British MPs have voted to maintain the government’s proposal to put certain asylum seekers on one-way flights to Rwanda, preserving a policy that has enraged human rights groups and cost the United Kingdom at least $300 million with not a single flight taking off.
The House of Commons approved the government’s Rwanda bill in principle, 313-269, sending it to the Senate for further review. The outcome averts a defeat that would have devastated Prime Minister Rishi Sunak’s authority and thrown his administration into disarray. It gives Sunak some breathing room, but it sets up more bickering in the coming weeks.
The measure seeks to overturn a verdict by the United Kingdom Supreme Court that the idea to deport migrants who arrive in Britain by boat across the English Channel to Rwanda, where they would stay permanently, is illegal.
The bill is the consequence of a new agreement reached on December 5 by Rwanda and the United Kingdom.
British Home Secretary James Cleverly stated that the legally binding agreement would “address all the issues” made by the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom when it ruled last month that the controversial program was illegal.
However, the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill faces criticism both from Conservative centrists who think it skirts with breaking international law, and from lawmakers on the party’s right hardliners, who say it doesn’t go far enough to ensure migrants who arrive in the U.K. without permission can be deported.
After threatening to block the bill on Tuesday, many of the hard-liners abstained in hopes of toughening it up later in the legislative process.
After the vote, Sunak said on social media that “the British people should decide who gets to come to this country — not criminal gangs or foreign courts. That’s what this Bill delivers.”
British MPs have voted to maintain the government’s proposal to put certain asylum seekers on one-way flights to Rwanda, preserving a policy that has enraged human rights groups and cost the United Kingdom at least $300 million with not a single flight taking off.
The House of Commons approved the government’s Rwanda bill in principle, 313-269, sending it to the Senate for further review. The outcome averts a defeat that would have devastated Prime Minister Rishi Sunak’s authority and thrown his administration into disarray. It gives Sunak some breathing room, but it sets up more bickering in the coming weeks.
The measure seeks to overturn a verdict by the United Kingdom Supreme Court that the idea to deport migrants who arrive in Britain by boat across the English Channel to Rwanda, where they would stay permanently, is illegal.
The bill is the consequence of a new agreement reached on December 5 by Rwanda and the United Kingdom.
British Home Secretary James Cleverly stated that the legally binding agreement would “address all the issues” made by the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom when it ruled last month that the controversial program was illegal.
However, the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill faces criticism both from Conservative centrists who think it skirts with breaking international law, and from lawmakers on the party’s right hardliners, who say it doesn’t go far enough to ensure migrants who arrive in the U.K. without permission can be deported.
After threatening to block the bill on Tuesday, many of the hard-liners abstained in hopes of toughening it up later in the legislative process.
After the vote, Sunak said on social media that “the British people should decide who gets to come to this country — not criminal gangs or foreign courts. That’s what this Bill delivers.”
British MPs have voted to maintain the government’s proposal to put certain asylum seekers on one-way flights to Rwanda, preserving a policy that has enraged human rights groups and cost the United Kingdom at least $300 million with not a single flight taking off.
The House of Commons approved the government’s Rwanda bill in principle, 313-269, sending it to the Senate for further review. The outcome averts a defeat that would have devastated Prime Minister Rishi Sunak’s authority and thrown his administration into disarray. It gives Sunak some breathing room, but it sets up more bickering in the coming weeks.
The measure seeks to overturn a verdict by the United Kingdom Supreme Court that the idea to deport migrants who arrive in Britain by boat across the English Channel to Rwanda, where they would stay permanently, is illegal.
The bill is the consequence of a new agreement reached on December 5 by Rwanda and the United Kingdom.
British Home Secretary James Cleverly stated that the legally binding agreement would “address all the issues” made by the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom when it ruled last month that the controversial program was illegal.
However, the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill faces criticism both from Conservative centrists who think it skirts with breaking international law, and from lawmakers on the party’s right hardliners, who say it doesn’t go far enough to ensure migrants who arrive in the U.K. without permission can be deported.
