Immigration minister Robert Jenrick has suggested “thousands” of refugees could be sent to Rwanda under the government’s new plan to stop Channel crossings – despite no-one having been deported there since the beginning of the scheme last April
The Conservative MP told Sky News’ The Take with Sophy Ridge that the partnership with the east African nation is “uncapped” and “they are willing to take as many people as is required”.
The comments came as the EU joined the international backlash against the controversial Illegal Immigration Bill.
In an interview with Politico, European Home Affairs Commissioner Ylva Johansson said she had spoken to Home Secretary Suella Braverman on Tuesday “and I told her that I think that this is violating international law”.
The intervention risks reigniting hostilities with the EU as Prime Minister Rishi Sunak prepares to meet with his French counterpart to discuss his crackdown on asylum seekers.
The new legislation proposed by the government means refugees arriving on small boats in the UK will be detained and deported “within weeks” – either to their own country if it is safe or a third nation if it is not.
Charities, the UN and human rights groups have claimed the proposals aren’t legal while questions have also swirled about how it will work in practice.
More on Migrant Crisis
Related Topics:
While the government has return agreements with certain countries like Albania, it was put to Mr Jenrick that 4,500 people who arrived by small boat last year were from war-torn Syria “and you are not just going to pick up the phone to Assad are you?”.
He told Sky’s The Take with Sophy Ridge: “That’s the reason why we need safe third countries like Rwanda, and we want to get that arrangement up and running as soon as possible.”
Advertisement
The controversial deportation policy has been grounded by the courts since it was announced by former home secretary Priti Pratel last April
The government previously said the scheme will have an initial capacity for 200 people but Mr Jenrick insisted it will be “an unlimited arrangement” once flights take off.
“The scheme with Rwanda is uncapped so the Rwandan government, and we have spoken to them again this week, Rishi Sunak spoke to Paul Kagame, his opposite number, they are willing to take as many people as is required,” he said.
Mr Jenrick refused to put an estimate on how many people the government thinks it will need to send to the east African nation saying “it depends how many people are crossing the Channel at that time”.
But he added: “If it requires thousands of people to be sent to Rwanda, then we will send thousands of people to Rwanda”.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
10:10
Home Secretary: Plans won’t break the law
Earlier, Home Secretary Suella Braverman told Sky News small boat crossings will “fall dramatically” under her asylum plans but could not say when removals will begin.
She said the government will be “expanding our detention capacity to meet the need very soon” but said “I’m not going to give precise dates” because “we’ve got logistical challenges that we’re always overcoming”.
The cabinet minister also insisted the plans are legal, despite acknowledging they may not be compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
Mr Sunak has acknowledged the legislation may come up against challenges in the courts but insisted his is “up for the fight”, branding critics like Sir Keir Starmer “leftie lawyers”.
The prime minister is due to meet French President Emmanuel Macron on Friday, where he is expected to be asked to boost payments to Paris stop small boat journeys.
Mr Jenrick did not rule out additional funding, saying the government wants to increase the number of French patrols of the Channel and improve intelligence sharing.
He said: “What we are seeking to achieve is a number of things, one of which is more police officers on the beaches and the hinterland in northern France so that we can intercept as many of these boats as possible.
“We also want our intelligence services to be cooperating and working together in real time so that when we learn about what the criminal gangs are doing, we get that information to our French counterparts and they take action.”
Along the thin strip of beach and woodland known as the Vistula Spit which marks the northernmost demarcation between Poland and the Russian exclave of Kaliningrad, there is not much in the way of a border.
Just some torn wire fencing and a few rotten posts which seem to stagger drunkenly into the shallows of the Baltic Sea.
Beneath a sign barring entry, we find a couple of empty bottles of Russian cognac and vodka.
Image: This doesn’t feel like the edge of NATO territory
“I don’t see much protection. It’s not good,” says Krzysztof from Katowice, who has come to inspect the border himself.
“We have to have some kind of scare tactic, something to show that we are trying to strengthen our army,” says Grzegorz, who lives nearby.
“At the same time I think I would not base the defence of our country solely on our army. I am convinced that Europe or America, if anything were to happen, will help us 100%.”
More on Nato
Related Topics:
Poland is investing massively in its defence, with military spending set to hit 4.7% of GDP in 2025, more than any other NATO country.
Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk has said he will introduce voluntary military training for men of any age, and women too should they wish, so the army has a competent reserve force in the event of war.
Image: Border between EU and the Russian Federation
He is investing $2.5bn in stronger border fortifications between Russia and Belarus, a project called East Shield which will include anti-tank obstacles, bunkers and potentially minefields too.
Along with its Baltic neighbours, Poland is withdrawing from the Ottawa convention against the use of land mines. It hasn’t committed to using them, but it wants to have that option.
We’ve been granted access to one of the cornerstones of Polish, and European defence, which is a couple of hours drive from the Vistula spit at the Redowicze military base.
Image: Aegis Ashore Poland
Aegis Ashore Poland, together with its sister site in Romania, are the land-based arms of NATO’s missile defence shield over Europe, which is run by the US navy.
