Rwanda policy

LeftFootForward

Spread the love

Some recent stories from the excellent Left Foot Forward blog

UK workers ramp up pressure on Big Tech to end Israeli military contract

Tech workers launch UK campaign and mass call to action against company complicity with Israeli government

Tech workers in the UK have ramped up a campaign calling on Google and Amazon to terminate an AI contract with the Israeli government arguing it constitutes a breach of the companies core values.  

Project Nimbus is a $1.2 billion contract signed by Google and Amazon to provide cloud technology to the Israeli government and military. Workers have been campaigning against it since the contract was initially signed in 2021.

Opposition has ramped up since the latest Israeli military attacks on Gaza, following the Hamas attacks and kidnaps on October 7 when 1,200 people were killed, and now with more than 15,000 Palestinians, including 6,000 children, killed by Israeli bombing.

One Google employee said: “The images we see over and over again are of hi-tech military bombardment directed at a civilian population.

“Tech workers built Israel’s capacity for this and it’s our responsibility to get tech companies to stop doing business with Israel as long as it commits war crimes and genocide.”

…

Young audience members perfectly sum up attitudes towards government’s immigration policies on Question Time  

‘We should welcome these people.’

Following Sunak’s desperate defence of his latest plans to send asylum seekers to Rwanda during an emergency press conference, debate on this week’s Question Time was focused on the beleagured deportation deal.

…

During the heated discussion on the Rwanda policy and immigration, a young man in the audience managed to sum up in a sentence how many people feel about the way Britain should treat people coming to the UK to flee persecution.

He said: “I would like to ask a Conservative member of the Cabinet. Rather than blame these poor people that are coming over being exploited and threatened with deportation to what has been ruled as an unsafe country, why can’t we rather open up more legal safe routes and options for these people to flee persecution or any trouble they’re going through, to come to a safe country like the United Kingdom, we should welcome these people.”

The comment was met by an enthusiastic applause from the audience.

…

A young woman in the audience then asked the panel: “Previously you mentioned British values. How do you think that the Rwanda scheme complies with the tolerance that Britain is supposed to stand for?”

Later in the programme, another young member of the audience received applause when he stated: “Illegal migration makes up 5 percent of the total migration to the country, I think Rwanda is just used as a distraction from your failings.”

…

Cost of Rwanda scheme spirals to £290m despite no deportation flights taking off

‘The Tories’ have wasted an astronomical £290 million of taxpayers’ money on a failing scheme which hasn’t sent a single asylum seeker to Rwanda.’

The cost of the government’s Rwanda deportation scheme, which has been ruled unlawful by the Supreme Court, has more than doubled to £290 million, despite the fact that not a single deportation flight has taken off.

The latest costs of the scheme were revealed overnight, with the prime minister signing off on a £100m payment to the east African nation this year, on top of the £140m already spent on the policy.

The Home Office has pencilled in another £50m payment next year as the plan hangs in the balance.

Labour has condemned the waste of taxpayers’ money, with Shadow Home Secretary Yvette Cooper saying: “This is just incredible. The Tories’ have wasted an astronomical £290 million of taxpayers’ money on a failing scheme which hasn’t sent a single asylum seeker to Rwanda.

“How many more blank cheques will Rishi Sunak write before the Tories come clean about this scheme being a total farce?”

…

John McDonnell MP: ‘Rwanda deportation scheme is an appalling act of inhumanity’

Figures show that the cost of the scheme has spiralled to £290 million, despite the fact that not a single flight has taken off to the east African country.

Labour MP John McDonnell has slammed the Rwanda deportation scheme as an ‘appalling act of inhumanity’, as the government made clear its intention to push ahead with the policy despite the Supreme Court ruling that it was unlawful.

…

McDonnell has called the bill the ‘most bizarre & brutal legislation we have seen in years’, adding: “Bizarre by arguing that making a law that says Rwanda is safe can change the reality of all the evidence pointing to the opposite. Brutal by forcing refugees into more insecurity & potential danger.”

He told LFF today that the deportation scheme was ‘an appalling act of inhumanity.’

