Controversial British Plan to Deport Asylum Seekers
A recent decision by a conservative majority in the British Parliament has sparked controversy. The plan involves deporting asylum seekers to Rwanda, a move criticized as expensive, inhumane, and impractical by many.
The measure, aimed at curbing the influx of migrants crossing the English Channel in small boats, has raised concerns about its cost and legality. Critics argue that the policy may not align with international human rights standards and could be ineffective in addressing the root causes of immigration.
Parliamentary Approval and Opposition
The proposal, which had previously been approved by the House of Commons, faced opposition in the House of Lords. Members of the unelected chamber raised questions about the potential for abuse and the safety of migrants and asylum seekers under the new policy.
Labour Party lawmaker Stephen Kinnock criticized the decision, questioning its accuracy in labeling Rwanda as a safe haven for asylum seekers.
Global Immigration Trends
Immigration issues are not unique to Britain. Around the world, countries are grappling with the challenges of illegal and authorized immigration. From the U.S.-Mexico border to Australia and European nations, governments are implementing various policies to manage migration flows.
For instance, the Biden administration continues to build barriers along the U.S.-Mexico border, following in the footsteps of former President Trump’s immigration strategy. Similarly, Australia has been sending asylum seekers to Pacific islands for processing, while European countries are tightening their immigration laws.
Understanding the Increase in Migration
The surge in migration to Britain is attributed to various factors, including political unrest, economic hardships, and family ties. Many migrants perceive Britain as a safe and welcoming destination compared to other parts of Europe.
Migration experts suggest that global migration levels have remained relatively stable since World War II, with displaced populations accounting for about 3% of the world’s total population.
Deportation to Rwanda: The Plan Unveiled
Under the new legislation, migrants and asylum seekers will be deported to Rwanda, located 4,000 miles away in East Africa. The policy aims to address the increasing number of migrants attempting to reach Britain via the English Channel.
It remains to be seen how this controversial plan will unfold and whether it will achieve its intended objectives.
Aspiring migrants aiming to gain entry into Britain will now have their applications processed in Rwanda, where they may be deported via government charter flights. Successful applicants will have the opportunity to return to Britain, while unsuccessful ones can opt to stay in Rwanda or another country.
‘It’s very concerning’:Britain wants to send asylum seekers 4,000 miles away to Rwanda
The British government aims to use the threat of deportation to Rwanda as a deterrent for individuals attempting to enter Britain via sea routes, which are often perilous and risky, leading to tragic drownings. These crossings have become a contentious political issue, sparking debates and divisions.
Similar to the United States, immigration is a key issue for British voters, with the upcoming election likely to be influenced by the outcome of the Rwanda bill. Chancellor Sunak and the Conservative party’s fortunes may hinge on the success or failure of this legislation.
Following the bill’s passage, Sunak hailed it as a significant shift in global migration dynamics, marking a pivotal moment in migration policy.
What is the Financial Impact of the Rwanda Asylum Plan?
The British government has already allocated approximately $300 million to Rwanda for this initiative, with projected costs over five years estimated to exceed $670 million, as per the National Audit Office. However, actual expenses could surpass this figure.
The exact number of asylum seekers Rwanda is willing to accommodate under this program remains uncertain, with Sunak suggesting it could be in the thousands, although Rwanda has not provided a definitive figure.
The National Audit Office predicts that each deportee will cost the British taxpayer around $2.5 million, encompassing fees paid to Rwanda, flight expenses, and accommodation for up to three years, the average processing time for asylum applications.
During a parliamentary debate on the Rwanda bill, Lord Carlile of Berriew questioned the cost-effectiveness and compassion of the system, comparing the expenses to luxury hotel stays.
What Factors Contributed to the Delay, and How Do Critics and Supporters Respond?
Former Prime Minister Boris Johnson initially introduced the policy in 2022 but faced backlash from his party due to his actions during the COVID-19 pandemic, leading to his resignation. Subsequent challenges to the Rwanda bill included concerns about its efficacy, legality, and potential human rights violations.
Critics argue that labeling asylum seekers as ‘illegal migrants’ overlooks their right to seek asylum, emphasizing the importance of fair and thorough asylum processes within the UK, as highlighted by James Wilson of Detention Action.
The debate surrounding the Rwanda bill reflects broader discussions on migration policies, human rights, and government accountability, underscoring the complexities and ethical considerations involved in addressing asylum and immigration challenges.
