This article is from the source 'nytimes' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/15/world/europe/uk-asylum-seekers-rwanda.html

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
U.K. Vows to Press Ahead With Rwanda Deportations U.K. Vows to Press Ahead With Deportations to Rwanda
(about 5 hours later)
LONDON — The British government on Wednesday promised to press on with plans to send asylum seekers to Rwanda, a day after a flight scheduled to take the first group was grounded at the last minute by legal challenges. LONDON — The plane was preparing for take off, and the small group on board seemed destined to become the first asylum seekers flown 4,000 miles to Rwanda under Britain’s new hard-line migration policy.
Speaking in Parliament, the British home secretary, Priti Patel, labeled the decision from the European Court of Human Rights to stop the flight “disappointing and surprising” and described the court’s workings as “opaque.” But she said that the British government remained committed to its deportation policy. Then came the reprieve.
Preparation for future flights had already begun, Ms. Patel said, adding, “Inaction is not an option, at least not a morally responsible one.” “It was a relief, a gift from God,” said one man, who was on the plane and who spoke on condition that only his nickname, Ali, was used, as he described how he learned that the flight from a British military air base was canceled and he was told to disembark. Britain’s High Court has required that all claimants in the continuing asylum cases remain anonymous, according to Ali’s lawyer, Toufique Hossain.
The comments followed a day that saw legal challenges in several courts and that ended with a moment of high drama when a ruling from the European Court of Human Rights ultimately prevented the departure of a plane bound for Kigali, the Rwandan capital, from a British military air base. The flight Tuesday was grounded after a last-minute intervention from the European Court of Human Rights, in a significant blow to a British government policy that is intended to deter asylum seekers from arriving in Britain from France.
The plans by Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s government to send asylum seekers to Rwanda have been condemned as inhumane and impractical by advocacy groups, church leaders and — according to British news reports — Prince Charles, the heir to the British throne. The hours leading up to the cancellation of the flight had made it “one of the more horrifying nights of my life,” Ali, an asylum seeker from Iran, said in a phone interview from an immigration center in London where he is now being held.
The ruling from the European Court of Human Rights was instrumental in stopping the deportations, prompting complaints within Mr. Johnson’s Conservative Party about the role of the court in Britain. The court is part of the Council of Europe, of which Britain is a member, rather than the European Union, which it has left. “I was in disbelief: I had run from my country to save my life. I came here seeking justice and safety, but instead was met with psychological torture,” he added, speaking through an interpreter. The details of his account were confirmed by Mr. Hossain, his lawyer, and Care4Calais, an aid group that helps refugees in Britain.
On Tuesday, Mr. Johnson seemed to hint that he was considering trying to remove Britain from the remit of the court, an idea that was played down by some ministers in interviews on Wednesday. Speaking on Sky News, the work and pensions secretary, Thérèse Coffey, said that she was “not aware of any decisions or hints even about that,” though Downing Street later said that all options were on the table. On Wednesday, the ruling from the European court prompted a fierce debate within the Conservative Party of Prime Minister Boris Johnson about whether Britain should remove itself from the remit of the court, which is part of the Council of Europe, and not the European Union, which Britain has left. Though some ministers played down the idea of making such changes, Downing Street said all options remained on the table.
The government’s immediate focus was now said to be to study the variety of rulings made in cases brought by asylum seekers and to seek a legal path to proceed with another flight to Rwanda soon. Priti Patel, the home secretary, promised to press ahead with the policy of sending asylum seekers to Rwanda, labeling the decision from the European Court of Human Rights to stop the flight “disappointing and surprising” and describing the court’s workings as “opaque.”
Ms. Coffey said that she was “highly confident” a flight would proceed. She said it was likely that Britain would go back to the European Court of Human Rights to challenge the ruling from Tuesday “because British judges have made the decision, said that these flights would go ahead, and I still think that’s the best thing that can happen.” “We believe that we are fully compliant with our domestic and international obligations, and preparations for our future flights and the next flights have already begun,” she said in Parliament. Inaction was “not an option, at least not a morally responsible one,” she added, because Britain had a duty to deter people from making the dangerous crossing on small, often unseaworthy, boats across one of the world’s busiest shipping lanes.
