Connect with us

Published

on

The government’s flagship immigration policy, known as the Rwanda plan, is hanging in the balance this morning after the highest court in the land found it to be unlawful.

But what is the scheme? Why is it so controversial? And how has it ended up in the judicial system?

The Rwanda plan was first proposed by Boris Johnson back in April 2022 as the government came under increasing pressure to tackle the growing number of small boats crossing the Channel.

The then prime minister outlined his policy that would see anyone arriving in the country illegally deported to the east African nation.

Those who successfully applied for refugee status when there would then be given the right to remain in Rwanda – not return to the UK.

But if their claim was unsuccessful, they could then be removed to their country of origin.

The deal, signed by the home secretary at the time, Priti Patel, and her Rwandan counterpart, cost the government £120m.

More on Boris Johnson

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Boris Johnson: ‘We must defeat people smugglers’

Mr Johnson said it would help deter people from making the dangerous crossing to the UK and tackle the “barbaric trade in human misery” caused by people traffickers.

Opposition parties and charities deemed the plan “cruel and nasty”, and claimed the policy would break international human rights laws.

There were even reports that the King – then the Prince of Wales – was a critic of the scheme.

But the government pushed ahead, with the first flight to Kigali set to take off in June 2022.

Come the day, there were only seven asylum seekers on board the plane.

Numerous court cases were launched by refugee charities, as well as the Public and Commercial Services union, ahead of take-off, calling the policy “inhumane” and demanding the deportations were stopped.

Protesters also tried to stop the flight, locking themselves together with metal pipes and blockading exits of the Colnbrook Immigration Removal Centre at Heathrow, where the migrants were believed to be held.

However, judges in the UK ruled the seven people could be deported, saying there had been an “assurance” from the government that if the policy was found to be unlawful at a later stage, steps would be taken to bring back any migrants.

This didn’t stop further last-minute legal challenges to prevent take-off though.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Labour’s Sir Keir Starmer dubbed the government’s Rwanda plan a ‘gimmick’.

In the end, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) issued injunctions to halt the deportations altogether, leaving the plane grounded on a Ministry of Defence runway.

The government said it would appeal against the ruling, with Tory MPs angered that a European court could overrule the decision of English judges.

But campaigners said it showed the “inhumanity” of the plan for the human rights watchdog to intervene.

In the months that followed, there was a change in government, with Liz Truss taking the keys to Number 10 and Suella Braverman heading up the Home Office.

Both women stood by the Rwanda plan and, even when Ms Truss was ousted weeks later, her successor Rishi Sunak also gave it his backing.

The ruling of the EHRC – which ensures the European Human Rights Convention is adhered to – was still fresh in the minds of Tory backbenchers, as they saw it as holding up the policy they believed would stop the boats.

And it led to a number of calls for the UK to leave the convention, though they appeared to remain in the minority.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Suella Braverman is a vocal advocate of the Rwanda policy

The plan itself headed back to the courts as campaigners tried a new tactic to stop it in its tracks, launching a judicial review on the Home Office’s assessment of Rwanda as a safe third country.

The government doubled down on its belief in the scheme – with Ms Braverman telling the Conservative Party conference it was her “dream” to see flights take off.

And come December of 2022, that dream looked closer to reality, as the High Court ruled in the favour of ministers, saying the scheme did not breach either the UN’s Refugee Convention or human rights laws, and that Rwanda was a “safe third country” for migrants to be sent to.

But the legal battle was far from over.

Campaigners were then allowed to appeal the ruling in the Court of Appeal, and the three sitting judges overturned the High Court’s decision.

Lord Chief Justice Lord Burnett concluded Rwanda was not a safe place for people to be housed while their asylum claims were processed, adding: “The result is that the High Court’s decision that Rwanda was a safe third country is reversed, and unless and until the deficiencies in its asylum process are corrected, removal of asylum seekers will be unlawful.”

