The European Court of Human Rights ordered this Tuesday the detention of the expulsion process of seven irregular migrants from England to Rwanda after last minute legal appeals. A strong setback for the executive who does not give up on his plans.
The British government wanted to expel at least 10 illegal immigrants to the African country, in the first application of a migration policy that seeks to discourage illegal arrivals through the English Channel, which are increasing.
What is it and what is the controversy over the measure. A B C.
(Also read: United Kingdom refuses to stop deportations of migrants to Rwanda)
How does the measure work?
Stating that she wants to discourage dangerous clandestine sea crossings from French coasts, which are constantly increasing, the Minister of the Interior, Priti Patel, announced in mid-April an agreement with Rwanda, an African country 6,500 km from London, so that welcome migrants and asylum seekers who arrived in the UK illegally.
London estimates that 28,526 people crossed the channel in 2021 to enter the UK irregularly, up from 8,466 a year earlier.
(You may be interested in: Rwanda defends the expulsion of migrants agreed with the United Kingdom)
It is important to remember that one of the main arguments for the British exit from the European Union, decided in 2016 but effective only from January 2021, was immigration control.
The plan to expel the illegal immigrants to Rwanda, in fact, is very popular among a large part of Johnson’s conservative voters, who, plagued by multiple scandals, seeks to relaunch his popularity and win back the electorate in the face of his re-election in 2024.
Why has it been criticized?
Since it was announced last April, the controversial agreement has drawn criticism from human rights organizations, the United Nations and the opposition in both countries, as well as from Prince Charles (heir to the British Crown) and the leadership of the Church. Anglican.
The Anglican Church and NGOs for the defense of refugees and human rights denounced this policy as “illegal” and “immoral” and various associations took legal action to prevent it.
For her part, the main figure of the Rwandan opposition, Victoire Ingabire Umuhoza, declared that the agreement to send asylum seekers to Rwanda violates the 1951 Geneva Convention, whose fundamental principle is non-refoulement to a country where their freedom may be seriously threatened.
Critics not only argue that the protection of human rights is not guaranteed in Rwanda – a country that, according to the UN, also does not have the necessary structures to process asylum applications – but also point to the high cost that the agreement will have. for the coffers of the British Government.
(Also: Scotland reactivates the campaign for independence from the United Kingdom)
When was the flight supposed to leave?
The first flight, contracted according to one of these associations to the Spanish charter airline Privilege Style, was due to leave this Tuesday night.
More than 130 migrants – from Syrians to Afghans, passing through Albanians or Egyptians – were notified of their next expulsion to a country with a worrying balance in terms of human rights, according to the NGO Care4Calais.
Some of them filed individual legal appeals, aided by associations and lawyers who also attempted a legal blockade of the program as a whole.
From Friday to Monday, several British judges rejected the general arguments giving the green light to the government plan, but accepted specific cases gradually reducing the number of passengers expected on the first flight, which was only 7 on Tuesday morning.
Patel claimed that despite the entire plane, with a cost estimated by the press at 250,000 pounds ($300,000) of public money, it would take off to establish the “principle” of this “deterrent” policy.
How was the flight stopped?
But in a dramatic last-minute twist, one of the 7 migrants, from Iraq, managed to get the European Court of Human Rights, based in Strasbourg, to block his expulsion temporarily until the legality of the measure is thoroughly analysed.
In its decision to freeze the deportation of the asylum seeker identified as KN, an Iraqi national born in 1968, the court ruled that the man “should not be expelled until the expiration of a period of three weeks after the final decision in the judicial review that is taking place.”
(Read more: Boris Johnson will ‘move on’ after internal crisis in his party)
For its “exceptional” precautionary decision, the Strasbourg-based court took into consideration the concern about these expulsions expressed by the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and also the absence of a legal mechanism that forces London to accept to KN on your territory if your asylum application is successful.
The measure caused an unexpected approval chain of freezes for the other six and the flight ended up being canceled after 10:00 p.m. local time to the anger and humiliation of a British government that since Brexit has tried to distance itself from European justice at all costs.
What will the British Government do?
Now, the British government of Boris Johnson, enraged by the decision of the European justice, look this Wednesday for a way to get around this inconvenience and continue with his controversial project.
Johnson must appear before Parliament for the weekly question session, in which the Labor opposition is expected to bring up the controversy, after the Prime Minister suggested the day before that by defending migrants, lawyers “instigate the work of criminal gangs “human trafficking.
Our legal team is reviewing every decision made on this flight
“The legal world is very good at finding ways to try to get the government to break what we think is sensible law,” he said.
“Will some rules need to be changed to help us move forward? Quite possibly yes. All of these options are under constant review,” he added.
Also the very conservative Minister of the Interior, Priti Patel, will appear before the deputies this Wednesday, “determined” to find a way to implement her program.
“Our legal team is reviewing every decision made on this flight and preparation for the next flight starts now.“He announced on Tuesday.
And what is Rwanda’s position?
For its part, Rwanda said on Tuesday that it remains “fully committed” to the agreement. to deport to this African country asylum seekers who arrived in the United Kingdom by irregular means, despite the decision of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR).
“The new events have not dissuaded us. Rwanda remains fully committed to making this agreement work,” spokeswoman for the Rwandan Executive, Yolande Makolo, said Tuesday at a press conference after the court decision, according to local media.
(Also: This is how the new visa that the United Kingdom will grant to recent graduates works)
“The current situation of people undertaking dangerous journeys cannot continue because it is causing untold suffering for many,” Makolo added.
It is expected that the English justice decides in July if the deportation of asylum seekers to Rwanda is in accordance with the law and you can continue.
INTERNATIONAL WRITING*
*With information from EFE and AFP
More news
Five places in the world that offer unusual benefits to repopulate
Colombians know Miami better than their own country: German ambassador
Scotland reactivates the campaign for independence from the United Kingdom
#UKs #controversial #migrant #deportation #program