The obstacles that could still stop flights to Rwanda from taking off

Spread the love

 

Penny Morduant calls Rishi Sunak a sign post
Penny Morduant calls Rishi Sunak a sign post
Natalie Hodgson, University of Nottingham

Rishi Sunak has finally secured the legislation he needs to support his Rwanda plan. A late night session of ping pong between the two houses of parliament culminated with the passage of the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act.

Under this plan, the UK will send some people who have travelled to the UK by small boat to Rwanda. Rwandan officials will consider their asylum claims and determine whether they are a refugee. If a person is found to be a refugee, they will be resettled in Rwanda.

After the European Court of Human Rights stopped the first flight taking off nearly two years ago, the government is now preparing for its second attempt. In a press conference hours before the crucial vote, Sunak said that flights would begin in July.

But there are still logistical and legal obstacles that the government must overcome before any flights can take off.

Finding an airline willing to fly to Rwanda

The government claims to have secured the airfield and charter flights necessary for removing people to Rwanda. However, campaigners who oppose the scheme are targeting these elements of the policy in an attempt to make flights logistically impossible.

In October 2022, the charity Freedom from Torture successfully convinced the airline Privilege Style to withdraw from the government’s Rwanda scheme. Freedom from Torture have now turned their attention to AirTanker, the government’s current preferred airline. They are coordinating protests against the airline and are asking their supporters to write letters opposing AirTanker’s involvement in the scheme.

UN human rights experts have warned airlines that transporting people to Rwanda could make them complicit in human rights abuses.

Further legal challenges

Charities have also been preparing to support asylum seekers to challenge their removal to Rwanda. We can expect to see several types of legal action in the coming weeks.

First, individual asylum seekers will attempt to convince the Home Office to reconsider its decision to send them to Rwanda. After receiving a letter from the Home Office, a person has a short period – typically one week – within which to challenge the decision. People are likely to raise a range of human rights arguments against their deportation. These arguments might include that a person would face persecution in Rwanda because of their sexuality, or that they have complex medical needs preventing their removal.

If the Home Office upholds its decision, a person can challenge their removal in court. Sunak has recently said that there are 150 judges and 25 courtrooms ready to hear these legal challenges.

If their removal is still upheld, a person might take the last-resort step of applying to the European Court of Human Rights for an interim order blocking their deportation. However, this course of action is complicated by the fact that civil servants have been directed to ignore injunctions from the European Court of Human Rights unless a minister says otherwise.

Under international law, the government is bound to follow an order of the European Court of Human Rights. It would be unlawful for a person to be sent to Rwanda in violation of an order of the European court. The union representing senior civil servants has warned that it might take legal action against the government if civil servants are required by ministers to breach international law.

Asylum seekers are also likely to challenge the Rwanda scheme more broadly, arguing that Rwanda remains an unsafe country for them. The government’s new law declares that Rwanda is safe. However, both the House of Lords Select Committee on the Constitution and the Joint Committee on Human Rights have maintained that the safety of Rwanda is a matter for the courts, not parliament, to decide.

If a broader legal challenge is brought, it will be for the courts to determine whether the government’s efforts to improve the conditions in Rwanda – which include drafting a treaty with Rwanda and training Rwandan officials – mean that Rwanda is now safe for asylum seekers.

Sunak and his government have staked a lot on this scheme and the passage of the safety of Rwanda bill brings it one step closer to reality. However, even if the government succeeds in getting flights off the ground, the plan is likely to fail in its quest to stop the boats.

There is no evidence to suggest that the Rwanda plan will deter people travelling across the English Channel to seek asylum.

The tragic deaths of five people in the Channel shortly after the government passed its legislation clearly demonstrates that the threat of deportation to Rwanda is not achieving its aim. Despite now being part of UK law, the Rwanda plan remains a political distraction from a failing asylum system that ultimately costs people their lives.The Conversation

Natalie Hodgson, Assistant Professor in Law, University of Nottingham

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

Continue ReadingThe obstacles that could still stop flights to Rwanda from taking off

Why are human rights groups condemning the Rwanda bill? Here’s what you need to know

Spread the love

https://leftfootforward.org/2024/04/why-are-human-rights-groups-condemning-the-rwanda-bill-heres-what-you-need-to-know/ Many articles from LeftFootForward today.

Despite the findings of the Supreme Court, the government is compelling judges to treat Rwanda as a safe country.

The passage of the Rwanda Bill late last night, after a parliamentary showdown ended between the Commons and the Lords, has been met with condemnation and outrage by a number of human rights groups.

Some have described it as a ‘national disgrace’ while others slammed it as cruel and inhumane.

Sunak had made stopping small boat crossings across the channel a major priority, with his Rwanda Bill a key part of his plans in doing so. The Prime Minister says that the first flights removing asylum seekers who arrive illegally to the UK to the east African country are due to take off in 10-12 weeks time.

