British MPs vote in favor of contentious Rwanda asylum plan

British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak survived a rebellion within his party over his signature immigration policy. The plan to send asylum-seekers to Rwanda has cost millions — and so far been an abject failure.

British lawmakers have voted in favor of Prime Minister Rishi Sunak's plan to send asylum seekers to Rwanda — a policy that was seen as term-defining for Sunak's embattled government.

Members of Parliament voted 313 to 269 in favor of the bill, sending it on for further scrutiny.

"The British people should decide who gets to come to this country — not criminal gangs or foreign courts," Sunak said on social media after the controversial bill passed.

Despite the large majority held by Sunak's Conservatives, the plan that envisages sending asylum-seekers to Rwanda was opposed not only by the opposition but also by dozens of hard-liners within his own party.

Britain's climate minister, Graham Stuart, was even recalled to London from the COP28 summit in Dubai to ensure his vote.

The importance Sunak has attached to the policy could mean that its failure would bring about his downfall.

What did Sunak and his government say?

Ahead of the vote, Sunak took to social media to urge lawmakers to support what he called "the toughest ever anti-illegal immigration legislation."

"This bill will allow us to control who comes into this country — not criminal gangs or foreign courts," he wrote. "To stop the boats, we need to back this bill."

"Stop the boats" — referring to the vessels carrying migrants attempting to cross the Channel to Britain from the European mainland — has been a frequent rallying cry by the Conservative government in recent years. More than 29,000 people have made the crossing this year, down from 46,000 in all of 2022.

The British premier also invited more than a dozen hard-line Conservative opponents of the plan to a breakfast meeting in his official residence at 10 Downing Street.

The newly-appointed minister for illegal migration, Michael Tomlinson, asserted that the bill would "get through tonight," while saying he would "engage constructively" with critical lawmakers over their concerns about the policy.

What did critics of the plan say?

Conservative hard-liners say the Rwanda policy does not ensure that people who arrive in the UK without permission can be deported, as it would allow them to challenge their expulsion in both UK courts and at the European Court of Human Rights.

Human rights groups, on the other hand, say not only that the plan is unworkable but that it is unethical to send asylum-seekers to a country more than 4,000 miles (6,500 kilometers) away without allowing them to ever return to the UK. In addition, the Supreme Court, in a ruling last month, said that Rwanda cannot be considered a safe country to send migrants, declaring the plan illegal.

Sacha Deshmukh, chief executive of Amnesty International UK, called the plan an "outrageous attack on the very concept of universal human rights."

Sunak says approval in Tuesday's vote in the House of Commons, the lower house of parliament, will revive the plan in a new guise that addresses the court's concerns as The Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill 2023.

What does the plan involve?

The plan has drawn parallels with Australia's highly controversial system of offshore processing, which has been slammed by human rights bodies around the world.

Under the policy, hundreds of asylum-seekers from the UK would be sent to the East African country for processing and settlement.

Supporters of the idea, which has already cost the UK government 240 million British pounds (€278 million, $300 million) in payments to Rwanda, say it will deter people from making the hazardous sea journeys and put people-smuggling gangs out of business.

So far, not a single person has been sent to Rwanda under the plan.

As lawmakers debated the plan in Parliament, a refugee charity reported that an asylum-seeker had died on a barge housing migrants waiting for a decision on their applications. The death was seized upon by human rights groups as highlighting what they call inhumane conditions for asylum-seekers in the UK.