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

The Court of Appeal ruled against the government

The government was outraged, with the prime minister saying he “fundamentally disagreed” with the ruling, and would do “whatever is necessary” to get the removal flights going.

The anger of Ms Braverman and her right-wing supporters also grew, with further demands to leave the ECHR, and others calling for the human rights convention to be overhauled.

The government got approval to appeal that ruling and, as a result, it was sent to the Supreme Court.

The judgment delivered by the Supreme Court President Lord Rees found that the Court of Appeal had been right to overturn the original decision of the High Court.

He said the justices had unanimously concluded those sent to the country would be at “real risk” of being returned home, whether their grounds to claim asylum were justified or not.

The full judgment said those sent to Rwanda would be at risk of re-foulement – where a refugee is returned to their country of origin where there is a substantial risk they could be subjected to torture.

The court ruling said the principle of re-foulement is not just a breach of the European Human Rights Convention, but a number of other international treaties.

Mr Sunak said ministers would now “consider next steps”.

Continue Reading

Politics

Can a trade deal with Trump save Starmer?

Published

on

By

Can a trade deal with Trump save Starmer?

👉 Click here to listen to Electoral Dysfunction on your podcast app 👈

With Ruth away, Beth and Harriet are joined by Salma Shah, a former Conservative special adviser from 2014-2018 and now a political commentator.

They unpack Donald Trump’s surprise UK trade deal announcement and what it means for Sir Keir Starmer, who’s also landed a deal with India and is gearing up for key EU negotiations.

But while the global optics look strong, the domestic mood is tense. Harriet has some advice for the Labour backbenchers who are unhappy over welfare cuts and the winter fuel allowance policy.

Also – does Sir Keir need a hand with his comms?

Come and join us live on Tuesday 20 May at Cadogan Hall in London, tickets available now: https://www.aegpresents.co.uk/event/electoral-dysfunction-live/

Remember you can also watch us on YouTube!

Continue Reading

Politics

Red Wall MPs should focus on two-child benefit cap rather than winter fuel, Harriet Harman says

Published

on

By

Red Wall MPs should focus on two-child benefit cap rather than winter fuel, Harriet Harman says

Red Wall MPs should push for the two-child benefit cap to be lifted rather than a reversal of the winter fuel payment policy, Baroness Harriet Harman has said.

Baroness Harman, the former Labour Party chair, told Sky’s Electoral Dysfunction podcast that this would hand the group a “progressive win” rather than simply “protesting and annoying Sir Keir Starmer” over winter fuel.

Earlier this week, a number of MPs in the Red Wall – Labour’s traditional heartlands in the north of England – reposted a statement on social media in which they said the leadership’s response to the local elections had “fallen on deaf ears”.

Follow live: UK-US trade deal

They singled out the cut to the winter fuel allowance as an issue that was raised on the doorstep and urged the government to rethink the policy, arguing doing so “isn’t weak, it takes us to a position of strength”.

Labour’s decision to means test the policy has snatched the benefit away from millions of pensioners.

But Baroness Harman said a better target for the group could be an overhaul of George Osborne’s two-child benefit cap.

More on Harriet Harman

The cap, announced in 2015 as part of Lord David Cameron’s austerity measures, means while parents can claim child tax credit or Universal Credit payments for their first and second child, they can’t make claims for any further children they have.

Labour faced pressure to remove the cap in the early months of government, with ministers suggesting in February that they were considering relaxing the limit.

Baroness Harman told Beth Rigby that this could be a sensible pressure point for Red Wall MPs to target.

She said: “It could be that they have a kind of progressive win, and it might not be a bad thing to do in the context of an overall strategy on child poverty.

“Let’s see whether instead of just protesting and annoying Sir Keir Starmer, they can build a bridge to a new progressive set of policies.”

Jo White, the Labour MP for Bassetlaw and a member of the Red Wall group, suggested that her party’s “connection” to a core group of voters “died” with the decision to means test the winter fuel payment for pensioners.

