20 Dec 2022 13:51 GMT
On Monday, the British High Court of Justice upheld the plan to process applications from undocumented immigrants outside British territory.
The decision of the British Justice, which supported the government’s plan to deport migrants to Rwanda who arrive in the United Kingdom to request asylum, has caused a real revulsion in groups that defend human rights.
The British High Court of Justice concluded Monday that “is legitimate that the Government make arrangements to relocate asylum seekers to Rwanda and that their asylum claims be processed in Rwanda and not in the UK.”
With its controversial plan, promoted by former Home Secretary Priti Patel, of Indian roots, London seeks stem the flow of refugees who cross the English Channel in boats and aims to deter human trafficking gangs who embark migrants on dangerous journeys.
Clare Moseley, founder of the charity Care4Calais, called the decision “disappointing“.
“People who have suffered the horrors of war, torture and human rights violations should not face the immense trauma of deportation to a future in which we cannot ensure your safety“, he claimed the activist quoted by NPR.
Sophie Lucas, an employee of the Duncan Lewis law firm defending an undocumented Sudanese migrant in the UK, commented: “It is deeply distressing to have this prospect of being deported to a country to which they have no connection and where their fundamental rights may not be respected“.
“Reviving the barbaric measures”
Human Rights Watch noted this year in its report on human rights violations in Rwanda: “The arbitrary arrests, the mistreatment and torture in official and unofficial detention centers are commonplace and fair trial standards are systematically broken.”
James Wilson, deputy director of Detention Action, one of the organizations that had filed a lawsuit against the plan, declared that the entity was considering appealing the decision. “We are disappointed that the High Court has declared the transfer of refugees to an autocratic state that tortures and murders people legal. However, we will continue to fight,” he said.
Laura Tiernan, member of the Socialist Equality Party, comment in his WSWS article that the right to asylum from political and religious persecution remains enshrined in international law after the Holocaust Nazi, which claimed the lives of 6 million Jews. He recalled that throughout the 1930s, the largest imperialist “democracies” “rejected asylum claims to persecuted Jews, sentencing them to death.” In the UK, he maintains, of the 500,000-600,000 applications only 80,000 were successful, with Jews frequently rejected as “unwanted”.
“More than 80 years later, the capitalist class is reviving these barbaric measures“, he pointed.
“Repeat of the colonial policy
Parvati Nair, Professor in Hispanic, Cultural and Migration Studies at Queen Mary University of London, compared the migration plan for Rwanda to the green light given to refugees from the Ukraine, concluding that “it is clear that UK migration policy is biased in terms of race, religion and abilities“.
In its Article Last April for The Conversation, the researcher mentioned statements by former British Prime Minister Boris Johnson that the Rwandan plan could serve as a prototype for other countries, describing it as part of the “21st century imperialism“.
“Research shows that these types of schemes are an empowerment strategy for already powerful nations. They allow them to unload, back on the poorest countries, the unwanted immigrants, especially those that come from outside Europe. At the same time, they give those wealthier nations a foothold political and economic in regions of their interest,” he writes.
By pledging 120 million pounds ($146 million) for this immigration association, London “in a repeat of the colonial policyagain entrusts Africa with the task of working for the interests of the United Kingdom in exchange only for Benefits economic short term“, while “in the long term, Africa’s needs remain unmet,” says the professor.