LONDON, June 15 (BNA) Britain canceled a flight that was due to deport asylum seekers to Rwanda late Tuesday after the European Court of Human Rights intervened, saying the plan carried a “real risk of causing irreversible harm”.
The decision to cancel the trip capped three days of frantic judicial appeals from immigrant rights lawyers who launched a series of case-by-case appeals seeking to prevent deportation of all those on the government’s list, according to the Associated Press.
British government officials said earlier today that the plane will take off regardless of the number of people on board. But after the appeal, no one was left. British media reported that the number of potential deportees exceeded 30 on Friday.
After the flight was canceled, Home Secretary Priti Patel said she was disappointed but “would not be deterred from doing the right thing”. “Our legal team reviews every decision made on this flight and begins preparing for the next one now,” she added.
Prime Minister Boris Johnson flatly defended Britain’s plan, arguing that it was a legitimate way to protect lives and thwart criminal gangs smuggling migrants across the English Channel in small boats. Britain has seen in recent years an illegal influx of immigrants from places such as Syria, Afghanistan, Iran, Sudan, Iraq and Yemen.
Johnson announced a deal with Rwanda in April under which people who enter Britain illegally will be deported to the East African country. In exchange for its acceptance, Rwanda will receive development aid worth millions of pounds. Deportees will be allowed to apply for asylum in Rwanda, not Britain.
Opponents argued that it was illegal and inhumane to send people thousands of miles to a country in which they did not want to live. English Church leaders joined the opposition, calling the government’s policy “immoral”. Prince Charles was among the opponents, according to British news reports.
Activists have denounced the policy as an assault on the rights of refugees that most countries have recognized since the end of World War II.
Refugee Council chief executive Ennoor Solomon said the British government’s threat of deportation would not act as a deterrent to those seeking safety in the UK.
“The government should immediately rethink by having a conversation with France and the European Union about sharing responsibility and looking to run an orderly, humane and fair asylum system,” Solomon said.
The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees condemned the plan out of concern that other countries will follow suit as wars, repression and natural disasters force a growing number of people from their homes.
Politicians in Denmark and Austria are considering similar proposals. Australia has operated an asylum processing center on the Pacific island of Nauru since 2012.
“Globally, this unwarranted punitive deal condones the dispossession of the right to seek asylum in rich countries,” said Maurizio El Bahari, a migration expert at the University of Notre Dame in Indiana, describing UK policy.
Millions of people have been displaced around the world over the past two decades, putting the international consensus on refugees under strain.
There were more than 26 million refugees in the world in the middle of last year, more than double the number two decades ago, according to the United Nations refugee agency. Millions more have left their homes voluntarily in search of economic opportunities in developed countries.
In Britain, these pressures have led to an increase in the number of people crossing the English Channel in leaky inflatable boats, with sometimes disastrous consequences. Last November, 27 people died when their boat sank in the waters between France and England.
Johnson, who is fighting for his political life amid concerns about his leadership and morals, responded by promising to halt such perilous journeys.
The British government says that while Rwanda was the scene of the genocide that killed hundreds of thousands of people in 1994, the country has built a reputation for stability and economic progress since then. Critics say stability comes at the expense of political repression.
Filippo Grandi, the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, attacked the policy, calling it “all wrong”.
Grande said that if the British government was really interested in protecting lives, it should work with other countries to target smugglers and provide safe routes for asylum seekers, not just move migrants to other countries.
“The precedent this set is disastrous for a concept that needs to be shared, like asylum,” Grandi said on Monday.
The Archbishop of Canterbury and 24 other bishops of the Church of England have joined the chorus of voices calling on the government to reconsider the “immoral policy that disgraces Britain”.
The bishops wrote in a letter to the Times of London: “Our Christian heritage must inspire us to deal with asylum seekers with compassion, fairness and justice, as we have done for centuries.”
Britain’s Supreme Court refused to hear a final appeal Tuesday, a day after two lower courts refused to block the deportations. However, legal challenges persisted, with attorneys filing case-by-case appeals on behalf of individual immigrants.
Many immigrants prefer Britain as a destination for reasons of language or family ties, or because it is seen as an open economy with more opportunities than other European countries.
When Britain was a member of the European Union, it was part of a system that required refugees to seek asylum in the first safe country they entered.
Those who have arrived in Britain can be returned to the European Union countries from which they traveled. Britain lost this option when it left the European Union two years ago.
Since then, the British and French governments have worked to stop the flights with a great deal of bickering and have not had much success. More than 28,000 migrants entered Britain on small boats last year, up from 8,500 in 2020.
Nando Seguna, a migration expert at the University of Birmingham, said big principles would be at stake if Rwandan politics were to stand.
“How can we establish any kind of high moral principles where we interfere in other countries if we are not signed on to provide protection to those fleeing war and persecution?” Segona asked.