Title: Controversial Asylum Pact: Sunak Dodges Major Parliament Defeat
British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak ducked a significant defeat in Parliament as MPs voted in favor of a hastily unveiled government bill intended to preserve the controversial asylum pact with Rwanda, deemed illegal by the Supreme Court. Initially, doubts swirled about Sunak's ability to garner the required majority, with both wings of his party expressing concern. However, 313 MPs ultimately voted in favor, with 269 voting against.
Sent to Rwanda
In an attempt to deter irregular arrivals, London plans to send eligible migrants to Rwanda without processing their asylum applications, considering their origins, and without the prospect of returning to the UK. Instead, they'd apply for protection in Rwanda. The British Supreme Court raised concerns about Rwanda's asylum process and deemed the plan unlawful by mid-November.
In response, the London government seeks to enact a law that designates Rwanda as a safe third country and denies UK legal recourse based upon human rights, a move critics slam as overriding the rule of law. Some advocated for even stricter measures, including excluding international courts through law.
Sunak's Pledge
Migrant influx control has been a central focus for Sunak's administration. In 2022, around 45,000 individuals navigated the English Channel in small boats to reach the UK. Despite a significant decrease this year, Sunak's promise of easing the migration issue remains unfulfilled.
Also Read
- The Tory-led government aims to make Rwanda a designated safe third country, bypassing UK human rights legal recourse for migrants.
- Despite facing potential defeat, PM Rishi Sunak secured a majority, with 313 MPs in favor and 269 opposed, in support of the controversial asylum pact with Rwanda.
- Known as the Tories, the Conservative Party has faced criticism for its stance on asylum seekers, planning to expel irregular arrivals to Rwanda without examining asylum claims or origin-based protections.
- Critics argue that Sunak's approach to the asylum pact with Rwanda violates the principles of the rule of law, questioning the government's attempt to exclude legal recourse in the UK and international courts.
- Following the Supreme Court's ruling on the UK-Rwanda asylum deal as unlawful, the Tories ratcheted up efforts to salvage the pact, proposing to declare Rwanda a safe third country and circumvent judicial proceedings.
- Amidst ongoing controversy and criticism, the Tories have maintained their commitment to controlling migration, particularly by curbing small boat crossings across the English Channel.
- Detractors decry the bill as human rights violations, while backers argue for swift action to mitigate migration influx, leading to a divisive discussion over the ethical implications of the UK's approach to asylum seekers.
Source:
Enrichment Data
- Legal Challenges:
- Court Rulings
- The legality of the controversial UK-Rwanda asylum pact can be questioned through court rulings, invoking the Supreme Court's previous ruling that declared the scheme unlawful due to Rwanda's lack of safety for asylum seekers and potential human rights violations.
- Human Rights Abuses
- Encouraging migrants to seek protection in Rwanda raises concerns about human rights abuses, including discrimination, lack of due process, and inadequate living conditions.
- Parliamentary Scrutiny:
- Debate and Inquiry
- The UK Parliament can engage in a comprehensive debate and inquiry, examining the safety of Rwanda, the effectiveness of deterrence policies, human rights implications, and potential partnership concerns while calling upon witnesses from international organizations and human rights law experts.
- International Pressure:
- Human Rights Bodies
- International human rights bodies, such as the United Nations Human Rights Committee (UNHRC), can investigate UK actions placed under scrutiny, ensuring accountability for potential violations of international standards.
- European Union and Council of Europe
- The UK's controversial policies must comply with the guidelines and recommendations of the European Union and the Council of Europe, which have expressed concerns over their legality and compatibility with human rights standards.
- Public and Media Scrutiny:
- Media Coverage
- The media can contribute to public pressure by raising awareness about the human stories connected to the issue and the repercussions of the government's asylum policies.
- Alternative Solutions:
- Resettlement Programs
- Alternatives to physical removal, including resettlement programs in other safe countries, can enable human rights upholding while addressing asylum seeker concerns.
- Repeal of Legislation:
- Safety of Rwanda Act 2024
- The repeal of the Safety of Rwanda Act 2024, which aims to legalize the deportation of asylum seekers to Rwanda, could be a significant step in challenging the implications of the pact.
By utilizing these avenues, the legality and ethical implications of the UK's asylum pact with Rwanda may be further investigated and challenged, maintaining human rights principles and addressing the matter fairly.