Revised Perspective on the Asylum and Immigration Bill
Following the Supreme Court’s decision that Rwanda was deemed “not a safe country,” lawmakers had to revise the bill to include additional protections for individuals sent there. These safeguards ensure that they will not be subjected to “refoulement,” which involves returning them to countries where they may face mistreatment.
Migration researcher Jeff Crisp from Oxford University’s Refugee Studies Center has highlighted that the Rwanda deal serves as a distraction from the significant increase in legal migration to Britain, particularly from non-EU states post-Brexit. The supporters of the scheme, however, argue that it will have a positive impact on saving lives.
“Parliament has the opportunity to enact a bill that will rescue individuals from exploitation by human-smuggling networks,” emphasized Dave Pares, spokesperson for Sunak. “Maintaining the status quo is no longer an option, and change is imperative at this moment.”
Implications and Rwandan Perspectives
Although the bill has successfully passed through both Houses of Parliament, the timeline for the first flights carrying migrants and asylum seekers to Rwanda remains uncertain. Chancellor Sunak mentioned in a recent press briefing that these flights could commence within the next 10-12 weeks.
Prior to the bill becoming law, it must receive “Royal Assent” from King Charles III, a customary process for approving new legislation in the UK. Additionally, discussions have surfaced regarding potential asylum processing programs with other nations like Botswana, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, and Armenia, hinting at a broader strategy beyond Rwanda.
British humanitarian groups are exploring legal avenues to challenge the program, with concerns raised about the suitability of Rwanda as a destination for asylum seekers. Opposition politician Victoire Ingabire Umuhoza from Rwanda criticized the bill, citing the country’s existing challenges in meeting the basic needs of its population, including refugees from neighboring nations.
Umuhoza pointed out that RwandAir’s refusal to participate in the program due to concerns about tarnishing the country’s reputation reflects widespread skepticism within Rwanda. She emphasized that migrants sent to Rwanda under the British plan may realize the lack of opportunities available to them, drawing parallels to a previous program involving Eritrean and Sudanese asylum seekers relocated from Israel to Rwanda.
Related
Navigating Britain’s asylum seeker legislation: A comprehensive breakdown
Inside the Trump Criminal Trial: Key Figures and Potential Witnesses
- Reporters Madeleine Halpert and Phil McCusland
- Correspondent, BBC News, New York
-
3 hours ago
Former President Donald Trump’s first criminal case began in earnest on the 22nd (local time) at the Manhattan Criminal Court in New York, USA, and the first trial was held.
In the coming weeks, Trump is scheduled to appear as a criminal defendant in a Manhattan court here. And like a Hollywood blockbuster, other colorful characters are also expected to appear.
The list of potential witnesses is compelling, including an adult film star, an ex-fixer turned key witness and a loyal finance officer convicted of tax evasion.
In addition, Trump’s defense team, led by a white-collar criminal lawyer who risked his career for this defense, is also notable. On the other side, the first black Manhattan district attorney in New York has assembled a team of Manhattan prosecutors who are familiar with Trump and his associates.
And the entire case is being overseen by a veteran New York judge who is already familiar with Trump’s courtroom behavior and the problems it causes.
Trump had previously been accused of falsifying company books in order to pay hush money to a woman he was suspected of having an affair with. In response, Trump’s side claims his innocence, while denying the fact of the affair itself.
So who are the key figures we need to know in this historic trial?
New York State Judge
New York State District Court Judge Juan Mercan, a former New York lawyer, had previously met with Trump in a Manhattan courtroom. At the time, Judge Merchan was responsible for the Trump Organization’s tax fraud case and sentenced former Chief Financial Officer (CFO) Alan Weisselberg to a large fine and prison.
Photo captionJuan Mercen, New York State District Court Judge
That means Judge Merchan is already familiar with Trump’s courtroom tactics and his habits of delaying, denying and diverting his trial.
And if Trump behaves like this again, he will likely incur the wrath of Judge Merchan.
Judge Merchan may have a soft tone, but he is what is known as a jurist who does not tolerate nonsense. And during the jury selection process for this trial, Judge Mercan had already silenced Trump once.
As for Judge Merchan, Trump said on social media, “There is no judge I have a conflict with like this judge,” and attacked Judge Merchan’s daughter for being an employee of a company that cooperates with the Democratic Party .
