The UK is pushing ahead with plans to deport the first of many asylum seekers to Rwanda on Tuesday, in spite of a flurry of legal challenges and claims that Prince Charles thinks the policy is “appalling”.
Home secretary Priti Patel is also preparing to launch an advertising campaign on Facebook and Instagram, warning potential migrants to the UK that they too face deportation to Africa if they cross the English Channel in clandestine fashion in small boats.
The deportation strategy, described by Patel as “world leading”, will see Rwanda take some of the asylum seekers arriving in Britain in exchange for development aid, provided the courts do not intervene to stop it.
Around 30 people are scheduled to be put on a plane to Rwanda this week, although legal challenges concerning the individuals concerned could see that number reduced.
But Patel is determined the policy, aimed to serve as a deterrent to future migrants, should continue, in spite of legal challenges and apparent opposition from Prince Charles, the heir to the British throne.
Clarence House did not deny the report but “would not comment on supposed anonymous private conversations with the Prince of Wales”. The statement added that the prince remained “politically neutral” and that “matters of policy are decisions for government”.
One cabinet minister told the Sunday Times that the prince was “an adornment to our public life, but that will cease to be charming if he attempts to behave the same way when he is king”.
On Monday, Asylum Aid, a refugee charity, will apply to the High Court for an urgent interim injunction to stop the government flying refugees to Rwanda in the second legal challenge to the government’s proposals.
It claims that the government’s rapid process for sending asylum seekers to Rwanda is unlawful, procedurally unfair and constitutes a serious impediment to access to justice.
Asylum Aid’s concerns include that the plans involve such tight timeframes — only seven days for each asylum seeker to obtain legal advice and to present their case — that the process is inherently flawed and unfair.
Meanwhile, the Court of Appeal will on Monday morning hear a separate appeal against [Friday’s ruling](https://www.ft.com/content/c9da3b67-8ae4-4478-8383-94f2460b64c7) by Mr Justice Jonathan Swift who refused to grant an injunction banning the flight to Rwanda.
Swift ruled on Friday that there was a “material public interest” in allowing the home secretary to pursue the policy.
He granted a judicial review into the policy but refused to make an order banning the flight, in a legal challenge brought by a coalition of non-governmental organisations, four of the detainees and the Public and Commercial Services Union (PCS).
Mark Serwotka, head of the PCS union which represents many Border Force staff, has refused to say whether his members would boycott attempts to remove people to Rwanda; he claims the policy is illegal.
“We have to test the legality of these proposals but also, we need a debate about the morality and lack of humanity that the government is demonstrating,” he told Sophy Ridge from Sky News.
Labour repeated on Sunday its criticism of the policy. Shadow home secretary Yvette Cooper said: “The cost is going to be substantially higher than the £120mn the government has already spent, yet at the same time the Home Office is considering 20 per cent cuts to the National Crime Agency that works to tackle the trafficking and smuggler gangs.”
>Priti Patel is preparing and advertisement campaign… warning them that they could face being deported if they cross the English Channel in clandestine fashion in small boats.
This is the bit that REALLY makes me fucking angry.
**There is no way for asylum seekers to claim asylum outside of the U.K. We removed every other way for them to apply for asylum!**
It’s fucking grotesque. You cannot legally (under U.K. and international law) stop people from crossing borders to claim asylum. We have taken their legal routes and are then trying to make them out to be the evil ones. And will dump them into a country which is in the bottom 10 percentile of human development, and top 10 percentile of poverty. It’s also overcrowded and now facing food shortages due to grain imports stopping. Last time something like this happened over 4 million people were killed.
We do need strong immigration policy and border policy. Absolutely. But gutting Immigration and Border agency budgets by 65% since 2010 and spending MORE on hotels and this bollocks is not it. In 2019, we massively cut down the Border Agency operations that used to work undercover to find the smugglers.
Honestly. It’s not only evil, logically it’s also fucking stupid.
So did they choose Rwanda because some of these Ukrainians have already acclimatized? Well to torture anyway.
Transportation. Back again. But this time with added summary, court free “justice!”
How far we’ve fallen as a nation. A real grim state of affairs
As well as the general stuff of it being inhumane and all that what really annoys me is the sheer dishonesty of it.
So you’re going to tackle human traffickers by sending assylum seekers to Rwanda…. Wouldn’t an easier thing to do then be to accept assylum claims in Rwanda in the first place? Then they don’t have to pay to cross the Sahara and two seas. It’s a much easier trip for sub saharan afircan assylum seekers.
The flight is scheduled for tomorrow. It’s now or never. We can stop the UK government’s plan to send asylum seekers to Rwanda.
7 comments
# UK pushes ahead with plan to deport asylum seekers to Rwanda
*Move comes despite legal challenges and report that Prince Charles thinks policy is ‘appalling’*
[George Parker](https://www.ft.com/george-parker) and [Jane Croft](https://www.ft.com/jane-croft) in London
The UK is pushing ahead with plans to deport the first of many asylum seekers to Rwanda on Tuesday, in spite of a flurry of legal challenges and claims that Prince Charles thinks the policy is “appalling”.
