[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

The Rwanda scheme was deemed unlawful by the UK's Supreme Court, so it couldn't have worked. The court cited concerns about Rwanda not being a safe country for refugees, citing potential risks of returning refugees to persecution and Rwanda's human rights record.

If the government of the day had wanted it to work, they would have worked with a country with a good human rights record. But would that country want failed immigrants to the UK and how much would they charge the UK?

I think you're wrong.

On 15 November 2023, the UK’s Supreme Court declared the policy unlawful because Rwanda was not a safe country to which asylum seekers could be removed. In response to the judgment of the Supreme Court, the government published a new treaty with Rwanda, which provides for additional safeguards, and introduced new legislation, which declares that Rwanda is a safe country for asylum seekers. On 25 April 2024, the UK’s treaty with Rwanda was ratified, and the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act 2024 became law and is now in force.

https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.u...ers-to-rwanda/