Afterwards, Trump received a gag order regarding the judge’s family.
manhattan prosecutor
Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg is the first black man to hold this position in November 2021. Prosecutor Bragg, who was in charge of the investigation related to Trump, announced in April last year that he would indict him for a crime serious
Photo caption Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg
Prosecutor Bragg adopted a new legal theory that could turn the misdemeanor of falsifying business records into a felony. Trump falsified business records to cover up his second offense, violating New York State campaign finance laws.
Manhattan prosecutors believe the Trump campaign tried to hide this fact from voters before the 2016 presidential election.
Opinion is mixed among legal experts as to whether these prosecutions will be successful, but Prosecutor Bragg has assembled a team of veteran prosecutors who know Trump well to prove the charges.
The prosecutor Joshua Steinglass, who is part of this team, is the person who led the prosecution of the ‘Trump Enterprise’ and which led to a conviction. Prosecutor Steinglass, who will lead the prosecution’s strategy in the trial, has dealt with high-profile murder and manslaughter cases and other violent cases in the past.
In addition, prosecutor Susan Hoffinger, who was responsible for tax fraud charges at the Trump Enterprise, stepped forward and took over as head of the investigative team for this case, and prosecutor Christopher Conroy, who was responsible for the investigation involving Trump. the longest, and prosecutor Rebecca Mangold, who specializes in economic crimes, joined the team there as well.
Trump’s lawyers
image copyrightGetty Images
Photo caption (from left) Attorney Todd Blanche, former President Trump (center), Attorney Emile Bove, and Attorney Suzanne Necheles.
First of all, attorney Todd Blanche, who can be considered the head of Trump’s defense team, was a former federal prosecutor and a Democrat who lives in New York City. In addition, he was a partner in a Wall Street law firm in New York, but became a Republican and moved to Florida, leaving everything behind to defend Trump, the biggest client of his career.
Attorney Blanche, once a colleague of Prosecutor Bragg, now sits opposite each other in the courtroom and has a confrontational relationship. In fact, this is only the second time. Attorney Blanche has only once served as defense attorney in another criminal case that went to trial.
Susan Nechelles, another of Trump’s lawyers, has been defending Trump since 2021, and has been defending Trump against problematic politicians, real estate developers, and organized criminals, including Italian mafia boss Venero Mangano, also known as the nickname ‘Benny Eggs’ has a long history of protecting people.
Attorney Necheles also defended ‘Trump Enterprise’ when it was found guilty of tax fraud in December 2022 and sentenced to a fine of $1.6 million (approximately 1.99 billion won).
In addition, attorney Gedalia Stern, attorney partner at Necheles Law Firm, and former federal prosecutor Emil Bove are also part of Trump’s defense team.
potential witness
Adult film star Stormy Daniels says she first met Trump at a celebrity golf event in 2006. Daniels, whose real name was Stephanie Clifford, was 27 at the time and a rising star in the adult film industry.
She claims that Trump proposed to her at the time and that they had intercourse shortly after they met.
image copyrightGetty Images
Photo caption: Stormy Daniels
Trump denies the meeting himself, but Daniels claims he received $130,000 from Michael Cohen, a lawyer at the Trump Organization, shortly before the 2016 presidential election in exchange for silence about it.
After these allegations became known, Daniels became a target of Trump and his associates, but explained that he is currently focused on preparing to testify against Trump.
Attorney Cohen, dubbed Trump’s ‘fixer’, has served as Trump’s personal lawyer since 2006. Cohen pleaded guilty in 2018 to charges that he violated federal campaign finance laws by giving Daniels hush money, but argued that he was only following Trump’s instructions.
Attorney Cohen said that Trump gave money to Daniels through him to cover up this scheme and avoid a sex scandal, and that the “Trump Enterprise” later repaid this money, recording the money as legal consulting fees in the process was done.
In response, Trump accused Cohen, once a loyal associate, of being a liar, and Trump’s defense team tried to prevent Cohen from appearing as a witness.
Attorney Cohen was once a person who said he would take a bullet for Trump. But now he has become a key witness in several investigations targeting Trump, including Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller’s investigation into alleged collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian Kremlin.
Meanwhile, Alan Weisselberg, who has already been convicted as Trump’s ‘money man’, is expected to appear frequently in this criminal trial. However, it is unlikely that Weisselberg will testify in person. He, who was the chief financial officer of the ‘Trump Enterprise,’ has been accused of arranging for Trump to repay hush money and helping to hide it.
