The aim of the proposed law is to send asylum seekers from Britain to Rwanda to await an asylum decision.
In Britain, the government’s bill on sending migrants to Rwanda has passed the parliamentary hearings.
Earlier on Monday, the proposal was discussed by both the upper and lower houses of the parliament. However, early on Tuesday Finnish time, the Upper House did not present any more changes to the proposal returned by the Lower House. This means that the proposal is accepted and the king Charles’s is to enact it into law.
However, several non-governmental organizations have recently announced that they intend to take action to oppose the sending of people to Rwanda. If the organizations choose the legal route for their countermeasures, it means that we will not see people being flown to Rwanda until the courts have given their decision on the matter.
The aim of the proposed law is to send asylum seekers from Britain to Rwanda to await an asylum decision. However, the decision would only give them the right to stay in Rwanda.
Hopefully a deterrent effect
The aim of the proposed law is to send asylum seekers from Britain to Rwanda to await an asylum decision. However, the ruling would only give them the right to stay in Rwanda, not Britain. Prime minister Rishi Sunak has defended the bill by characterizing it as providing a deterrent effect for asylum seekers heading to Britain.
For example, the British Supreme Court has considered sending asylum seekers to Rwanda illegal.
On Monday, before the parliamentary votes, Sunak vowed that the flights to Rwanda would take place.
– Too much is too much. No more squirming. No more delay, Sunak said at a press conference before the parliament was to approve a key part of the proposal.
He said he believed there were several flights a month to Rwanda during the summer months.
The main opposition party Labor recently criticized the passage of the law. Member of Parliament of the party Yvette Cooper called the proposal a shockingly expensive election campaign that will not solve the problems associated with asylum seekers arriving in Britain by small boats.
The bill has also been criticized in the past because of its costs. For example, according to a parliamentary body that tracks government spending, the Rwanda program costs nearly two million pounds per asylum seeker sent to Rwanda, Guardian has told. Britain has also promised to pay 370 million pounds over five years, even if not a single person is sent to Rwanda.
Source: AFP