The proposed bill by the British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak to relocate asylum seekers to Rwanda in East Africa may be delayed until next month. This is due to parliamentary demands for greater protections after government’s defeat in the upper house of the British Parliament.
This is due to the Prime Minister’s efforts to put the illegal entry of asylum seekers into UK to a halt. The matter is trailing in polls hence Sunak hopes the move will enable his Conservative Party perform well in the upcoming elections.
With the Lords reinstating parts of the initial changes, Prime Minister Rishi Sunak is under pressure to begin the process of sending asylum applicants to Rwanda before June .
A plan to discourage migrants from traveling across the English Channel to enter Britain is being implemented by the UK government. 29,437 persons many of whom were from Afghanistan and Syria attempted to cross the Channel in small boats in 2022.
In order to “stop the boats,” Prime Minister Sunak has promised to send some asylum seekers to Rwanda, where their claims will be handled. Those who are successful will be granted asylum status and permitted to remain in Rwanda; those who are unsuccessful may apply for asylum in another secure third country.
The “Rwanda Safety” Bill is the UK government’s latest attempt to pass laws allowing deportation to Rwanda. Originally introduced in April 2022, it faced delays and controversy. The UK Supreme Court ruled Rwanda unsafe for asylum seekers, prompting Sunak to introduce the “Safety of Rwanda” measure. The House of Lords’ approval could circumvent the Supreme Court’s decision.
Follow Nekius
visit Nekius Shop
nekius
For a five-year relocation agreement, the UK paid Rwanda 240 million pounds in 2023; the arrangement is estimated to cost the UK a minimum of 370 million pounds overall. Nonetheless, the UK has not dispatched any personnel to Rwanda, a country that endured a violent civil war and the 1994 Rwandan genocide.
The House of Lords has been critical of the bill, with cross-bench peer Lord Alex Carlile comparing Rwanda’s safety to the escalating expenses of transferring asylum seekers. Conservative peer Lord Tugendhat compared the ruling party in George Orwell’s dystopian novel 1984 to the UK government’s assurance of Rwanda’s safety for migrants.
In January, the bill was condemned by Labour’s Lord David Blunkett, who described it as “shoddy and less than this country deserves.” But former leader of the Conservative Party Lord Michael Howard publicly defended the government, claiming that the Supreme Court was infringing on the executive branch’s jurisdiction and that the Supreme Court, not the government, should be held accountable for any violations of the separation of powers.
The “ping-pong” between the two parliamentary chambers, where they battle until the final text is agreed upon, is what brought the law back to the Commons following the Lords’ votes in favor of Sunak’s “Safety of Rwanda” Bill changes.
Members of Parliament may postpone voting on the matter until April 15 as the House of Commons is scheduled to convene for its Easter holiday on March 26. The first parliamentary body to cave in will determine when Sunak will be deported. If elected, the Labour party has pledged to abandon the plans for Rwanda.
