UK Government Vows to Challenge Court Ruling that its Plan to Send Migrants to Rwanda is Unlawful

(FILES) British Home Secretary Priti Patel (L), and Rwandan Minister of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation Vincent Biruta, sign a migration and economic partnership agreement at Kigali Convention Center, Kigali, Rwanda on April 14, 2022.(Photo by Simon WOHLFAHRT / AFP)
(FILES) British Home Secretary Priti Patel (L), and Rwandan Minister of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation Vincent Biruta, sign a migration and economic partnership agreement at Kigali Convention Center, Kigali, Rwanda on April 14, 2022.(Photo by Simon WOHLFAHRT / AFP)
TT

UK Government Vows to Challenge Court Ruling that its Plan to Send Migrants to Rwanda is Unlawful

(FILES) British Home Secretary Priti Patel (L), and Rwandan Minister of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation Vincent Biruta, sign a migration and economic partnership agreement at Kigali Convention Center, Kigali, Rwanda on April 14, 2022.(Photo by Simon WOHLFAHRT / AFP)
(FILES) British Home Secretary Priti Patel (L), and Rwandan Minister of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation Vincent Biruta, sign a migration and economic partnership agreement at Kigali Convention Center, Kigali, Rwanda on April 14, 2022.(Photo by Simon WOHLFAHRT / AFP)

A British court ruled Thursday that a UK government plan to send asylum-seekers on a one-way trip to Rwanda is unlawful, delivering a blow to the Conservative administration's pledge to stop migrants making risky journeys across the English Channel.

In a split two-to-one ruling, three Court of Appeal judges said Rwanda could not be considered a “safe third country” where migrants from any country could be sent, The Associated Press said.

But the judges said that a policy of deporting asylum seekers to another country deemed safe was not in itself illegal, and the government said it would challenge the ruling at the UK Supreme Court. It has until July 6 to lodge an appeal.

Prime Minister Rishi Sunak said that “while I respect the court I fundamentally disagree with their conclusions.”

Sunak has pledged to “stop the boats” — a reference to the overcrowded dinghies and other small craft that make the journey from northern France carrying migrants who hope to live in the UK. More than 45,000 people arrived in Britain across the Channel in 2022, and several died in the attempt.

The UK and Rwandan governments agreed more than a year ago that some migrants who arrive in the UK as stowaways or in small boats would be sent to Rwanda, where their asylum claims would be processed. Those granted asylum would stay in the East African country rather than return to Britain.

The UK government argues that the policy will smash the business model of criminal gangs that ferry migrants on hazardous journeys across one of the world’s busiest shipping lanes.

Home Secretary Suella Braverman, who is known for her hardline rhetoric about migrants, said after the ruling that the existing asylum system “incentivizes mass flows of economic migration into Europe, lining the pockets of people smugglers and turning our seas into graveyards, all in the name of a phony humanitarianism.”

Human rights groups say it is immoral and inhumane to send people more than 4,000 miles (6,400 kilometers) to a country they don’t want to live in, and argue that most Channel migrants are desperate people who have no authorized way to come to the UK They also cite Rwanda’s poor human rights record, including allegations of torture and killings of government opponents.

Yasmine Ahmed, UK director of Human Rights Watch, welcomed the verdict and urged Braverman to “abandon this unworkable and unethical fever dream of a policy and focus her efforts on fixing our broken and neglected migration system.”

Britain has already paid Rwanda 140 million pounds ($170 million) under the deal, but no one has yet been deported there.

Britain's High Court ruled in December that the policy is legal and doesn't breach Britain’s obligations under the UN Refugee Convention or other international agreements.

But the court allowed a group of claimants, who include asylum-seekers from Iraq, Iran and Syria facing deportation under the government plan, to challenge that decision on issues including whether the plan is “systemically unfair” and whether asylum-seekers would be safe in Rwanda.

In a partial victory for the government, the appeals court ruled Thursday that the UK’s international obligations did not rule out removing asylum-seekers to a safe third country.

But two of the three ruled Rwanda was not safe because its asylum system had “serious deficiencies.” They said asylum seekers “would face a real risk of being returned to their countries of origin,” where they could be mistreated.

Lord Chief Justice Ian Burnett, the most senior judge in England and Wales, disagreed with his two colleagues. He said assurances given by the Rwandan government were enough to ensure the migrants would be safe.

Rwanda insisted the nation is “one of the safest countries in the world.”

“As a society, and as a government, we have built a safe, secure, dignified environment, in which migrants and refugees have equal rights and opportunities as Rwandans," said government spokeswoman Yolande Makolo. "Everyone relocated here under this partnership will benefit from this."

However, Rwanda opposition leader Frank Habineza said Britain should not seek to foist its responsibilities on refugees.

“The UK is a bigger country than Rwanda, huge resources, unlike impoverished Rwanda," he said. “Sending migrants to Rwanda, the UK will be relinquishing responsibility of protecting those running to the UK for safety.”

Even if the plan is ultimately ruled legal, it's unclear how many people could be sent to Rwanda. The government's own assessment acknowledges it would be extremely expensive, coming in at an estimated 169,000 pounds ($214,000) per person.

But it is doubling down on the idea, drafting legislation barring anyone who arrives in the UK in small boats or by other unauthorized means from applying for asylum. If passed, the bill would compel the government to detain all such arrivals and deport them to their homeland or a safe third country.

