The government received court approval to send migrants to Rwanda. But most of those who should have been on the ship remain in the UK.
In separate legal proceedings, the correspondence was suspended following individual assessments. now according to Sky News Only seven asylum seekers will leave tonight. Among the passengers are Iranians, Iraqis, Albanians and Syrians.
During the day, the two’s demands to remain in the UK were denied. Two cases remain.
The government says those who do not travel now will be sent on a later plane.
The agreement with Rwanda met with criticism from several quarters. The people NRK meets in London are also appalled.
– It’s incredible. Imagine if it was you and you were sent to Africa! It’s a tough idea, says Marilyn Baxter.
While a woman who does not want to say her name has a different opinion.
– I think it’s a great idea. They cannot continue to cross the English Channel.
So far this year, about 10,000 immigrants have crossed the canal. 3,500 of them arrived after the deportation agreement with Rwanda became known. The agreement is intended to scare people from making the dangerous boat trip from France to the United Kingdom.
Shame on Britain
Today, 25 bishops of the Church of England are coming out with sharp criticism of the plan in a speech in times.
There they write that the plan is “an immoral disgrace to Britain”.
– Whether the first transmitter plane went or not today, this policy is a disgrace to the nation. Shame on us, because our Christian heritage should inspire us to treat asylum seekers with compassion and justice, as we have done for centuries, they wrote.
According to the Daily Mail and The Times, Crown Prince Charles also described the law as “terrible”. People have demonstrated in several cities.
Human rights organizations in the UK have attempted to legally challenge the law. But the case was dismissed in the courts.
New court round in July
At the end of July, judges will review the entire agreement. If they believe it is illegal, migrants potentially sent to Rwanda can be sent back.
The UK is said to have paid Rwanda 120 million pounds, or about 1.5 billion Norwegian kroner, for the agreement. The agreement must have a trial period of five years.
Those who have been deported have their asylum claims processed in Rwanda. If they were entitled to asylum, they would get it in Rwanda, not in the UK.
According to the British Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, the law should act as a deterrent to those who traffic people through the canal.
“I don’t think we should support the continued activity of criminal gangs,” Boris Johnson told LBC Radio.
But people are wondering how effective this horror is. Also yesterday, migrants came by sea to the UK, and traffic has continued to be crowded since the Convention became known.
accused of human rights violations
“Rwanda wants to ensure that everyone is treated with dignity and respect and given the opportunity to create a life here if they so desire,” said a spokesman for the Rwandan authorities, Yolande Makolo.
An assessment from the United Kingdom determined that there was no “significant basis” to believe that refugees could be mistreated in Rwanda.
On the other hand, human rights organizations and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees think otherwise.
Rwanda already hosts a large number of refugees from neighboring African countries.
Human Rights Watch She has previously criticized Rwanda for its mistreatment of refugees. Among other things, they refer to murder 12 Congolese refugees From the police during a demonstration in 2018.
Although Rwanda has generously provided a safe haven for refugees fleeing conflict and persecution for decades, most live in camps with limited economic opportunities, the UN High Commissioner for Refugees wrote. In a press release.
Britain has also been criticized by people who believe the agreement is a violation of the UN Refugee Convention. Asylum seekers are not forcibly sent to unsafe areas.
“Coffee trailblazer. Certified pop culture lover. Infuriatingly humble gamer.”