https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8CSd3_HfnY

The parliamentary logjam that had stalled the legislation for two months was finally broken just after midnight when the unelected House of Lords “recognised the primacy” of the elected House of Commons and dropped the last of its proposed amendments, clearing the way for the bill to become law.

Earlier in the day, Sunak held a rare morning press conference to demand that the Lords stop blocking his key proposal for ending the tide of migrants crossing the English Channel in small boats, promising that both houses of Parliament would remain in session until it was approved.

The legislative stalemate was just the latest hurdle to delay implementation of a plan that has been repeatedly blocked by a series of court rulings and opposition from human rights activists who say it is illegal and inhumane. Migrant advocates have vowed to continue the fight against it.

“For almost two years, our opponents have used every trick in the book to block fights and keep the boats coming,” Sunak told reporters Monday morning in London. “But enough is enough. No more prevarication, no more delay.”

The government plans to deport to Rwanda some of those who enter the United Kingdom illegally as a deterrent to migrants who risk their lives in leaky, inflatable boats in hopes that they will be able to claim asylum once they reach Britain.

Despite Parliament's approval of the legislation, further court challenges may still delay the deportation flights, said Tim Bale, a politics professor at Queen Mary University of London.

“I don’t think it is necessarily home and dry,” he said. “We will see some attempts to block deportations legally.”

Sunak has staked his political future to the deportation flights, making a pledge to “stop the boats” a key part of his pitch to voters as opinion polls show that his Conservative Party trails far behind the Labour Party ahead of a general election later this year.

Next week’s local elections are seen as a barometer for how the parties will fare in the general election.

The debate in Britain comes as countries throughout Western Europe and North America look for ways to slow the rising number of migrants as war, climate change and political oppression force people from their homes.

Small boat crossings are a potent political issue in Britain, where they are seen as evidence of the government’s failure to control immigration.

The number of migrants arriving in Britain on small boats soared to 45,774 in 2022 from just 299 four years earlier as people seeking refuge pay criminal gangs thousands of pounds (dollars) to ferry them across the channel.

Last year, small boat arrivals dropped to 29,437 as the government cracked down on people smugglers and reached an agreement to return Albanians to their home country.

“I think the most important takeaway is quite how desperate the government clearly is to get this piece of legislation through on the grounds that it will enable it to at least make a down payment on its promise to stop the boats,” Bale said.

While Sunak acknowledged that he wouldn’t meet his original deadline of getting the first deportation flights in the air this spring, he blamed the delays on continued resistance from the opposition Labour Party.

On Monday, Sunak said the first flights would take off in 10-12 weeks but refused to provide details about how many people would be deported or exactly when the flights would occur because he said that information could help opponents continue to try to frustrate the policy.

In preparation for the bill’s approval, the government has already chartered planes for the deportation flights, increased detention space, hired more immigration caseworkers and freed up court space to handle appeals, Sunak said.

He also suggested the government was prepared to ignore the European Court of Human Rights if it sought to block the deportations.

“We are ready, plans are in place, and these flights will go come what may,” Sunak said. “No foreign court will stop us from getting flights off.”

The current legislation, known as the Safety of Rwanda Bill, is a response to a UK Supreme Court decision that blocked the deportation flights because the government couldn’t guarantee the safety of migrants sent to Rwanda.

After signing a new treaty with Rwanda to beef up protections for migrants, the government proposed the new legislation declaring Rwanda to be a safe country.

The bill has been stalled in the idiosyncrasies of the British legislative system. The House of Lords is charged with scrutinising and offering amendments to measures approved by the House of Commons, but it doesn’t have the power to block legislation outright.

Take international news everywhere with you! Download the France 24 app

As a result, the Rwanda bill bounced back and forth between the two houses of Parliament, with the Lords repeatedly offering amendments only for them to be rejected by the Commons, which then sent the legislation back to the upper house.

Critics of the government’s policy refused to be drawn on their next move. James Wilson, the director of Detention Action, which campaigns against human rights abuses in the immigration system, urged the public to look past the political stalemate and remember what is at stake.

“Ultimately, the most important points here are not the ins and outs of Parliament, and the things that are happening there,'' he told The Associated Press. "In the end, this is about people. This is about people’s lives.”

https://www.france24.com/en/europe/20240423-uk-parliament-approves-controversial-rwanda-deportation-bill

Why Rwanda? Rwandan government shouldn't have accepted such thing from UK

I sincerely don't know how this will benefit Rwanda

Does Rwanda share border with UK🇬🇧? Are the illegal immigrants from Rwanda?

God1000:
Why Rwanda? Rwandan government shouldn't have accepted such thing from UK

I sincerely don't know how this will benefit Rwanda

What is the nature of your inquiry, or is the content of the preceding post unclear to you? Surely you are the original poster?🤷‍♂️

In the event that the matter is not apparent to you, the post discusses the United Kingdom's strategy to repatriate certain migrants to Rwanda, which forms part of a broader initiative to curb unlawful immigration Following an extensive period of legislative debate, the UK Parliament has ratified a bill sanctioning these expulsions.

Prime Minister Rishi Sunak has been a staunch advocate for this bill, asserting its necessity to halt the influx of migrants traversing the English Channel in diminutive vessels.
The stance of Rwanda on this matter is secondary; the primary concern of the UK government is that this policy will serve to regulate immigration.

What the post says is the policy is designed not solely for the regulation of immigration but also to safeguard individuals by deterring them from embarking on hazardous voyages orchestrated by criminal syndicates.