They are symbols of the US commitment to NATO and to the protection of Europe.
Image: The control room at Aegis Ashore Poland
And despite changes at the top of the Pentagon it is “business as usual”, says Captain Michael Dwan who oversees air and missile defence within the US Sixth Fleet.
“Our mission to work with NATO forces has been unchanged. And so our commitment from the United States perspective and what capability we bring to ballistic missile defence and the defence of NATO is championed here in Poland.”
Image: The control room at Aegis Ashore Poland
As far as Russia is concerned, NATO’s two missile defence bases in Romania and Poland represent a NATO threat on their doorstep and are therefore a “priority target for potential neutralisation”, per Russia’s foreign ministry.
NATO says the installations are purely defensive and their SM-3 interceptor missiles are not armed and are not intended to carry warheads. Russia counters they could easily be adapted to threaten Russia.
“It’s not a matter of moving offensive weapons here into the facility, the hardware and the infrastructure is simply not installed.
“It would take months or years to change the mission of this site and a significant amount of money and capability and design.”
With so much marked “secret” on the site, it seems amazing to be granted the access.
But for NATO, transparency is part of deterrence. They want potential adversaries to know how sophisticated their radar and interception systems are.
They know that if they carried warheads on site, that would make them a target so they don’t.
Deterrence also depends on whether potential adversaries believe in the US’s commitment to NATO and to Europe’s defence.
On an operational level, as far as the troops are concerned, that commitment may still be iron-clad.
But as far as its commander-in-chief goes, there is still – as with so much around Donald Trump’s presidency – a great deal of uncertainty.
In the Oval Office on Wednesday afternoon President Trump suggested he might bundle a potential US troop drawdown in Europe together with the issue of EU trade and tariffs.
“Nice to wrap it up in one package,” he said, “it’s nice and clean”.
Probably not the way Europe sees it, not with a resurgent Russia on their doorstep, economic tailwinds breeding animosity and the notion of Pax Americana crumbling at their feet.
Asian markets have reacted positively after Donald Trump paused his so-called “reciprocal” tariffs on most of America’s trading partners for 90 days, despite the US president increasing those on China to 125%.
However, Japan’s Nikkei share average was up 8.2% by 3.50am BST, while the broader Topix had risen 7.5%.
Similarly, the S&P 500 stock index had jumped 9.5% and global markets bounced back following Mr Trump’s announcement on Wednesday that the increased tariffs on nearly all trading partners would now be paused.
In a post on his Truth Social platform, Mr Trump said the “90-day pause” was for the “more than 75 countries” who had not retaliated against his tariffs “in any way”.
He added that during this period they would still have to pay a “substantially lowered” 10% tariff, which is “effective immediately”.
It is lower than the 20% tariff that Mr Trump had set for goods from the European Union, 24% on imports from Japan and 25% on products from South Korea.
The UK was already going to face a blanket 10% tariff under the new system.
Mr Trump said the increased 125% tariff on imported goods from China was “effective immediately”.
He added: “At some point, hopefully in the near future, China will realise that the days of ripping off the USA, and other countries, is no longer sustainable or acceptable.”
What’s in Trump’s tariff pause?
Here’s what Donald Trump’s tariff pause entails:
‘Reciprocal’ tariffs on hold
• Higher tariffs that took effect today on 57 trading partners will be paused for 90 days
• These include the EU, Japan and South Korea, all of which will face a baseline 10% duty instead
• Countries that already had a 10% levy imposed since last week – such as the UK – aren’t affected by the pause
China tariffs increased
• Trump imposed a higher 125% tariff on China
• That’s in addition to levies he imposed during his first term
• China had hit the US with 84% tariff earlier today, following tit-for-tat escalations
No change for Canada or Mexico
• Canadian and Mexican goods will remain subject to 25% fentanyl-related tariffs if they don’t comply with the US-Mexico-Canada trade agreement’s rules of origin
• Compliant goods are exempt
Car and metal tariffs remain
• Trump’s pause doesn’t apply to the 25% tariffs he levied on steel and aluminium in March and on cars (autos) on 3 April
• This 25% tariff on car parts does not come into effect until 3 May
Sectors at risk
• Copper, lumber, semiconductors, pharmaceuticals and critical minerals are expected to be subject to separate tariffs, in the same way autos are
Hours after Mr Trump announced the pause on tariffs for most countries, a White House official clarified that this did not apply to the 25% duties imposed on some US imports from Mexico and Canada.
The tariffs were first announced in February and Mexico and Canada were not included in the “Liberation Day” announcements.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
It meant tariffs of 84% would be enforced on US goods – up from the 34% China had previously planned.
Image: Mr Trump spoke to reporters in the Oval Office. Pic: Reuters
China ‘want to make a deal’
Asked why he posted “BE COOL” on Truth Social hours before announcing his tariff pause, Mr Trump told reporters at the White House: “I thought that people were jumping a little bit out of line.”
“They were getting yippy, you know, were getting a little bit yippy, a little bit afraid,” he added.
Mr Trump continued: “China wants to make a deal, they just don’t know how to go about it.