So why are human rights groups condemning the legislation and why are they concerned?

Rwanda is not a safe country, Supreme Court rules

Disregarding domestic and international law

‘Genuine refugees would be at risk of being returned to their home countries, where they could face harm’

https://leftfootforward.org/2024/04/why-are-human-rights-groups-condemning-the-rwanda-bill-heres-what-you-need-to-know/ Many articles from LeftFootForward today.

Continue ReadingWhy are human rights groups condemning the Rwanda bill? Here’s what you need to know

Greens pledge to support repeal of new Rwanda deportation law

Spread the love
Image of the Green Party's Carla Denyer on BBC Question Time.
Image of the Green Party’s Carla Denyer on BBC Question Time.

Responding to the Rwanda Bill completing its parliamentary stages, Green Party co-leader Carla Denyer said: 

“I don’t want people risking their lives crossing the channel in small boats. But the way to stop that isn’t this punitive, inhumane approach. It’s providing safe and legal routes for people to apply for asylum from overseas, and working to fix the reasons that people are having to claim asylum – including wars and the climate crisis.  

“This new Act is simply a very expensive way to be cruel. We need to get the humanity back into our refugee policy and Green MPs will certainly seek this Act’s repeal after the General Election.” 

Continue ReadingGreens pledge to support repeal of new Rwanda deportation law

‘Small boat’ pilot Ibrahima Bah faces life in jail. He’s a scapegoat

Spread the love

Original article by Danai Avgeri republished from OpenDemocracy under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International licence

Forensic officers enter a tent containing the bodies of people who drowned while trying to cross the Channel in the boat piloted by Ibrahima Bah, who will be sentenced today under new legislation to criminalise ‘facilitating arrival’ for asylum seekers in the UK. ‘By convicting Bah of manslaughter, the jury effectively exonerated the UK of responsibility for its lethal border policies.’  | Leon Neal/Getty Images

Those who drive boats are often simply the poorest people on board. Those really at fault still walk free

Ibrahima Bah is today facing a possible life sentence for facilitating illegal entry into the UK, and for four counts of manslaughter by gross negligence. But the real culprits here remain off the hook – and this will almost certainly lead to more deaths.

Arrested in December 2022, Bah was steering an unseaworthy dinghy across the English Channel when it collapsed. The floor of the dinghy ripped when it approached the fishing vessel Arcturus and everyone stood up to try and be rescued. According to Utopia 56, a refugee charity that has announced legal action against the British coastguard and French agencies for this case, authorities failed to launch a search and rescue operation despite being alerted by Alarmphone, a hotline for migrants in distress at sea.

Eventually, four people were found dead while four were recorded missing. Some 39 survivors, most from Afghanistan, were rescued and claimed asylum in the UK.

Asylum seekers dying in the English Channel is not something new. In November 2021, 31 people, including a girl aged five and her teenage siblings, died after their dinghy sank in the Channel. And in October 2020, seven people, including five from one Iranian Kurdish family, lost their lives after a small boat carrying 20 migrants capsized off the French coast.

These are only a few examples in the long deadly history of the French-UK border. But Bah’s case marks a historic and troubling milestone: he is the first shipwreck survivor in the UK to face manslaughter charges for the deaths of fellow passengers.

A network called Captain Support that acts in solidarity with those accused of driving boats to Europe has been closely monitoring Bah’s case. Its members are right to point out the conviction marks a violent escalation in the criminalisation of migration by the UK government under its ‘stop the boats’ campaign and measures to cut net migration.

These have included unlawful and unenforceable schemes, such as the plan to deport asylum seekers to Rwanda; the launch of the Bibby Stockholm barge, leading to suicide and harm among detainees; and the planned introduction of an unattainable 50% increase in salary threshold for foreign workers to be allowed to come to the UK. Britain has also laid out plans to bar international students and care workers from bringing dependents to the UK.

Ironically, this frontal assault on migrant rights comes at a time when polls for the first time since 2016 suggest that most British people hold positive views of immigration, exposing the ‘stop the boats’ battle for its deeply ideological nature. But other aspects of the policy, less routinely covered in the media, have been no less damaging – and these directly relate to Ibrahima Bah’s unjust conviction.

The Nationality and Borders Act came into force in June 2022, expanding the scope of immigration crimes in the UK in response to the so-called ‘small boats crisis’. This act introduced the offence of ‘illegal arrival’ with a maximum penalty of four years in jail. It also expanded the scope of the more serious offence of ‘facilitating arrival’, of which Bah was convicted, and increased the maximum penalty to life imprisonment.

Hundreds of people have since been arrested and imprisoned for simply trying to reach the UK to claim asylum, according to a forthcoming report by Victoria Taylor, published by the Centre for Criminology at the University of Oxford and Border Criminologies.

