The High Court had rejected it: 'Rwanda' decision for asylum seekers in the UK!

Members of Parliament in the UK have voted in favor of an emergency legislative proposal prepared in recent weeks to revive the plan to send asylum seekers to Rwanda.

The legislative proposal passed its first vote in the House of Commons with a majority of 44. However, the bill is expected to be brought back to the agenda and voted on again in the new year.

THE HIGH COURT HAD CALLED IT ‘UNLAWFUL’

According to a report by BBC Turkish, the High Court in the UK had ruled in November that the government's initial plan to send asylum seekers to Rwanda was unlawful.

In the same ruling, the High Court noted that Rwanda gave the "impression of a country that does not fulfill some of the promises it made regarding the safety of asylum seekers and does not comply with the agreements it has signed."

NEW AGREEMENT WITH RWANDA FROM THE GOVERNMENT

In response, the government signed a new agreement with the Rwandan state to strengthen the asylum process and prepared a new legislative proposal declaring this country "safe."

The government states that the new law is designed to deter migrants from entering the country illegally by boat.

Prime Minister Rishi Sunak aims for those who apply for asylum to be sent to Rwanda and for their applications to be evaluated in that country.

However, before the vote, there were disagreements among Conservative Party MPs regarding the content of the law. Some MPs stated that they would vote against the bill.

While MPs in the Conservative Party who are positioned closer to the left said that the law could be accepted in its current form but must definitely not go any further, MPs on the right of the party argued that the law was insufficient and suggested that the UK should withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights.

In the vote, 313 out of a total of 350 Conservative Party MPs voted in favor of the bill, while 37 abstained. No one voted against it.

In the opposition, the number of those who voted against the bill was 269, and the number of those who abstained was 21.

This vote was considered an opportunity for Rishi Sunak to prove that he has support in parliament. If he had lost the vote, a rebellion could have occurred within his party, and the prime minister's resignation could have been demanded.

WHY DID THE HIGH COURT BLOCK THE FIRST RWANDA PLAN?

UK Prime Minister Rishi Sunak had been aiming for some time to reduce the number of people entering the country illegally by boat across the English Channel.

In the first phase of the Rwanda plan, Sunak was planning for those who applied for asylum to be sent to Rwanda and for their applications to be evaluated in that country.

His initiatives in this direction were thwarted by a decision from the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), which stated, "No one should be sent until the cases filed against this are concluded," just as a plane carrying asylum seekers was about to take off for Rwanda.

Subsequently, the UK High Court ruled unanimously in November that the Rwanda plan was unlawful.

The court stated that asylum seekers sent to Rwanda would be at risk of being sent back to their own countries. This meant a violation of the European Convention on Human Rights, to which the UK is a party, which prohibits torture and inhuman treatment.

The ruling also included concerns regarding Rwanda's poor human rights record and its past treatment of refugees.

The United Nations (UN) High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) stated in information provided to the court that Rwanda had rejected all asylum claims from people coming from Afghanistan, Yemen, and Syria between 2020 and 2022.

The Rwandan government rejected the court's decision and said, "We take our humanitarian responsibilities seriously and will continue to fulfill them."

WHAT IS IN THE NEW PROPOSAL?

The UK government claims that the new legislative proposal, which must be approved by MPs, clearly establishes that Rwanda is a safe country.

The government wants British judges and courts to ignore certain parts of the UK Human Rights Act.

According to the new bill, asylum seekers will be able to object to being sent to Rwanda depending on their personal circumstances.

However, ministers will be able to ignore ECHR orders to block flights to Rwanda while individual cases are ongoing.

Some Conservative politicians think there is a risk that the law will be blocked again by the courts. Others state that the law is contrary to international law.

WHAT DOES THE NEW AGREEMENT WITH RWANDA INCLUDE?

The UK signed a new migration agreement with Rwanda on December 5.

Home Secretary James Cleverly claimed that this agreement guarantees that any person sent to Rwanda to seek asylum will not be at risk of being sent back.

Other parts of the agreement included the following:

• The establishment of a new independent monitoring committee to ensure Rwanda complies with its obligations
• The UK paying for British and Commonwealth judges to preside over a new appeals process
• The UK also paying for the accommodation and living expenses of people placed in Rwanda for up to five years

News Source: 12punto