Refugee law expert David Cantor said the ruling would “send a ripple effect more widely through this idea of sending asylum seekers to third countries.”

“Any country that might wish to enter into this kind of memorandum with the UK government, as Rwanda did, would equally be quite likely to be a government which had weak asylum procedures, (where) there were questions about safety in the country,” said Cantor, director of the Refugee Law Initiative at the University of London’s School of Advanced Study.

He said the UK "has had negotiations with many countries which do have robust court structures and asylum procedures, and there’s very little willingness there to contemplate these sorts of schemes.”



The Seven States That Will Decide the US Presidency

Voters are reflected in a window near an American flag as they mark their ballots during early voting in the general election, Friday, Nov. 1, 2024, at City Hall in Providence, R.I. (AP)
Voters are reflected in a window near an American flag as they mark their ballots during early voting in the general election, Friday, Nov. 1, 2024, at City Hall in Providence, R.I. (AP)
TT

The Seven States That Will Decide the US Presidency

Voters are reflected in a window near an American flag as they mark their ballots during early voting in the general election, Friday, Nov. 1, 2024, at City Hall in Providence, R.I. (AP)
Voters are reflected in a window near an American flag as they mark their ballots during early voting in the general election, Friday, Nov. 1, 2024, at City Hall in Providence, R.I. (AP)

US Vice President Kamala Harris and former president Donald Trump are hurtling toward their November 5 election showdown, one of the closest contests in modern American history.

And in the handful of critical states framing the 2024 race, there is little daylight between the rivals with barely a week before Election Day.

Under the US Constitution, America's founding fathers established that each of the 50 states would hold its own vote for president.

Under the complex Electoral College system, each state has a certain number of "electors," based on population. Most states have a winner-take-all system that awards all electors to whoever wins the popular vote.

With candidates needing 270 of the 538 electoral votes to win, elections tend to be decided in the hotly contested "swing states" with a history of alternating between Republican and Democratic candidates.

This year, there are seven such battlegrounds, and every one is a toss-up within the margin of error. Here is a look:

- Pennsylvania (19 Electoral College votes) -

Pennsylvania was once reliably Democratic, but these days, they don't come much tighter than the Keystone State.

Republican Trump won the most populous battleground, with 13 million residents, by 0.7 percentage points in 2016. Joe Biden claimed it by 1.2 percentage points in 2020.

Known for its "Rust Belt" cities like Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania has been blighted for decades by the steady decline of its industrial manufacturing base.

Trump and Harris have campaigned repeatedly in the eastern state, where the pair held their one and only presidential debate. Trump, who survived an assassination attempt at a July rally in Pennsylvania, is courting the rural white population and warning that migrants are overwhelming small towns.

Harris is touting recent infrastructure wins, and in Pittsburgh she outlined plans to invest $100 billion in manufacturing, a key issue for state residents.

- Georgia (16) -

This southeastern state was an election flashpoint at the end of Trump's first term, and the controversy simmers.

Prosecutors in Georgia indicted Trump in an election interference case after he called state officials urging them to "find" enough votes to overturn Biden's narrow 2020 victory.

But in a boost for Trump, the case is paused until after the election.

Biden was the first Democrat to win the Peach State since 1992. Demographic changes are likely to benefit Harris, who has courted minority voters across Georgia.

- North Carolina (16) -

The southeastern state has voted Democratic only once since 1980, but Harris believes it's back in play.

The population, now over 10 million, is expanding and growing more diverse, benefiting Democrats.

Complicating matters for Trump, a scandal involving the state's Republican gubernatorial candidate has infuriated party officials who worry it could sink Trump in a close race.

As in neighboring Georgia, one wild card is how the devastation from storm Helene, which recently laid waste to towns in western North Carolina, might impact the vote.

- Michigan (15) -

Trump flipped Michigan, a former Democratic stronghold, on his way to defeating Hillary Clinton in 2016.

Biden returned it to the blue column in 2020, buoyed by unionized workers and a large Black community.

But this time, Harris risks losing the support of a 200,000-strong Arab-American community that has denounced Biden's -- and by extension her -- handling of the Israel-Hamas war in Gaza.

- Arizona (11) -

The Grand Canyon state was among 2020's tightest races, with Biden triumphing by just 10,457 votes.

Trump hopes frustrations over the Biden-Harris administration's immigration policy will swing Arizona, which shares a border with Mexico, back in his favor.

Harris visited Arizona's border in September vowing to crack down on migration and work on reviving last year's bipartisan border bill, which she said Trump "tanked" for political purposes.

- Wisconsin (10) -

Clinton lost Wisconsin after giving the state a wide berth during the 2016 campaign.

As with Midwestern neighbor Michigan, it was a different story when Trump's opponent was Biden, who turned a 23,000-vote deficit into a winning margin of 21,000 for Democrats.

Trump considers it winnable, and his party held its summer national convention there.

While Trump led early against Biden, Harris has made the state race a nailbiter.

- Nevada (6) -

The Silver State, with a population of 3.1 million, hasn't voted Republican since 2004. Conservatives, buoyed by Trump's headway with Hispanic voters, are convinced they can flip the script.

Trump held a significant lead here against Biden.

But within weeks of becoming the Democratic nominee, Harris -- promoting her economic plans to help small businesses and combat inflation -- has erased that advantage in the western state, whose largest city Las Vegas is dominated by the hospitality industry.