The British were divided over the expulsion of migrants to Rwanda on the eve of the first voyage

First Amendment:

The first flight with asylum seekers from the UK to Rwanda is set to begin on Tuesday 14 June, as part of British Home Secretary Priti Patel’s plan to deter illegal immigration. For this reason, human rights groups continue to fight to prevent this take-off, in which 31 people are supposed to be sent to Rwanda. On the streets of London, the British were divided by the controversy.

With our correspondent in London, Mary Buddha

With gray hair, tinted glasses and a jeans shirt, Gary walks his dog a few blocks from St Pancras Station. For this retiree, these refugees should not remain in England.

“Obviously people can’t keep coming and risking their lives crossing the canal. From what I understand, some of them have already been sent there and have started looking for life. They have good conditions, certainly better than what they have here. So I don’t think it is an unethical act.” Let’s see if it works first.”

A couple from Manchester roll their eyes on the subject. Liz reclining at a table in the sun, not smearing words to denounce her government: “I am ashamed, Priti Patel is a poison to be disposed of. I think they should give everything up and think again of a more appropriate solution. Sending them to Rwanda is absurd.”

Her husband Pete says this policy will not prevent refugees from crossing the canal.

There is still a chance that these 31 asylum seekers will not get on the plane on Tuesday. Three organizations are appealing to the High Court in London, with the goal of preventing the trip from happening. The appeal and ruling are scheduled to begin on Monday, June 13.

See also  Nissan announces 1,165 million factories in the UK, six months after Barcelona closed | comp

Freedom from Torture is not among the organizations involved, but it supports its work and has already filed an appeal, which was rejected last week. Its director, Sonia Siats, hopes this initiative will start a “legal battle” that will force judges to “look closely.”

“It is possible that the judges, after further examination, will decide that a court order is justified, in which case the flight will not take off. If the appeal is denied, those people in deportation centers will have to meet the individual requirements: they will have to access a good lawyer. This is a real challenge, and that is why we are so concerned about procedural fairness, given what is at stake: We have written to the court to express our support for the injunctions. No matter what happens to the procedure, a full judicial review of the legality of the proceedings will take place in July. There is one thing. Certainly, the legal battle has only just begun,” he says.

Ready hotel

The British government negotiated this plan a few months ago with Rwanda, which already has a hotel ready to accommodate about 100 migrants.

Its authorities should initially receive 120 million pounds ($157 million, 144 million euros) to welcome them and “give them a legal pathway to residency” so that they can “reside permanently, if they wish,” according to the foreign ministry. African Minister of State Vincent Perrota.

London’s goal of this system, which has been criticized by the United Nations and the Church among other organizations, is to discourage the crossing of migrants from the French coast. So far this year, more than 10,000 people have arrived in the country illegally by crossing the English Channel in perilous boats, one of the world’s busiest sea routes.

See also  Can British and Irish horse racing trainers conquer the United States?

“The criminal groups that put people’s lives on the English Channel must understand that their business model will collapse under this government,” Johnson told private broadcaster LBC on Monday.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.