Long distance
question and answer between the
United Kingdom government and the UN
after the British Interior Minister Suella Braverman presenting in the House of Commons
the bill introducing a drastic crackdown on illegal immigration
.
The
United Nations
has said Britain's plans would amount to an
"asylum ban"
.
Iron fist of the Conservative government of Rishi Sunak to stop the landings of migrants crossing the English Channel and entering Great Britain with an unprecedented bill that borders on international law.
This was admitted by Suella Braverman herself, Minister of the Interior and supporter of the hard line against illegal immigrants, presenting the Illegal Migration Bill to the House of Commons and saying she was "confident" in the fact that in the confrontation started with the European Court of Human Rights no obstacles.
The measures put in place - which for the UN are practically equivalent to "the end of the right to asylum" - go beyond what has been done to date in the United Kingdom to curb illegal immigration, which has marked the
last year a record 45,000 arrivals on small boats.
On the basis of the bill, illegal immigrants entering the country will be detained and expelled "as soon as possible" to Rwanda or other third countries and the obligation has been introduced for the holder of the Home Office to proceed with repatriation, making it effectively impossible to ask for asylum (rapid expulsion does not apply to minors under the age of 18, adults with medical problems and those who are at "real risk" if they are repatriated to their country of origin).
Not only that, those who are expelled will not be able to return to the Kingdom or apply for British citizenship.
obligation for the holder of the Home Office to proceed with the repatriation making it de facto impossible to ask for asylum (rapid expulsion does not take place for minors under 18, for adults with medical problems and those who are at "real risk" if they are repatriated in the country of origin).
Not only that, those who are expelled will not be able to return to the Kingdom or apply for British citizenship.
obligation for the holder of the Home Office to proceed with the repatriation making it de facto impossible to ask for asylum (rapid expulsion does not take place for minors under 18, for adults with medical problems and those who are at "real risk" if they are repatriated in the country of origin).
Not only that, those who are expelled will not be able to return to the Kingdom or apply for British citizenship.
The plan, with retroactive application, aims to reduce the great pressure on the reception system and above all to respond to the requests of the electorate eager for a squeeze, "whose patience has run out" after years of broken promises, as Braverman underlined.
In this way, Prime Minister Sunak plays the card of contrasting immigration to try to recover the many points behind Keir Starmer's Labor in the polls.
And this initiative, although promised in similar terms by Boris Johnson in the past, bears the signature of a prime minister and a key minister, both sons of immigrants with Indian roots.
After all, Sunak had included the fight against illegal immigration and human traffickers among the five priorities of his program.
Braverman herself today used tones reminiscent of her highly criticized statement last year about an "invasion" taking place on the English coast.
"There are 100 million people" around the world who would be entitled to asylum under current law", he said and then added: "We are clear, they are coming here". Many points of the law harshly criticized by NGOs in defense of human rights.
Like the one that prevents the use of modern slavery laws to oppose the decisions of the Tory government.
Furthermore, an annual ceiling was mentioned, to be reviewed every 12 months, on the quota of refugees that the Kingdom will undertake to accept through "legal routes".
But according to critics at the moment they do not exist in reality.
The bill was described as "unfeasible" and "chaotic" by the shadow interior minister, Yvette Cooper, who contested more than anything else its real effectiveness.
On the other hand, Amnesty International's response was very harsh: "There is nothing right, human or even practical in this plan" and in seeing ministers who remove the protection of human rights for a group of people in order to cover up their failures.