This is a preview of Migration Watch’s free weekly newsletter. Please consider signing up to the newsletter directly, you can do so here and will receive an email copy of the newsletter every Friday as soon as it is released.
On Wednesday, a staggering 711 migrants made the perilous journey across the English Channel, marking the highest number on a single day this year. With this latest surge, the total for this year has soared to 8,278, a whopping 34 percent jump from last year’s tally at the same point, and a 19 percent spike from the numbers in 2022. At this rate, we are heading for over 50,000 by year’s end.
Wait a minute, didn’t the House of Lords, after much brouhaha over the Safety of Rwanda Bill, finally relent and pass it into law? The UN High Commissioner for Refugees and Council of Europe’s Commissioner for Human Rights have raised their eyebrows, warning of ‘dangerous’ precedents and concerns about human rights. Perhaps it has finally dawned on them that the old playbook on refugees is on the way to being rewritten.
The Rwanda Plan, if implemented properly and speedily, could indeed be a game-changer. It has the potential to make crossing the English Channel a fool’s errand for, at least some, illegal migrants. Some have already been setting up camp outside Dublin’s asylum office, allegedly, fearing deportation to Rwanda. On the other hand, it seems 711 of them were not discouraged from coming.
The Rwanda plan is still in its infancy. Only one person has been sent to Kigali, and he wasn’t exactly dragged onto the plane kicking and screaming; he was paid a cool £3000 to leave voluntarily. But the road ahead for the government is fraught with obstacles. There will be legal challenges for sure and these could stymie deportations, with appeals based on claims that individual deportees could face “serious irreversible harm” in Rwanda.
This potential loophole is tucked into clause 4 of the Safety of Rwanda Act. But what exactly constitutes “serious irreversible harm”? Will judges establish a high threshold for “serious irreversible harm,” as Mr. Sunak contends? Or will the bar set exceptionally low? Only time will tell.
While the Safety of Rwanda Act effectively disapplies large chunks of the Human Rights Act it overlooked Section 4. This oversight means opponents of the Rwanda plan can still take it to court, on the basis that it violates human rights. This in turn, potentially, allows the courts to question Parliament’s decision on Rwanda’s safety. How will this play out in the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) down the line?
This is a preview of Migration Watch’s free weekly newsletter. Please consider signing up to the newsletter directly, you can do so here and will receive an email copy of the newsletter every Friday as soon as it is released.