Cross party committee on human rights criticizes the government’s Rwanda policy
February 2024
The Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill ends its House of Lord’s stage today (12 February) and returns to the Commons. The Bill has been roundly condemned by many human rights and other organisations and the committee said that it is ‘fundamentally incompatible with Britain’s human rights obligations’.
The Supreme Court has already ruled that Rwanda is not a safe country and the government’s attempt to pass a law simply saying it is is bit like passing a law saying water can run uphill. The Committee went on to say ‘the Bill disapplies laws that might prevent and individual’s removal to Rwanda including many of the key provisions of the Human Rights Act.
‘It might also impact on Northern Ireland, that it would both undermine the Windsor Framework and the Belfast (Good Friday) Agreement’.
It also raises the point about UK’s reputation. We have they say, a reputation for respect for human rights of which ‘we should be proud’.
Immigration, and most recently the Channel crossings, have generated a considerable degree of angst and hostile media coverage. This is not recent and goes back many years and started to emerge as a political force during the Blair years. In many respects it goes back further to various waves of immigrants such as the Huguenots from France, Flemings from the low countries and Jews fleeing Russia. All have been met with hostility of some degree.
Recent immigrants are cast as not really refugees at all but economic migrants, are cheating the system, are living off benefits and so forth. Newspapers – and not just tabloids but the Daily Telegraph and the Independent – have carried hundreds of negative stories and helped keep the temperature high. The Sun even ran a story that swans were being stolen from the London parks and eaten by immigrants (invented). The raised media attention has increased public concern to which the politicians are obliged to reflect.
Anomaly
A curious anomaly is that people who’s offspring emigrate to live and work overseas (as ‘economic migrants’ no less) are spoken of in terms of pride. Emigrants good: immigrants bad.
Another curiosity is that many of the politicians leading the hostility and proposing ever harsher measures including deportation to Rwanda, are themselves sons or daughters of immigrants. Priti Patel, Kwasi Kwarteng, Suella Braverman, Rishi Sunak, Danny Kruger and going back further, Michael Howard (Romania).
The benefits of immigration to this country almost don’t get a look in. In November last year, the government’s own statistics show that around one in 5 of people working in the health service were not born in the UK. Indeed, the service would struggle to survive (even more than now) if these people were not working here.
The entire debate is based on hysteria. Boat people have assumed a disproportionate sense of anger and fear even though they represent a small proportion of all immigrants to this country. The majority do go on to claim asylum. The hysteria and media mis- and disinformation has resulted in the plan to deport a few hundred to Rwanda, a policy which is performative rather than likely to be effective.
Sources: Daily Mail, FullFact; Liberty; Hansard, Guardian (accessed 12 February 2024)
The Salisbury Amnesty group celebrates 50 years of existence this year
Amnesty in Salisbury & South Wiltshire 