He said: “The massive cost of the Rwanda scheme demonstrates how much the Tories are willing to spend on brutalising people who have already endured such hardship and human suffering in their flight to secure safety and security. It’s an appalling act of inhumanity.”

…

Yet more bus services will be coming back into public ownership

A recent poll for LFF found that 67% of the public want to see buses in public ownership.

After the failures of privatisation, yet more bus services are expected to be brought back under public control.

The Mirror reports that ‘moves are afoot for local authorities to regain powers for setting fares and routes. Areas seeking change include West Yorkshire, where a consultation ends a month today with a decision due in March.’

A recent poll for LFF found that 67% of the public want to see buses in public ownership.

Greater Manchester was the first English region to take back ownership of its bus services. The Mayor Greater Manchester praised the move earlier this year. He said: “For nearly 40 years we have seen worsening services and plummeting passenger numbers on our buses.

“We’ve had to reckon with a deregulated bus network that cuts vital services that connect communities to jobs, hospitals and opportunities on a whim – leaving local leaders with limited budgets to pick up the tab to keep these routes alive.

…

Shocking chart shames Britain on child poverty record

The report compiled by UNICEF compared relative income poverty rates, which means the proportion of people who fall below a threshold relative to the income of the average person in the population.

A shocking chart produced by UNICEF shows the UK’s appalling record on child poverty, with the country having the worst rise in child poverty between 2012 and 2019 out of 39 of the world’s richest countries.

The UK has seen a 20% increase in child poverty since 2014 – the steepest rise among the 39 wealthiest OECD & EU nations. With the UK at the bottom of the table, Iceland was next worst with a significantly lower rise of 11%, while France had a 10.4% rise.

Other countries meanwhile had cut their child poverty rates, with Poland topping the table after cutting its child poverty rate by 37.6%, with Slovenia achieving a 31.4% reduction.

The report compiled by UNICEF compared relative income poverty rates, which means the proportion of people who fall below a threshold relative to the income of the average person in the population.

…

…

Continue ReadingLeftFootForward

Supreme court rules Rwanda plan unlawful: a legal expert explains the judgment, and what happens next

Spread the love
The Rwanda deal was signed when Priti Patel was home secretary. Rwanda visit April 14, 2022. Image: UK Home Office.
The Rwanda deal was signed when Priti Patel was home secretary. Rwanda visit April 14, 2022. Image: UK Home Office.

Before publishing this article unaltered, I draw your attention to these excerpts:

…

It is important to note that the supreme court’s decision is not a comment on the political viability of the Rwanda plan, or on the concept of offshoring asylum processes generally. The ruling focused only on the legal principle of non-refoulement, and determined that in this respect, Rwanda is not a “safe third country” to send asylum seekers.


…


This ruling is likely to revive discussion about the UK leaving the European convention on human rights (ECHR), which holds the UK to the non-refoulement obligation. Some Conservatives, including the former home secretary Suella Braverman, have argued that leaving the convention would make it easier to pass stronger immigration laws.

But while handing down the supreme court judgment, Lord Reed emphasised that there are obligations towards asylum seekers that go beyond the ECHR. The duty of non-refoulement is part of many other international conventions, and domestic law as well. In other words, exiting the ECHR would not automatically make the Rwanda plan lawful or easier to implement.

…

So it would appear that UK is not going to be sending refugees to Rwanda despite Rishi Sunak and Conservative claims that it will.

Supreme court rules Rwanda plan unlawful: a legal expert explains the judgment, and what happens next

Devyani Prabhat, University of Bristol

The UK supreme court has unanimously ruled that the government’s plan to send asylum seekers to Rwanda is unlawful.

Upholding an earlier decision by the court of appeal, the supreme court found that asylum seekers sent to Rwanda may be at risk of refoulement – being sent back to a country where they may be persecuted, tortured or killed.

The courts cited extensive evidence from the UN refugee agency (UNHCR) that Rwanda does not respect the principle of non-refoulement – a legal obligation. The UNHCR’s evidence questioned the ability of Rwandan authorities to fairly assess asylum claims. It also raised concerns about human rights violations by Rwandan authorities, including not respecting non-refoulement with other asylum seekers.