“We need to reset the government,” she told Electoral Dysfunction. “The biggest way to do that is by tackling issues such as winter fuel payments.

“I think we should raise the thresholds so that people perhaps who are paying a higher level of tax are the only people who are exempt from getting it.”

Pic: AP
Image:
Pic: AP

A group of MPs in the Red Wall, thought to number about 40, met on Tuesday night following the fallout of local election results in England, which saw Labour lose the Runcorn by-election and control of Doncaster Council to Reform UK.

Following the results, Sir Keir said “we must deliver that change even more quickly – we must go even further”.

Some Labour MPs believe it amounted to ignoring voters’ concerns.

Read more:
UK and US trade deal will save thousands of UK jobs – Starmer
Starmer faces rebellion from Labour MPs over welfare reforms

One of the MPs who was present at the meeting told Sky News there was “lots of anger at the government’s response to the results”.

“People acknowledged the winter fuel allowance was the main issue for us on the doorstep,” they said.

“There is a lack of vision from this government.”

Another added: “Everyone was furious.”

Downing Street has ruled out a U-turn on means testing the winter fuel payment, following newspaper reports earlier this week that one might be on the cards.

Continue Reading

Politics

US man who sent crypto to ISIS could serve prison till he’s 65

Published

on

By

US man who sent crypto to ISIS could serve prison till he’s 65

US man who sent crypto to ISIS could serve prison till he’s 65

A man from the US state of Virginia will spend over three decades behind bars after being convicted of sending crypto to the terrorist organization commonly known as the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria.

Federal Judge David Novak sentenced Mohammed Azharuddin Chhipa to 30 years and four months in prison on May 7 for sending over $185,000 to the Islamic State, the Department of Justice said on May 8.

Prosecutors said that from around October 2019 until October 2022, the 35-year-old Chhipa collected and sent money to female Islamic State members in Syria, which helped them escape prison camps and funded fighting.

The Justice Department said Chhipa would raise funds for the United Nations-designated terror organization through social media — receiving money online, or traveling hundreds of miles to accept donations in person. 

He’d convert the money into crypto and send it to Turkey for it to be smuggled to Islamic State members across the border in Syria, prosecutors said.

A federal jury convicted Chhipa in December, finding him guilty on a charge of conspiracy to provide support to a terrorist organization and four charges of providing and attempting to provide support to a terrorist organization.

US man who sent crypto to ISIS could serve prison till he’s 65
An undated picture of Chhipa, a naturalized US citizen born in India. Source: Alexandria Sheriff’s Office via TRM

“This defendant directly financed ISIS in its efforts to commit vile terrorist atrocities against innocent citizens in America and abroad,” Attorney General Pam Bondi said in a statement. “This severe sentence illustrates that if you fund terrorism, we will prosecute you and put you behind bars for decades.”

Chhipa tried to flee US during FBI probe

Prosecutors said that during the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s investigation into Chhipa, he tried to flee the country to escape prosecution and tried to hide his tracks through a series of actions seemingly aimed at confusing authorities.

According to a motion for detention filed in August, FBI agents searched Chhipa’s house on Aug. 2, 2019, and that night Chhipa drove to a bank, withdrew $1,800 from an ATM, and then went to a Taco Bell, where he paid a stranger for a ride to a relative’s house. The relative then drove him to a grocery store.

Related: US Treasury sanctions Myanmar militia group for alleged crypto scams

Three days later, prosecutors said Chhipa “purchased a series of bus tickets using variations and/or misspelling of his name and recently created email accounts.”

He then travelled from Virginia to Mexico and onto Guatemala. He then bought tickets to fly from Guatemala to Panama, then onto Germany, and then to Egypt, but an Interpol Blue Notice was issued, and he was returned to the US.

Magazine: Terrorism and the Israel-Gaza war have been weaponized to destroy crypto 

Continue Reading

Trending