<\/p>\n\n\n\n
(Holden, 2022)<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The UK may not be as effective at making policies as it should be given its democratic status.\u00a0It fails because of a “short\u00a0terminism, a lack of policy knowledge, poor implementation and poor cross-government working”<\/strong>\u00a0(Sasse & Thomas, 2022). This is evident in the implementation of the Rwanda Bill.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Typically, western democracies tend to be more generous \u201ctowards their immigrants because they have a moral obligation\u201d<\/strong>\u00a0(Mirilovic, 2010), however, the Rwanda Immigration Bill is a controversial piece of legislation that the UK government proposed. It aims to tackle\u00a0the complicated problem of illegal immigration by taking a new and controversial strategy: deporting several\u00a0asylum seekers to Rwanda. This method transfers asylum applicants hundreds to Rwanda, where their requests for asylum are adjudicated. It is ostensibly intended to discourage illegal crossings and break trafficking in people networks. The administration presents the law as an inventive response to a persistent problem and argues that it is an essential step towards limiting immigration and boosting national security. This background lays the groundwork for an evaluation of the bill’s compliance with human rights norms and its wider ramifications for global asylum procedures.<\/p>\n\n\n\n (Ball, 2023)<\/p>\n\n\n\n By its very essence, the Rwanda immigration Bill undermines the United Kingdom\u2019s commitments to international law, which preserves the safety of immigrants.\u00a0The 1951 Refugee Convention and the 1967 Protocol, which provide that nations are prohibited from sending asylum seekers back to areas wherein their safety or liberty may be in danger, are contrasted with the Rwandan Immigration Bill.\u00a0The method taken by the law also seems to conflict with Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which forbids torture and\u00a0inhumane treatment as a form of punishment. The method taken by the law seems to be directly in conflict with Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which forbids torturing and\u00a0inhumane methods\u00a0as a form of punishment. The legal frameworks provided by the ECHR lay out fundamental principles for how countries should conduct receiving immigrants who are seeking asylum. The UK\u2019s deterring from these core principles raises ethical questioning on its responsibility towards those seeking asylum.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n The dangers which Asylum seekers are opposed to when facing deportation to Rwanda cannot be undermined. The first danger stems from the impact that it has on vulnerable groups in society. For example, the anti-LGBTQ+ nature of Rwanda in which the Rwandan government department has admitted to blocking asylum claims of those who identified as LGBTQ+ (Bychawski, 2024). Another danger which can be proposed is the fact that Rwanda is a country which constantly fails to uphold human rights standards. It can be regarded unethical for the United Kingdom, a democratic nation that respects human rights, to transfer immigrants to a nation that vehemently disagrees with such rights. Additionally, this poses a greater threat to the UK’s global power because it may subtly inspire other countries to flout their international obligations. <\/p>\n\n\n\n One way in which this bill can be overturned is through the utilisation of the media. This is further heightened by the \u201chigh and explosive salience can lead to change\u201d<\/strong> <\/strong>(Walgrave & Van Aelst, 2006). This was evident in the Windrush Scandal. In addition, the public can utilise protests to call for further action.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Rwanda immigration Bill, conflicts with the duty that the UK must uphold in terms of human rights. This post emphasises the significance of upholding human rights when on immigration policies. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Biblography<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Ball, J. (2023) Rishi Sunak\u2019s viciously cruel Rwanda bill is still doomed<\/em>, The New European<\/em>. Available at: https:\/\/www.theneweuropean.co.uk\/rishi-sunaks-viciously-cruel-rwanda-bill-is-still-doomed\/ (Accessed: 05 March 2024). <\/p>\n\n\n\n Bychawski, A. (2024) Home Office knew Rwanda was refusing LGBTQ asylum seekers<\/em>, openDemocracy<\/em>. Available at: https:\/\/www.opendemocracy.net\/en\/rwanda-bill-safety-lgbtq-asylum-seekers-unhcr-mps-vote\/ (Accessed: 05 March 2024). <\/p>\n\n\n\n European Courts of Human Rights (2023) Interim measures – of the European Court of Human Rights<\/em>. Available at: https:\/\/www.echr.coe.int\/documents\/d\/echr\/fs_interim_measures_eng (Accessed: 05 March 2024). <\/p>\n\n\n\n Holden, M. (2022) Insight: UK pushes ahead with Rwanda migrant scheme as small boats …<\/em>, reuters<\/em>. Available at: https:\/\/www.reuters.com\/world\/uk\/uk-pushes-ahead-with-rwanda-migrant-scheme-small-boats-keep-coming-2022-08-15\/ (Accessed: 05 March 2024). <\/p>\n\n\n\n Mirilovic, N. (2010) The Politics of Immigration: Dictatorship, Development, and Defense<\/em>, JSTOR<\/em>. Available at: https:\/\/www.jstor.org\/stable\/27822310?seq=7 (Accessed: 2024). <\/p>\n\n\n\n Sasse, T. and Thomas, A. (2022) Better policy making | The Institute for Government<\/em>. Available at: https:\/\/www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk\/sites\/default\/files\/publications\/better-policy-making.pdf (Accessed: 05 March 2024). <\/p>\n\n\n\n Walgrave, S. and Van Aelst, P. (2006) The contingency of the mass media\u2019s political agenda setting power: Toward a preliminary theory<\/em>, OUP Academic<\/em>. Available at: https:\/\/academic.oup.com\/joc\/article-abstract\/56\/1\/88\/4102573 (Accessed: 05 March 2024). <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" The Rwanda Immigration Bill represents a contentious shift in the UK’s policy towards seekers of asylum and a sharp break<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1536,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-651","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorised"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.qub.ac.uk\/pb-happ\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/651","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.qub.ac.uk\/pb-happ\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.qub.ac.uk\/pb-happ\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.qub.ac.uk\/pb-happ\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1536"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.qub.ac.uk\/pb-happ\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=651"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.qub.ac.uk\/pb-happ\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/651\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":652,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.qub.ac.uk\/pb-happ\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/651\/revisions\/652"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.qub.ac.uk\/pb-happ\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=651"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.qub.ac.uk\/pb-happ\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=651"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.qub.ac.uk\/pb-happ\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=651"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}<\/figure>\n\n\n\n