlier, MPs stripped out amendments to the bill inserted by the Lords. Crossbench and Labour peers said they would reinsert similar changes in a battle of wills.

The government will not send those who are eligible under the Afghan Relocations and Assistance Policy (Arap) to Rwanda, a Home Office minister told peers during one of the many debates held on Monday evening.

CONTINUE READING HERE

************

••••

The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)

••••

Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.

••••

Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.

••••

Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.

Be the first to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


*