While the government repeatedly invokes the mantra of favouring ‘safe and legal routes’ when justifying this increasingly draconian legislation, existing laws don’t provide any. As Amnesty International has pointed out: “The UK government does not allow anyone to make a claim for asylum unless they are physically present in the UK… It is impossible to come to the UK for the purpose of seeking asylum in any way permitted by the government’s immigration rules.”

openDemocracy revealed last year that a toddler and a father were among those who had died while waiting vainly for officially sanctioned UN routes to take them to safety; their families remain stranded in Turkey.

Aside from two temporary visa schemes that have been beset with their own problems – for asylum seekers from Ukraine with family or hosts in the UK, and Afghans who are in danger due to having worked with the UK government – anyone wishing to apply for asylum in the UK has no choice but to travel to the UK in an unauthorised manner.

In simple terms, the UK government requires asylum seekers to endanger their lives and break the law in order to exercise their lawful right to claim asylum.

Countering this means more than debunking the myths of ‘safe and legal’ routes. It’s also about addressing the criminalisation of ‘facilitating arrival’ – often presented as a necessary measure to uproot the ‘criminal gangs’ exploiting vulnerable individuals.

In fact, human rights organisations and academic researchers have time and again shown that counter-smuggling policies and targeting of boat drivers harms migrant communities the most. These policies overlook the reality that, in many instances, those piloting boats are the poorest and least resourced among asylum seekers, agreeing to steer these vessels and take on significant legal risks in exchange for free passage.

And indeed, Ibrahima, who is from Senegal – a country still grappling with the effects of colonialism and with 40% of its population living below the poverty line – asserted that this was precisely why he agreed to pilot the boat.

Having journeyed from Senegal to Mali, then Algeria and Libya, before taking a boat from Libya to Italy with the aid of smugglers, Bah decided to pilot the vessel in exchange for free passage. During his trial, Bah said when he realised the boat was unseaworthy, he refused to drive it, but he was then assaulted by those that organised the trip who coerced him into complying. The jury not only dismissed Bah’s claims but also the testimonies of the survivors themselves, who portrayed Ibrahima as an “angel” trying to save lives.

As detailed in Captain Support’s court report, a witness statement from the captain of the Arcturus presented Bah as “mouthy” and ungrateful, both racial stereotypes. The all-white jury concluded that Bah, a Black teenager, had failed in his duty of care towards his fellow passengers. By convicting Bah of manslaughter, the jury effectively exonerated the UK of responsibility for its lethal border policies.

The UK is not alone in this regard. In Italy, four survivors of the Cutro shipwreck are on trial for the deaths of at least 94 people, with one already convicted, despite evidence that the Italian authorities deemed the migrant boat ‘not of interest’ just before the shipwreck. And Greece prosecuted nine Egyptians over the 2023 shipwreck of the Adriana, which killed 600 near the coast of Pylos, despite mounting evidence for the Greek coastguard’s role in the boats capsizing.

Britain’s emulation of these policies is both predictable and deeply alarming. British prime minister Rishi Sunak recently teamed up with Italy’s far-right leader Giorgia Meloni in her attempts to crack down on ‘illegal migration’. And in November 2023, Suella Braverman – then the UK home secretary and the architect of the ‘stop the boats’ campaign – lauded Greece’s “tough but fair migration policy” following her tour of one of Europe’s most harrowing borders. This dangerous coalition, which wields death and scapegoating as tools of deterrence, must be dismantled immediately.

Ibrahima Bah’s sentencing hearing is scheduled for Friday 23 February. Solidarity actions have been called in response, including a call for support at 2pm at Canterbury Crown and a demonstration at 6pm at the Home Office.

Original article by Danai Avgeri republished from OpenDemocracy under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International licence

OpenDemocracy free Daily Email

Continue Reading‘Small boat’ pilot Ibrahima Bah faces life in jail. He’s a scapegoat

Damning poll reveals what the public really think about the Rwanda scheme

Spread the love

https://leftfootforward.org/2024/01/damning-poll-reveals-what-the-public-really-think-about-the-rwanda-scheme/

Rishi Sunak has staked his political future on getting the Rwanda scheme off the ground. Under the proposals, asylum seekers who arrive in the UK other than through an existing asylum scheme would be deported to Rwanda where their claim would then be processed.

Polling from YouGov found that if Labour were to win the next election, 40% of voters would want Keir Starmer to scrap the plan. That compares to 34% who think it should be kept.

Asking a slightly different question, YouGov more recently found that just one in five voters think the Rwanda scheme should be pushed through in its current form. Again, 40% of the public think it should be scrapped altogether.

https://leftfootforward.org/2024/01/damning-poll-reveals-what-the-public-really-think-about-the-rwanda-scheme/

Continue ReadingDamning poll reveals what the public really think about the Rwanda scheme