After threatening to block the bill on Tuesday, many of the hard-liners abstained in hopes of toughening it up later in the legislative process.
After the vote, Sunak said on social media that “the British people should decide who gets to come to this country — not criminal gangs or foreign courts. That’s what this Bill delivers.”
British MPs have voted to maintain the government’s proposal to put certain asylum seekers on one-way flights to Rwanda, preserving a policy that has enraged human rights groups and cost the United Kingdom at least $300 million with not a single flight taking off.
The House of Commons approved the government’s Rwanda bill in principle, 313-269, sending it to the Senate for further review. The outcome averts a defeat that would have devastated Prime Minister Rishi Sunak’s authority and thrown his administration into disarray. It gives Sunak some breathing room, but it sets up more bickering in the coming weeks.
The measure seeks to overturn a verdict by the United Kingdom Supreme Court that the idea to deport migrants who arrive in Britain by boat across the English Channel to Rwanda, where they would stay permanently, is illegal.
The bill is the consequence of a new agreement reached on December 5 by Rwanda and the United Kingdom.
British Home Secretary James Cleverly stated that the legally binding agreement would “address all the issues” made by the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom when it ruled last month that the controversial program was illegal.
However, the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill faces criticism both from Conservative centrists who think it skirts with breaking international law, and from lawmakers on the party’s right hardliners, who say it doesn’t go far enough to ensure migrants who arrive in the U.K. without permission can be deported.
After threatening to block the bill on Tuesday, many of the hard-liners abstained in hopes of toughening it up later in the legislative process.
After the vote, Sunak said on social media that “the British people should decide who gets to come to this country — not criminal gangs or foreign courts. That’s what this Bill delivers.”
British MPs have voted to maintain the government’s proposal to put certain asylum seekers on one-way flights to Rwanda, preserving a policy that has enraged human rights groups and cost the United Kingdom at least $300 million with not a single flight taking off.
The House of Commons approved the government’s Rwanda bill in principle, 313-269, sending it to the Senate for further review. The outcome averts a defeat that would have devastated Prime Minister Rishi Sunak’s authority and thrown his administration into disarray. It gives Sunak some breathing room, but it sets up more bickering in the coming weeks.
The measure seeks to overturn a verdict by the United Kingdom Supreme Court that the idea to deport migrants who arrive in Britain by boat across the English Channel to Rwanda, where they would stay permanently, is illegal.
The bill is the consequence of a new agreement reached on December 5 by Rwanda and the United Kingdom.
British Home Secretary James Cleverly stated that the legally binding agreement would “address all the issues” made by the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom when it ruled last month that the controversial program was illegal.
However, the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill faces criticism both from Conservative centrists who think it skirts with breaking international law, and from lawmakers on the party’s right hardliners, who say it doesn’t go far enough to ensure migrants who arrive in the U.K. without permission can be deported.
After threatening to block the bill on Tuesday, many of the hard-liners abstained in hopes of toughening it up later in the legislative process.
After the vote, Sunak said on social media that “the British people should decide who gets to come to this country — not criminal gangs or foreign courts. That’s what this Bill delivers.”
British MPs have voted to maintain the government’s proposal to put certain asylum seekers on one-way flights to Rwanda, preserving a policy that has enraged human rights groups and cost the United Kingdom at least $300 million with not a single flight taking off.
The House of Commons approved the government’s Rwanda bill in principle, 313-269, sending it to the Senate for further review. The outcome averts a defeat that would have devastated Prime Minister Rishi Sunak’s authority and thrown his administration into disarray. It gives Sunak some breathing room, but it sets up more bickering in the coming weeks.
The measure seeks to overturn a verdict by the United Kingdom Supreme Court that the idea to deport migrants who arrive in Britain by boat across the English Channel to Rwanda, where they would stay permanently, is illegal.
The bill is the consequence of a new agreement reached on December 5 by Rwanda and the United Kingdom.