“[They’re] quite the proud people, and President Xi is a proud man. I know him very well, and they don’t know quite how to go about it, but they’ll figure it out.
“They’re in the process of figuring out, but they want to make a deal.”
White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said the walk back was part of a grand negotiating strategy by Mr Trump.
“President Trump created maximum negotiating leverage for himself,” she said, adding that the news media “clearly failed to see what President Trump is doing here”.
US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent also insisted Mr Trump had strengthened his hand through his tariffs.
“President Trump created maximum negotiating leverage for himself,” he said.
Spreaker
This content is provided by Spreaker, which may be using cookies and other technologies.
To show you this content, we need your permission to use cookies.
You can use the buttons below to amend your preferences to enable Spreaker cookies or to allow those cookies just once.
You can change your settings at any time via the Privacy Options.
Unfortunately we have been unable to verify if you have consented to Spreaker cookies.
To view this content you can use the button below to allow Spreaker cookies for this session only.
Mr Bessent said Mr Trump decided to raise tariffs on China because Beijing hadn’t reached out to the US and instead increased its own levies on US goods.
Downing Street said that the UK will “coolly and calmly” continue its negotiations with the US.
A Number 10 spokeswoman said: “A trade war is in nobody’s interests. We don’t want any tariffs at all, so for jobs and livelihoods across the UK, we will coolly and calmly continue to negotiate in Britain’s interests.”
Along the thin strip of beach and woodland known as the Vistula Spit which marks the northernmost demarcation between Poland and the Russian exclave of Kaliningrad, there is not much in the way of a border.
Just some torn wire fencing and a few rotten posts which seem to stagger drunkenly into the shallows of the Baltic Sea.
Beneath a sign barring entry, we find a couple of empty bottles of Russian cognac and vodka.
Image: This doesn’t feel like the edge of NATO territory
“I don’t see much protection. It’s not good,” says Krzysztof from Katowice, who has come to inspect the border himself.
“We have to have some kind of scare tactic, something to show that we are trying to strengthen our army,” says Grzegorz, who lives nearby.
“At the same time I think I would not base the defence of our country solely on our army. I am convinced that Europe or America, if anything were to happen, will help us 100%.”
More on Nato
Related Topics:
Poland is investing massively in its defence, with military spending set to hit 4.7% of GDP in 2025, more than any other NATO country.
Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk has said he will introduce voluntary military training for men of any age, and women too should they wish, so the army has a competent reserve force in the event of war.
Image: Border between EU and the Russian Federation
He is investing $2.5bn in stronger border fortifications between Russia and Belarus, a project called East Shield which will include anti-tank obstacles, bunkers and potentially minefields too.
Along with its Baltic neighbours, Poland is withdrawing from the Ottawa convention against the use of land mines. It hasn’t committed to using them, but it wants to have that option.
We’ve been granted access to one of the cornerstones of Polish, and European defence, which is a couple of hours drive from the Vistula spit at the Redowicze military base.
Image: Aegis Ashore Poland
Aegis Ashore Poland, together with its sister site in Romania, are the land-based arms of NATO’s missile defence shield over Europe, which is run by the US navy.
They are symbols of the US commitment to NATO and to the protection of Europe.
Image: The control room at Aegis Ashore Poland
And despite changes at the top of the Pentagon it is “business as usual”, says Captain Michael Dwan who oversees air and missile defence within the US Sixth Fleet.
“Our mission to work with NATO forces has been unchanged. And so our commitment from the United States perspective and what capability we bring to ballistic missile defence and the defence of NATO is championed here in Poland.”
Image: The control room at Aegis Ashore Poland
As far as Russia is concerned, NATO’s two missile defence bases in Romania and Poland represent a NATO threat on their doorstep and are therefore a “priority target for potential neutralisation”, per Russia’s foreign ministry.
NATO says the installations are purely defensive and their SM-3 interceptor missiles are not armed and are not intended to carry warheads. Russia counters they could easily be adapted to threaten Russia.
“It’s not a matter of moving offensive weapons here into the facility, the hardware and the infrastructure is simply not installed.
“It would take months or years to change the mission of this site and a significant amount of money and capability and design.”
With so much marked “secret” on the site, it seems amazing to be granted the access.
But for NATO, transparency is part of deterrence. They want potential adversaries to know how sophisticated their radar and interception systems are.
They know that if they carried warheads on site, that would make them a target so they don’t.
Deterrence also depends on whether potential adversaries believe in the US’s commitment to NATO and to Europe’s defence.
On an operational level, as far as the troops are concerned, that commitment may still be iron-clad.
But as far as its commander-in-chief goes, there is still – as with so much around Donald Trump’s presidency – a great deal of uncertainty.
In the Oval Office on Wednesday afternoon President Trump suggested he might bundle a potential US troop drawdown in Europe together with the issue of EU trade and tariffs.
“Nice to wrap it up in one package,” he said, “it’s nice and clean”.
Probably not the way Europe sees it, not with a resurgent Russia on their doorstep, economic tailwinds breeding animosity and the notion of Pax Americana crumbling at their feet.