It is important to note that the supreme court’s decision is not a comment on the political viability of the Rwanda plan, or on the concept of offshoring asylum processes generally. The ruling focused only on the legal principle of non-refoulement, and determined that in this respect, Rwanda is not a “safe third country” to send asylum seekers.

The ruling is another blow to the government’s promise to “stop the boats”. And since the Rwanda plan is at the heart of its new Illegal Migration Act, the government will need to reconsider its asylum policies. This is further complicated by Conservative party infighting and the firing of home secretary Suella Braverman, just two days before the ruling.

How did we get here?

For years, the UK government has been seeking to reduce small boat arrivals to the UK. In April 2022, the UK and Rwanda signed an agreement making it possible for the UK to deport some people seeking asylum in Britain to Rwanda, without their cases being heard in the UK. Instead, they would have their cases decided by Rwandan authorities, to be granted (or rejected) asylum in Rwanda.

While the Rwanda plan specifically was found to be unlawful, the government could, in theory, replicate this in other countries so long as they are considered “safe” for asylum seekers.

The government has not yet sent anyone to Rwanda. The first flight was prevented from taking off by the European court of human rights in June 2022, which said that British courts needed to consider all human rights issues before starting deportations.

A UK high court then decided in December 2022 that the Rwanda plan was lawful.

Catch up on our other coverage of the Rwanda plan:

• Why UK court ruled Rwanda isn’t a safe place to send refugees – and what this means for the government’s immigration plans

• Rwanda deportations: what is the European Court of Human Rights, and why did it stop the UK flight from taking off?

• Suella Braverman is wrong about the UN refugee convention being ‘not fit for purpose’ – here’s why

• The government passed a major immigration law last year – so why is it trying to pass another one?

• ‘A toxic policy with little returns’ – lessons for the UK-Rwanda deal from Australia and the US

Ten asylum seekers from Syria, Iraq, Iran, Vietnam, Sudan and Albania challenged the high court ruling, with the support of the charity Asylum Aid. Their claim was about whether Rwanda meets the legal threshold for being a safe country for asylum seekers.

The court of appeal said it was not and that asylum seekers risked being sent back to their home countries (where they could face persecution), when in fact they may have a good claim for asylum.

The government has since passed the Illegal Migration Act. The law now states that all asylum seekers arriving irregularly (for example, in small boats) must be removed to a safe third country. But now that the Rwanda deal has been ruled unlawful, there are no other countries that have said they would take asylum seekers from the UK.

What happens next?

Former Home Secretary Suella 'Sue-Ellen' Braverman
Former Home Secretary Suella ‘Sue-Ellen’ Braverman continued with the Rwanda policy.

It is clear that the government’s asylum policies will need rethinking. Should another country now be designated as a safe country and different arrangements put in place, these will probably be subject to further legal challenges, including in the European court of human rights and in British courts.

This ruling is likely to revive discussion about the UK leaving the European convention on human rights (ECHR), which holds the UK to the non-refoulement obligation. Some Conservatives, including the former home secretary Suella Braverman, have argued that leaving the convention would make it easier to pass stronger immigration laws.

But while handing down the supreme court judgment, Lord Reed emphasised that there are obligations towards asylum seekers that go beyond the ECHR. The duty of non-refoulement is part of many other international conventions, and domestic law as well. In other words, exiting the ECHR would not automatically make the Rwanda plan lawful or easier to implement.

The prime minister, Rishi Sunak, has said that he is working on a new treaty with Rwanda and is prepared to change domestic laws to “do whatever it takes to stop the boats”.

The UK is not the only country to attempt to off-shore asylum processing. Germany and Italy have recently been considering finding new safe third countries to accept asylum seekers as well.

But ensuring these measures comply with human rights obligations is complicated. International law requires states to provide sanctuary to those fleeing persecution or risk to their lives. As this ruling shows, the UK is not going to find an easy way out of these obligations.The Conversation

Devyani Prabhat, Professor of Law, University of Bristol

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Continue ReadingSupreme court rules Rwanda plan unlawful: a legal expert explains the judgment, and what happens next