The first flight taking asylum seekers to Rwanda was due to leave the UK on Tuesday night but the journey was dramatically halted at the last minute. Seven people were set to be on the flight on June 14 after a last-ditch legal bid to halt the controversial deportation policy failed. Despite that, though, last-minute interventions by the European Court of Human Rights saw all migrants removed from the plane and the flight did not take off as scheduled.
Home secretary Priti Patel's migrant policy will see those who arrive in the UK illegally face deportation 4,000 miles away to Rwanda following a deal being struck in April. On Monday three Court of Appeal judges upheld a High Court ruling last week that the removals could go ahead, rejecting an appeal by two refugee charities and the Public and Commercial Services union (PCS).
The policy has been widely criticised by opposition parties, human rights groups, the Archbishop of Canterbury, and even reportedly the Prince of Wales with the plans slammed as "appalling" and "immoral". Get the latest news from across Wales by signing up to our newsletters.
Read more: People in Wales split over plans to ban under-16s from buying energy drinks
Religious leaders have also criticised the plans, saying the policy "shames Britain". An open letter by Christian leaders added: "Those to be deported to Rwanda have had no chance to appeal or reunite with family in Britain. They have had no consideration of their asylum claim, recognition of their medical or other needs, or any attempt to understand their predicament."
However a UK Government spokesman has insisted the policy is compliant with Britain’s national and international obligations and is necessary to combat the activities of the human trafficking gangs. Ministers argue that only firm action will deter migrants from continuing to attempt the dangerous Channel crossing to try and reach the UK.
Ahead of the planned first flight out of the UK Welsh First Minister Mark Drakeford added his voice to the debate, saying: "Today is a dark day for the UK". He added: "This policy is a new low for the UK Government – and a cruel and inhumane response to those seeking safety and sanctuary in our country. It is in stark contrast to Wales’ position as a nation of sanctuary."
People in Wales have also had their say with hundreds responding to a picture posted on WalesOnline's Facebook page of one of the Rwandan hostel rooms the deported asylum seekers are set to stay in. The photo shows a room at the Hope Hostel in Kigali, a guest house with 50 double bedrooms for 100 people. Each room has amenities like shampoo, soap, and toothpaste while communal areas include computers.
Reacting to the photo opinion on the controversial policy was mixed. Many were furious that the flights were being allowed to go ahead but there were some who believed that this kind of action had to be taken to deal with the issue of illegal immigration in the UK. We have put together some of the statements that best reflect the views of our commenters.
Many respondents were horrified at the policy with several commenting that while the hostel room looked nice enough it did not justify the government's "totally immoral and unjust" plans. "This accommodation looks quite pleasant but this doesn't in any way alter the total immorality, unsuitability, and innate injustice of this new form of punishment," said Trish Walker. "Even if they were accommodated in the Rwandan equivalent of the Ritz it wouldn't make any difference. It's still wrong to fly people thousands of miles to another continent against their will and expect them to feel settled and behave appropriately."
She added: "I wouldn't mind betting that if this practice continues and more and more are flown out to face the same situation something is going to go horribly wrong. These are desperate people who are prepared to go to extreme lengths to achieve their goals."
Bethan Sayed said the policy made her "embarrassed for this nation', writing: "It's not about what room they will stay in, it's about the fact that they are being deported there in the first instance". Marie Carter added: "It's a hotel, not a home in a country free of human rights abuses".
Steve Brunt responded to the post, writing: "Is that it? Accommodation for a few nights, okay but long- or medium-term it needs cupboard space, tables, chairs. What community areas are provided; what schooling facilities - language tuition - trade skills - medical and first aid training; what are the medium- to long-term plans? He added: "It seems they haven't learned anything from the Australian experience of long-term offshore incarceration of people who have shown the courage and initiative to escape oppression only to find themselves subject to a deliberate dumbing down regime."
Others remarked that deporting asylum seekers to Rwanda could put them in danger. "My eyes are first drawn to mosquito nets," said Francis Lillis. "Malaria can kill and in that part of the world it’s not uncommon. So we are trafficking people to where even the insects are a potentially deadly threat."
Dylan Williams said the policy was "shameful and abhorrent", asking: "Is seeing an ‘acceptable’ room supposed to make us feel better about our government deporting innocent people to a country with an appalling human rights record and a long history of murdering its own people?"
Many respondents accused the government of passing the buck in relation to dealing with immigration and overpopulation. Cherril Rees wrote: "The government is not interested in the slightest about reducing illegal trafficking or ensuring that the 'business model' of the traffickers is shown not to be working, they just want to move the problem on to someone else. The living accommodation shown above is not anywhere like the refugee accommodation pictured on the news this morning."
However others did not see an issue with the hostel rooms with several remarking than the living conditions looked better than those offered to people needing housing in the UK. "Many of our own, elderly, homeless, ex-servicemen/women would love the chance to reside in accommodation such as this," said Kelly Price, while Kim Ann wrote: "Better rooms than hostels provided for British citizens".
"Better than what our veterans got," said Kelvin Jenkins, adding: "They fought for us but have been let down badly." Ginger Turner added: "I know everyone needs help but I'm all for charity and charity beginning at home. Sort out our homeless first."
Many of those who commented were in support of the policy and said that the issue of overpopulation in the UK, as well as the dangerous journeys made by asylum seekers, needed addressing with firm and immediate action. "Something needs to be done to stop asylum seekers making the dangerous journey," said Sarah Thomas. "So far people making the journeys are on the increase. For those who describe it as an immoral policy that shames Britain what do they propose?"
Robin Carter added: "The UK is a small island, it can't sustain overpopulation," while Ian Tedstone said that "something needs to be done," adding: "The benefit system and NHS are getting more strained year after year." Howard Davies commented: "Something has to be done to slow down the ridiculous numbers coming across and if no-one else has an alternative idea this has to be tried out."
Meanwhile Mark Howell wrote: "We are struggling to help our own people, food banks are inundated, NHS collapsing around us, housing is a big problem along with many other social problems, the cost of living going through the roof, and a bleak winter ahead of us." He added: "We have no idea how many of these people are in the country illegally. You don't need to be an expert to realise unless something is done far greater problems are going to occur."
