The Supreme Court has not ruled that sending migrants to a third country is unlawful, only that in the case of Rwanda there is a possibility that those whose claim for asylum is rejected might be sent back to their own country, which would be unlawful. It is rather strange that the UNHCR brought the case against the government when the UN itself together with the African Union has sponsored a scheme to rescue migrants from Libya and send them to,yes, Rwanda. The government intends to seek a treaty with Rwanda that will ensure that asylum seekers cannot be returned to their home country if their application is rejected. At least it is trying to find a way of breaking the business model of the people traffickers who at the moment can safely tell their clients, whether they have a genuine claim to asylum or not, that once they get to Britain there is little chance of their being removed. I think it is a little easy for people in Putney, where asylum seekers are unlikely to be housed, to revel in the government's defeat. Something has to be done to deter illegal and dangerous crossings.
Steven Rose ● 587d