In reality, Weisselberg is an unrelated person to the string of legal problems Trump is experiencing. In August 2022, he pleaded guilty to tax fraud, forgery and other criminal charges as an executive of the Trump Organization. These are the charges raised by the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office during their investigation into the ‘Trump Enterprise.’
image copyrightGetty Images
Photo caption: Alan Weisselberg, former Chief Financial Officer of the Trump Organization
Weisselberg agreed to a plea deal on the condition that he spend 100 days in jail and then testify in an ongoing lawsuit against the Trump company. He later appeared as a witness in a civil fraud case in New York City against Trump, but later pleaded guilty to two counts of perjury. Accordingly, on the 10th, he was sentenced to an additional 5 months in prison.
Meanwhile, the first witness in this criminal trial is David Pecker, publisher of an American tabloid magazine. Pecker, the former CEO of American Media (AMI), the parent company of the National Enquirer, used the so-called ‘catch and kill’ strategy to support Trump’s 2016 presidential run when he was in charge of publishing the National Enquirer .
It is a strategy to buy (hold) all copyrights to articles that describe Trump negatively and then refuse to publish these articles, effectively suppressing (killing) information that could be harmful to Trump.
Meanwhile, ‘Playboy’ model Karen McDougall is another person who claims to have had an affair with Trump between 2006 and 2007, which Trump denies. MacDougall claims he was forced to keep quiet about the secret affair because he received $150,000 in exchange for relaying his story to AMI.
In addition, Dino Sajudin, a former doorwoman at Trump Tower, may also appear as a witness. Trump’s team is also suspected of paying Sajuddin to silence him when he tried to sell a story to the National Enquirer about an unfounded rumor that Trump had a child out of wedlock.
#Trumps #criminal #case #begins #earnest #suspicion #money #silence #sexual #scandal.. #key #figures #trial
Related
Inside the Trump Criminal Trial: Key Figures and Potential Witnesses
Operation Praetorian: MP requests preventive detention for Madureira and “Polaco” | public ministry
This Tuesday, the Public Prosecutor’s Office (MP) requested preventive detention for Fernando Madureira, leader of the Super Dragões, and Hugo “Polaco”, a member of the cheer squad, within the scope of the Operation Praetorianand house arrest with electronic surveillance for Vítor Catão.
A judicial source told the Lusa agency that, in promoting the coercive measures to be applied to the defendants by the Criminal Instruction Court (TIC) of Porto, the MP prosecutor defended that Madureira and Hugo Carneiro (“Polish”) be subject to the coercive measure most serious: preventive detention.
For Vítor Catão, who chose not to make a statement before the criminal investigation judge Pedro Miguel Vieira, the MP defended the application of house arrest, with electronic surveillance.
For the remaining nine defendants, the MP prosecutor requested a ban on contact, a ban on access to sports venues and periodic presentations to the authorities.
After the MP’s promotions, the lawyers for the 12 defendants presented their respective arguments, but the coercive measures will only be known on Wednesday afternoon, at 4 pm.
However, at the end of the afternoon, Fernando Madureira’s wife, Sandra, and five of the seven detained at the Bela Vista police station (Hugo Loureiro, Fernando Saul, Vítor ‘Aleixo’, Vítor Bruno Oliveira and José Pereira) were released.
The investigations began with a significant delay, compared to the scheduled time (10 am), with the investigating judge Pedro Miguel Vieira arriving at the TIC at 11 am.
Last Wednesday, the PSP detained 12 people – including two FC Porto employees and the leader of the Super Dragões, Fernando Madureira -, as part of the Operation Praetorianwhich investigates the incidents that occurred at the extraordinary General Assembly (GA) of FC Porto on November 13th.
According to court documents, to which the Lusa agency had access, the Public Prosecutor’s Office maintains that the Super Dragões fans intended to “create a climate of intimidation and fear” at the FC Porto AG.
The District Attorney General’s Office of Porto announced that “crimes of harm to physical integrity in the context of a sporting spectacle or event related to the sporting phenomenon, coercion and aggravated threat, public instigation of a crime, throwing of objects or liquid products and also an attack on freedom of information”.
Related
Operation Praetorian: MP requests preventive detention for Madureira and “Polaco” | public ministry