Ms. Patel, the home secretary, said in a statement late Tuesday that she would “not be deterred from doing the right thing and delivering our plans to control our nation’s borders. Our legal team are reviewing every decision made on this flight and preparation for the next flight begins now.” Ali is one of those people. He traveled through Turkey and Greece to France and arrived in Britain on a small dinghy packed with about 40 people in early May. A convert to Christianity, he fled Iran in 2019 after he hosted prayer groups at his home, putting him at risk of a death sentence, he said. With the police looking for him, his family told him he had no choice but to flee, he added.
Rights groups reacted with relief to the decision to ground the flight, which they had feared would leave on Tuesday with a handful of asylum seekers after the British Supreme Court refused a request to intervene to stop it. However, the legal battles are certain to continue and the legality of the policy will be challenged in court next month. His experience mirrored that of a refugee from Iraq who was also scheduled to be deported on Tuesday and whose case was cited by the European Court of Human Rights as legal grounds for halting the flight.
Though frustrated by the intervention of the courts, Mr. Johnson is unlikely to have been surprised. When he announced the policy in April, he admitted that it was likely to face legal challenges. According to the court, the Iraqi refugee, who is referred to as KN, had claimed asylum in Britain on May 17 after arriving by boat from Europe. On June 6, he was notified that his asylum claim “had been deemed inadmissible” and that he would be sent to Rwanda instead. The court ruling on Tuesday said that removal to the African country would pose a “real risk of irreversible harm” to KN, who had claimed “he was in danger in Iraq,” where he had been a victim of torture, according to a medical report cited by the court.
That has led critics to claim the policy was brought in mainly for political reasons and was intended to make the government look tough on immigration. The impact of Mr. Johnson’s policy on asylum seekers escaping such situations has prompted condemnation from advocacy groups, church leaders and — according to British news reports — Prince Charles, the heir to the British throne.
The British government has been embarrassed by the arrival of a small but steady number of asylum seekers from France, who have been crossing the English Channel on small, often unseaworthy boats. Rights groups reacted with relief to the decision to ground the flight, which they had feared would leave on Tuesday with a handful of asylum seekers after the British Supreme Court refused a request to intervene to stop it.
For Mr. Johnson, who campaigned for Brexit and promised to “take back control” of Britain’s borders, the channel crossings have been a highly visible sign of his ineffectiveness on the issue. Though frustrated by the intervention of the courts, Mr. Johnson is unlikely to have been surprised. When he announced the policy in April, he admitted that it was likely to face legal challenges and that has led critics to claim that it was brought in mainly for political reasons and was intended to make the government look tough on immigration.
The flight to Rwanda on Tuesday had been chartered at a cost of up to 500,000 pounds, or about $600,000, according to British news reports, and Ms. Patel refused to say whether that money, or any part of it, would be recouped. Yvette Cooper, who speaks for the opposition Labour Party on home affairs, described the episode as a “shambles.” Mr. Johnson campaigned for Brexit and promised to “take back control” of Britain’s borders, and for him the channel crossings have been a highly visible sign of his ineffectiveness on the issue.
The government argues that none of its critics have a solution for solving the problem of the channel crossings. It says the prospect of deportation to Rwanda will deter people from attempting such journeys by small boat, destroying the business model of people smugglers. The government argues that none of its critics have a solution for solving the problem of channel crossings. It says the prospect of deportation to Rwanda will deter people from attempting such journeys by small boat, destroying the business model of people smugglers, though there is no evidence for that yet.
Critics contend that the Rwanda policy is unworkable as well as unethical. They point to the cost of the flight that never left the ground on Tuesday, estimated at 500,000 pounds, or about $600,000, by British news reports. Ms. Patel refused On Wednesday to say whether that money, or any part of it, would be recouped and Yvette Cooper, who speaks for the opposition Labour Party on home affairs, described the episode as a “shambles.”
A challenge to the legality of the policy is expected to be heard next month, but the government could try to place asylum seekers on another flight to Rwanda before then if it can find a legal path to do so.
If that happens, those facing deportation can expect to be given a plane ticket and malaria pills, Ali said. He described how, on Tuesday, his phone was confiscated and he was taken with six others to a room where they were strip-searched for any dangerous tools or materials they might use to harm themselves.
At around 3 p.m., the group was driven in two vans to an airfield where, after waiting in the van for at least four hours, Ali said he began to break down and sob.
“I realized that they were taking me away from my family — I felt helpless,” he said. A guard asked if he was getting angry and would become violent, he said.
“I told him that I came to this country to live in freedom and peace, not to cause harm,” he said.
Although he remains in Britain, the threat of deportation had left its mark. “Every day leading up to the departure date felt like I was nearing my own execution,” he said.