UK top court holds Rwandan plan unlawful

The United Kingdom Supreme Court had unanimously held that the Conservative government’s plan to ship immigrants without documents to Rwanda is unlawful. They were of the view that Rwanda is not a safe place. The plan was mooted by former Conservative Prime Minister Boris Johnson. It was a deal based on a contract with the Rwandan government, through which the British were to pay 140 million pounds ($180 million) to the Rwandan government. Rwanda was unhappy with the verdict because the judgment said Rwanda was an unsafe place for the illegal immigrants. But the court has left the door open so that necessary changes in law can make the danger of ‘refoulement’, that is of Rwanda sending back the migrants back to the country of origin, is eliminated.

Conservatives are unable to sort out how to deal with people arriving on boats to England illegally. They cannot be sent back to countries of their origin because their lives would be in danger. It was felt that redirecting them to a third country would discourage them from coming to England. Like many regimes, that of Conservatives in Britain wants to close the doors to illegal immigrants. The plan to send them to a third country was both ingenious and bizarre. It can be argued that the number of those coming on boats was increasing. It was 27,000 and it has risen to 44,000.

And it is a plan that is bound to please a majority of the white population, as well as those migrants who have become citizens of Britain, including people Prime Minister Rishi Sunak and the just sacked home secretary Suella Braverman, among many others who occupy ministerial positions in the Conservative government. But these are counted as migrants who came to Britain with proper documentation and as part of Britain’s declared migration policy. And many of them came from countries which were British colonies earlier.

Britain is still open to immigrants, those who are highly educated and skilled and those who are rich. That is why, many Russian oligarchs have found a place in British society because they have invested in British businesses. What Britain does not want is the poor migrants from poor countries going through political turmoil. This certainly is an illiberal standpoint but it will be argued that Britain cannot afford to house the unlimited inflow of migrants because of lack of space and because of restricted economic resources. The liberals would offer the counter-argument that these migrants fleeing the oppressive political regimes in their home countries carry with them the huge potential of expanding the British economy. The Conservatives would counter saying that Britain should have the choice who should be allowed to come in. And it would also have the choice of scrutinising the documents of those seeking asylum and decide whether their claims of oppression are true. The dilemmas of allowing immigrants are daunting indeed. But the plan of shipping them to a third country to discourage them is not only devious but also immoral. Now the British Supreme Court has declared it to be unlawful as well. The Sunak government is sure to find a way of changing the law suitably. But the plan fails the test of being humanitarian.

The ideal solution would of course be that of making the countries of these hapless people fleeing their homes safe for them. The United Nations is not really equipped to deal with this. It is then left to groups of countries like the European Union (EU) or even G20 to evolve a common migration policy so that the people fleeing their unsafe countries can have some hope of rehabilitation. These helpless people cannot be tossed from one country to another. EU has a humanitarian rule for immigrants. But the member-countries find it difficult to implement. It is one of the many reasons that Britain has exited EU. But that is running away from the problem.