The Rwandan government on the other hand has stated that it is important for the partnership to adhere to international law standards and has taken objection to being labeled as unsafe. The British government's funding is expected to ensure that asylum seekers sent to Kigali are well taken care of.

It's like an opportunity for Rwanda to strengthen bilateral relations with the UK, receive financial aid, and enhance its international standing by participating in a solution to a global challenge. Rwanda is simply asking for it. Lol

It's stupid for Rwanda to allowed their country to be used as deportation ground for illegal immigrants.

mysticwarrior:
It's stupid for Rwanda to allowed their country to be used as deportation ground for illegal immigrants.

No one is using them as a deportation ground. It's a treaty.
The treaty is an upgrade from the previous memorandum of understanding and aims to address the issues raised by the Supreme Court, which had previously ruled the plans as unlawful.

What the Rwandan government is trying to demonstrate that it is a safe country to send people to, and the treaty includes provisions for the UK to resettle a portion of Rwanda's most vulnerable refugees. Thee treaty specifies that Rwanda will only send people back to the UK if there are issues, with no exhaustive list of reasons provided.

Does this agreement sound forced to you? It's a mutual decision.

You running to a country where peace and stability strive..

Why’d anyone wanna be deported to Rwanda?
I mean
I bet they know Rwanda exists before tryna get into the UK
and I believe getting to Rwanda is easy from the start… since they are going to be using them as a dump site

I don

They will pay them nah

so after crossing Mediterranean sea and getting to france. Cross another sea to England. Na Rwanda deportation next. Number of people crossing to UK will reduce.

How is this deportation beneficial to Rwanda and the deportees.Would they be granted citizenship in Rwanda or temporary stay?

Election is here they are trying everything possible to please their people who feel their country has been overtaken by blacks

OGA PM hell bent on deportation

So?

God1000:
Why Rwanda? Rwandan government shouldn't have accepted such thing from UK

I sincerely don't know how this will benefit Rwanda

Rwanda's government agrees to this deportation plan because of money. They’re getting paid for their services.

UK initiated this scheme, then Denmark followed suit. One thing is clear, Paul Kagame has played his cards so well. The West approves of his "dictatorial" leadership.

Him dey kampe! Nothing dey happen.

Is the Rwandan people happy to let their land be home to deportees who could potentially be criminals.

Why not the UK government send them back to their home countries if you can't accommodate them?

Something is not right here

Rwanda upgraded, a country 35 times smaller than Nigeria in landmass.
Nigeria can't even be given the privilege.

It's better to have sane deportees with some enlightenment than open our borders to marauding Fulani extremists forcing indigenes to sign "peace treaties" before they can farm on their ancestral lands.

Rwanda should just make sure they monitor the jihadists if they are amongst the deportees because anywhere they go, they carry terrorism with them

God1000:
Why Rwanda? Rwandan government shouldn't have accepted such thing from UK

I sincerely don't know how this will benefit Rwanda

The UK government will pay them handsomely

Rwandans about to start having foreign criminals walking free on their street

What happened to deporting the criminals back to their home country

Ok

Good development.

They claim their home countries not being safe, they are taken to Rwanda for temporary hold while their asylum application is processed by UK home office. Those who are successful are flown back to the UK and those who are not, Rwanda will deport to their home countries if they refuse to voluntarily leave....Paul Kaigame sabi pursue person out of Rwanda and UK is paying him for what he likes doing.

This brings more aid to Rwanda, and Britain also turn their eyes away from the alleged human right abuse of Paul kagame

They'll always have a reason for deportation when the are ready, legal or illegal.

Rwanda government don cash out

Botragelad:

What is the nature of your inquiry, or is the content of the preceding post unclear to you? Surely you are the original poster?🤷‍♂️

In the event that the matter is not apparent to you, the post discusses the United Kingdom's strategy to repatriate certain migrants to Rwanda, which forms part of a broader initiative to curb unlawful immigration Following an extensive period of legislative debate, the UK Parliament has ratified a bill sanctioning these expulsions.

Prime Minister Rishi Sunak has been a staunch advocate for this bill, asserting its necessity to halt the influx of migrants traversing the English Channel in diminutive vessels.
The stance of Rwanda on this matter is secondary; the primary concern of the UK government is that this policy will serve to regulate immigration.

What the post says is the policy is designed not solely for the regulation of immigration but also to safeguard individuals by deterring them from embarking on hazardous voyages orchestrated by criminal syndicates.

The Rwandan government on the other hand has stated that it is important for the partnership to adhere to international law standards and has taken objection to being labeled as unsafe. The British government's funding is expected to ensure that asylum seekers sent to Kigali are well taken care of.

It's like an opportunity for Rwanda to strengthen bilateral relations with the UK, receive financial aid, and enhance its international standing by participating in a solution to a global challenge. [b]Rwanda is simply asking for it![/b]Lol

Somehow or the other (and I dont know why) this post of yours comes across as sort of school-prefect-ish, talking down at the OP, or voltron-ish, defending the U.K.

There are reasons why the bill was controversial even in the U.K; and you should not pretend not to know them. Primarily, there is a scent of snobbery in the entire idea of off-loading would be illegal immigrants onto a small third world country, no matter how nicely packaged the idea is.

Jesus Christ is the Lord and Savior

DeepSight:


Somehow or the other (and I dont know why) this post of yours comes across as sort of school-prefect-ish, talking down at the OP, or voltron-ish, defending the U.K.

There are reasons why the bill was controversial even in the U.K; and you should not pretend not to know them. Primarily, there is a scent of snobbery in the entire idea of off-loading would be illegal immigrants onto a small third world country, no matter how nicely packaged the idea is.

Lol. Let's ask Rwanda then!