\n<\/p>\n
After a prolonged battle in the courts and in Parliament, Britain\u2019s Conservative government secured passage of legislation<\/a> on Monday that is intended to allow the country to send asylum seekers to Rwanda.<\/p>\n The legislation is intended to override a Supreme Court ruling last year that deemed the plan to send asylum seekers to the African nation unlawful<\/a>. The judges ruled that Rwanda was not a safe country in which refugees could resettle or have their asylum cases heard.<\/p>\n The Rwanda plan, which has become a flagship policy of Prime Minister Rishi Sunak at a time when his party\u2019s approval ratings have floundered, now seems closer than ever to becoming a reality. But critics say it raises profound questions about the rule of law<\/a> and the separation of powers in Britain, and could impact thousands of asylum seekers. Rights groups have vowed to fight the plan in the courts.<\/p>\n Here\u2019s what to know.<\/p>\n As the number of asylum seekers arriving across the English Channel rose after a lull during the coronavirus pandemic, the Conservative government pledged to \u201cstop the boats.\u201d Most of those arriving by small, often unseaworthy boats apply for international protection in Britain through the asylum system, and many are later found to be refugees and permitted to settle in Britain.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n Through a series of bills and agreements, the government introduced a policy that said that people arriving by small boat or any another \u201cirregular means\u201d would never be admissible for asylum in Britain. Instead, they would be detained and sent to Rwanda, where their asylum cases would be heard, and if successful, they would be resettled there.<\/p>\n The government has argued that the Rwanda policy will be a deterrent, stemming the flow of tens of thousands of people who make dangerous crossings from France to Britain each year. This has been questioned by some migration experts who say that the people on small boats already risk their lives to travel to Britain.<\/p>\n Rights groups and legal experts have warned against implementing the policy, saying it contravenes Britain\u2019s legal obligations to refugees<\/a> under international law and violates the 1951 U.N. Refugee Convention<\/a>.<\/p>\n In early 2021<\/a>, Boris Johnson, then prime minister, began floating plans to send asylum seekers abroad. Taking control of Britain\u2019s borders was a central promise of the 2016 Brexit campaign, championed by Mr. Johnson and Mr. Sunak.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n In the summer of 2021, Priti Patel, then the minister responsible for overseeing immigration and asylum, introduced the Nationality and Borders Bill<\/a>, making it a criminal offense to enter the country by irregular means, for instance by boat and without a visa. The bill also gave the authorities more scope to make arrests and remove asylum seekers<\/a>.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n By April 2022, Britain announced a deal with Rwanda to send asylum seekers there in exchange for hundreds of millions in development funding, and the Nationality and Borders Bill became law later that month.<\/p>\n But amid legal challenges and a last-minute interim decision by the European Court of Human Rights, the first planned flight in 2022 was halted<\/a>. By early 2023, Suella Braverman, the home secretary then, revived the plan with the Illegal Migration Bill.<\/p>\n That legislation, which became law last July, gave her office a duty to remove nearly all asylum seekers who arrived in Britain \u201cillegally\u201d \u2014 meaning, without a visa or through other means, like covert arrivals by small boat or truck. (In practice, many of these asylum seekers would not be arriving illegally since genuine refugees have a right to enter and claim international protection.)<\/p>\n The asylum seekers would then be sent to their home countries, \u201cor another safe third country, such as Rwanda.\u201d No matter the outcome of their claims, they would have no right to re-entry, settlement or citizenship in Britain.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n These efforts were all challenged in the courts, ending with the Supreme Court ruling that deemed the plan to deport asylum seekers to Rwanda unlawful.<\/p>\n The Safety of Rwanda Bill and a treaty with the African nation earlier this year are intended to override the court\u2019s judgment by declaring Rwanda safe in law, and instructing judges and immigration officials to treat it as such.<\/p>\nWhat is the Rwanda policy?<\/h2>\n
How did we get here?<\/h2>\n
How much has Britain spent on the plan?<\/h2>\n