We are all too aware here at the Next Century Foundation, of the shenanigans regarding UK migration law. This matters to us because as a Foreign Affairs think-tank, it impacts all of the conflict zones with which we work. It is not for us to judge the rightness or wrongness of the UK’s migration policies. It would be against UK charitable law for us to do so. But we can and do say that it as about time this issue was sorted. The following article reflects the perspective and response of one member of the NCF team, Ms Shristi Sharma:

The verdict at the High Court judging the UK’s Rwanda policy unlawful was rendered the day after Premier Sunak was charged by former home secretary Suella Braverman with abandoning the country by breaking a covert agreement to disregard decisions made under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

In response, the government said that it would:

1. negotiate a treaty with Rwanda that would include further protections;
2. provide “emergency legislation to confirm Rwanda is safe.”

There are significant differences between the earlier memorandum of agreement that the Supreme Court reviewed and the new treaty that was signed by Rwanda’s foreign minister and home secretary James Cleverly.

First of all, according to international law, it is a “formal” treaty that binds the two nations. This indicates that it will be examined by the parliament under the 2010 Constitutional Reform and Governance Act. The treaty can be ratified once the administration presents it to both Houses of Parliament for 21 days, unless the Commons objects.

Second, the treaty includes several important additional guarantees and protections regarding the treatment of individuals deported from the United Kingdom to Rwanda and the processing of their asylum requests. The pact specifically states that Rwanda cannot return a relocated person to any other nation (even if they are denied refugee status) unless the UK specifically demands it. A new appeal body, a combined group to explore best practice, and an independent monitoring committee are also planned.

There may very well be more legal challenges, even if the law is enacted in its current form and the treaty is implemented. As previously stated, the measure permits challenges based on a person’s unique circumstances and claims under section 4 of the Human Rights Act. Other types of challenge are not out of the question, for instance should strong evidence surface indicating that the Rwandan government is consistently breaking the terms of the agreement. The Supreme Court ruled that Rwanda’s “procedures, understanding, and culture” required “significant changes.” It expressed doubts about whether the required modifications could be made “in the short term” and stated that they “may not be straightforward.”

Suella Braverman’s suggestions regarding limiting numbers reflect her distinct goals. Her agenda includes capping the amount of dependents a refugee may bring with them. And the British government has embraced that goal. She has put them in a bit of a bind and has greatly increased discussion on the refugee problem.

My Answer

My personal recommendations advocate a comprehensive approach to address challenges in the UK’s migration system for a more effective and compassionate migration strategy:

1. Firstly, there’s a call to facilitate family reunification by granting immediate right to remain for asylum seekers at French ports with verifiable sponsorship from a UK-based family member.
2. Registered asylum seekers should have the right to work, alleviating taxpayer burdens.
3. Improved international cooperation is necessary, and we propose a pan-European agreement for the equitable distribution of asylum seekers.
4. To combat smuggling, the UK and France should prioritize reducing small boat crossings and swiftly process boat migrants.
5. Backlog issues require streamlined processes and increased staffing, demonstrating commitment to protecting asylum seekers’ rights.
6. A compassionate approach towards children under 16 is recommended, with an automatic right to asylum.
7. Fast-track processing for migrants from crisis-stricken nations
8. Rescinding the right of family members to accompany overseas students

The Supreme Court’s ruling to overturn the illegal immigration programme is a praiseworthy defence of justice, human rights, and the rule of law. It makes it quite evident that political goals cannot take precedence over the core values upholding the rights and dignity of marginalised groups fleeing for their lives. Although the ruling might not have an immediate effect on the logistical obstacles preventing migrants from being returned to Rwanda, it has important ramifications for further court cases, possibly in the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) in Strasbourg.

A demand for moderation in the use of anti-ECHR rhetoric is part of the government’s critical response to the verdict. The UK government ought to see the decision—regardless of the result—as a chance to restate its dedication to the rule of law, which is based on international treaties and duties in addition to the Convention on Human Rights. As some have indicated, the UK’s soft power and international reputation may suffer greatly if it were to withdraw from the ECHR.

The stakes on this subject are increased by the urgency created by the Illegal Migration Act’s accelerated passage through Parliament. De-escalating rhetoric and using diplomacy to develop global solutions to the small boats crisis, however, are urgently needed.

Although recent attacks on globally recognised institutions and treaties may appease home audiences, there is a chance that they may harm the UK’s reputation in Europe and undermine the basis for future discussions. The requests made by former Prime Minister Boris Johnson for “Europe-wide solutions” will not materialise until this administration exhibits a resolute adherence to the rule of law on a national and worldwide level. Any suggestion that the ECHR is being undermined jeopardises not just diplomatic efforts but also the UK’s standing internationally.

As the government navigates the intricate interplay of law, politics, and foreign relations, it must acknowledge that maintaining legal frameworks and engaging in constructive diplomacy is critical to building strong alliances and resolving urgent issues.

The ruling by the UK Supreme Court that Rwanda is not a safe haven for migrants dealt a severe blow to the British Government. Ms. Braverman had previously declared that sending asylum seekers to Rwanda was her “dream” and was an active supporter of the repatriation scheme. Additionally, she has maintained that Britain needs to be ready to modify or even withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights. She accused Premier Sunak of breaking a confidential pledge to pursue legal action to overturn the convention, the Human Rights Act, and other international laws that she claimed “had thus far obstructed progress” on halting the boats.

READ THE JUDGEMENT HERE

Excerpt:

The Supreme Court of Britain ruled in a landmark decision that the government’s deportation strategy of asylum seekers to Rwanda was illegal. This ruling not only undermines the long-standing agenda of the Conservative administration, but it also highlights how crucial it is to respect both national and international legal commitments pertaining to refugee protection. Speaking on behalf of the court, Justice Robert Reed emphasised the danger of “refoulement” that asylum seekers suffer if they are repatriated to Rwanda, endorsing the Court of Appeal’s earlier ruling. This danger breaches both national and international law since it puts real refugees at risk of being sent back to their home countries and maybe facing violence. Judge Reed also pointed out that there are now insufficient safeguards, refuting the idea that the policy could be implemented without endangering the rights and safety of those seeking refuge.

In conclusion, justice, human rights, and international law are all upheld by the Supreme Court’s ruling to invalidate the current illegal asylum policy. It makes it very evident that laws must be upheld and conventions must be followed when it comes to government policy, particularly when it comes to vulnerable groups like asylum seekers.

The idea of leaving the European Convention on Human Rights has to be carefully considered in light of this decision. This would be a change that would have far-reaching effects.

Braverman’s declared preference for sending asylum seekers to Rwanda, together with her suggestion that the European Convention on Human Rights be abandoned, suggests a worrisome lack of respect for long-standing international legal norms. The Supreme Court’s decision to reject these arguments and emphasise how crucial it is to uphold human rights obligations is encouraging. From the start, the contentious Rwanda policy was widely criticised while being initially hailed as a key component of the Conservative government’s plan to reduce the number of small boats arriving. Critics questioned the moral basis of such a programme, pointing to Rwanda’s problematic human rights record.

And one more option

Expanding the list of nations covered by the Illegal Migration Act whose citizens’ claims are instantly rejected and can be promptly returned is an additional choice. This ought to serve as a cautionary tale to those governments that are thinking about externalising and delegating their refugee obligations to other nations. The UK should establish a just and efficient asylum system that provides compassionate treatment to all applicants and permits them to seek safety in the country.