British Home Secretary James Cleverly stated that the legally binding agreement would “address all the issues” made by the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom when it ruled last month that the controversial program was illegal.
However, the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill faces criticism both from Conservative centrists who think it skirts with breaking international law, and from lawmakers on the party’s right hardliners, who say it doesn’t go far enough to ensure migrants who arrive in the U.K. without permission can be deported.
After threatening to block the bill on Tuesday, many of the hard-liners abstained in hopes of toughening it up later in the legislative process.
After the vote, Sunak said on social media that “the British people should decide who gets to come to this country — not criminal gangs or foreign courts. That’s what this Bill delivers.”
British MPs have voted to maintain the government’s proposal to put certain asylum seekers on one-way flights to Rwanda, preserving a policy that has enraged human rights groups and cost the United Kingdom at least $300 million with not a single flight taking off.
The House of Commons approved the government’s Rwanda bill in principle, 313-269, sending it to the Senate for further review. The outcome averts a defeat that would have devastated Prime Minister Rishi Sunak’s authority and thrown his administration into disarray. It gives Sunak some breathing room, but it sets up more bickering in the coming weeks.
The measure seeks to overturn a verdict by the United Kingdom Supreme Court that the idea to deport migrants who arrive in Britain by boat across the English Channel to Rwanda, where they would stay permanently, is illegal.
The bill is the consequence of a new agreement reached on December 5 by Rwanda and the United Kingdom.
British Home Secretary James Cleverly stated that the legally binding agreement would “address all the issues” made by the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom when it ruled last month that the controversial program was illegal.
However, the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill faces criticism both from Conservative centrists who think it skirts with breaking international law, and from lawmakers on the party’s right hardliners, who say it doesn’t go far enough to ensure migrants who arrive in the U.K. without permission can be deported.
After threatening to block the bill on Tuesday, many of the hard-liners abstained in hopes of toughening it up later in the legislative process.
After the vote, Sunak said on social media that “the British people should decide who gets to come to this country — not criminal gangs or foreign courts. That’s what this Bill delivers.”
British MPs have voted to maintain the government’s proposal to put certain asylum seekers on one-way flights to Rwanda, preserving a policy that has enraged human rights groups and cost the United Kingdom at least $300 million with not a single flight taking off.
The House of Commons approved the government’s Rwanda bill in principle, 313-269, sending it to the Senate for further review. The outcome averts a defeat that would have devastated Prime Minister Rishi Sunak’s authority and thrown his administration into disarray. It gives Sunak some breathing room, but it sets up more bickering in the coming weeks.
The measure seeks to overturn a verdict by the United Kingdom Supreme Court that the idea to deport migrants who arrive in Britain by boat across the English Channel to Rwanda, where they would stay permanently, is illegal.
The bill is the consequence of a new agreement reached on December 5 by Rwanda and the United Kingdom.
British Home Secretary James Cleverly stated that the legally binding agreement would “address all the issues” made by the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom when it ruled last month that the controversial program was illegal.
However, the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill faces criticism both from Conservative centrists who think it skirts with breaking international law, and from lawmakers on the party’s right hardliners, who say it doesn’t go far enough to ensure migrants who arrive in the U.K. without permission can be deported.
After threatening to block the bill on Tuesday, many of the hard-liners abstained in hopes of toughening it up later in the legislative process.
After the vote, Sunak said on social media that “the British people should decide who gets to come to this country — not criminal gangs or foreign courts. That’s what this Bill delivers.”
Related posts:
French lawmakers seek deal on tougher migration bill
Rwanda arrests ‘Hotel Rwanda’ hero on terrorism charges
UK PM Sunak faces key Rwanda vote after Tory deputy chairmen resign
UK not legally bound to pay into EU budget if no Brexit deal -British lawmakers
British lawmakers resume debate on Brexit deal
Russia bans over 200 British lawmakers from country over Ukraine
British Prime Minister Theresa May faces no-confidence vote
British PM, Theresa May survives no-confidence vote in Parliament