Home secretary Priti Patel is also preparing to launch an advertising campaign on Facebook and Instagram, warning potential migrants to the UK that they too face deportation to Africa if they cross the English Channel in clandestine fashion in small boats.
The deportation strategy, described by Patel as “world leading”, will see Rwanda take some of the asylum seekers arriving in Britain in exchange for development aid, provided the courts do not intervene to stop it.
Around 30 people are scheduled to be put on a plane to Rwanda this week, although legal challenges concerning the individuals concerned could see that number reduced.
But Patel is determined the policy, aimed to serve as a deterrent to future migrants, should continue, in spite of legal challenges and apparent opposition from Prince Charles, the heir to the British throne.
He was reported in the Times newspaper to have described the policy as [“appalling”](https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/prince-charles-flying-migrants-to-rwanda-is-appalling-l6jzklfhm); he will represent the Queen at a Commonwealth summit in Rwanda later this month.
Clarence House did not deny the report but “would not comment on supposed anonymous private conversations with the Prince of Wales”. The statement added that the prince remained “politically neutral” and that “matters of policy are decisions for government”.
Prince Charles said in [an interview](https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/nov/08/prince-charles-me-meddle-as-a-king-im-not-that-stupid) in 2018 that he would not be a “meddling” or activist king, saying: “I’m not that stupid”. But a number of ministers were privately critical of the prince.
One cabinet minister told the Sunday Times that the prince was “an adornment to our public life, but that will cease to be charming if he attempts to behave the same way when he is king”.
On Monday, Asylum Aid, a refugee charity, will apply to the High Court for an urgent interim injunction to stop the government flying refugees to Rwanda in the second legal challenge to the government’s proposals.
It claims that the government’s rapid process for sending asylum seekers to Rwanda is unlawful, procedurally unfair and constitutes a serious impediment to access to justice.
Asylum Aid’s concerns include that the plans involve such tight timeframes — only seven days for each asylum seeker to obtain legal advice and to present their case — that the process is inherently flawed and unfair.
Meanwhile, the Court of Appeal will on Monday morning hear a separate appeal against [Friday’s ruling](https://www.ft.com/content/c9da3b67-8ae4-4478-8383-94f2460b64c7) by Mr Justice Jonathan Swift who refused to grant an injunction banning the flight to Rwanda.
Swift ruled on Friday that there was a “material public interest” in allowing the home secretary to pursue the policy.
He granted a judicial review into the policy but refused to make an order banning the flight, in a legal challenge brought by a coalition of non-governmental organisations, four of the detainees and the Public and Commercial Services Union (PCS).
Mark Serwotka, head of the PCS union which represents many Border Force staff, has refused to say whether his members would boycott attempts to remove people to Rwanda; he claims the policy is illegal.
“We have to test the legality of these proposals but also, we need a debate about the morality and lack of humanity that the government is demonstrating,” he told Sophy Ridge from Sky News.
Labour repeated on Sunday its criticism of the policy. Shadow home secretary Yvette Cooper said: “The cost is going to be substantially higher than the £120mn the government has already spent, yet at the same time the Home Office is considering 20 per cent cuts to the National Crime Agency that works to tackle the trafficking and smuggler gangs.”
>Priti Patel is preparing and advertisement campaign… warning them that they could face being deported if they cross the English Channel in clandestine fashion in small boats.
This is the bit that REALLY makes me fucking angry.
**There is no way for asylum seekers to claim asylum outside of the U.K. We removed every other way for them to apply for asylum!**
It’s fucking grotesque. You cannot legally (under U.K. and international law) stop people from crossing borders to claim asylum. We have taken their legal routes and are then trying to make them out to be the evil ones. And will dump them into a country which is in the bottom 10 percentile of human development, and top 10 percentile of poverty. It’s also overcrowded and now facing food shortages due to grain imports stopping. Last time something like this happened over 4 million people were killed.
We do need strong immigration policy and border policy. Absolutely. But gutting Immigration and Border agency budgets by 65% since 2010 and spending MORE on hotels and this bollocks is not it. In 2019, we massively cut down the Border Agency operations that used to work undercover to find the smugglers.
Honestly. It’s not only evil, logically it’s also fucking stupid.
So did they choose Rwanda because some of these Ukrainians have already acclimatized? Well to torture anyway.
Transportation. Back again. But this time with added summary, court free “justice!”
How far we’ve fallen as a nation. A real grim state of affairs
As well as the general stuff of it being inhumane and all that what really annoys me is the sheer dishonesty of it.
So you’re going to tackle human traffickers by sending assylum seekers to Rwanda…. Wouldn’t an easier thing to do then be to accept assylum claims in Rwanda in the first place? Then they don’t have to pay to cross the Sahara and two seas. It’s a much easier trip for sub saharan afircan assylum seekers.
The flight is scheduled for tomorrow. It’s now or never. We can stop the UK government’s plan to send asylum seekers to Rwanda.
#StopTheFlights
Sign the petition and help those asylum seekers https://bit.ly/3xLrwZj