_ If we're sent to Rwanda we'll just try again: Migrants in Dunkirk who are trying to enter UK vow they'll return to make another crossing if they are deported to Africa - as they brand stop the boats plan 'inhumane'

Migrants in Dunkirk wanting to cross the Channel in small boats have vowed they will just keep coming back even if deported to Rwanda.

Would-be asylum seekers camping in northern France and waiting to try entering the UK have condemned what they called Rishi Sunak's 'inhumane' small boats plan - and insisted they were not deterred by the threat of being flown to Africa. 

The Prime Minister is preparing to try to force the Rwanda plan through Parliament - warning he is ready to make MPs and peers sit through the night to finally make a breakthrough on new laws.

The showdown comes after the House of Lords again refused to back down last week, passing more amendments to the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill despite MPs repeatedly dismissing their objections.

Yet would-be asylum seekers in Dunkirk today insisted they would keep coming back even if sent to Rwanda whose government has negotiated a multi-million-pound deal with Britain to process claims. 

Their defiance came as former Home Secretary Suella Braverman also warned the bill was not strong enough to be an effective deterrent. 

One, given the pseudonym Richard by BBC Breakfast which interviewed him, told how he would try again to get to the UK even if put on a flight to Rwanda.

He insisted: 'Maybe when I will go to Rwanda again - it's difficult. I will come again. I will keep on, the struggle.' 

Another, named as James, said: 'My neighbouring country is Rwanda, so if I knew Rwanda was a safe country then I would've gone there because they're my neighbours.

'Because I know that Rwanda can never be safe for me, that's why I risk myself to come through sea and that's why I'm here.'

A third, dubbed Richard by the BBC, said: 'I try my chance - if I was safe or not, if I go to Rwanda or Africa, it's no matter to me. But first I want to go to the UK - it's important.' 

The corporation quoted one as calling the Rwanda proposals 'inhumane' and saying he would feel suicidal if sent to Rwanda, having been travelling for three years hoping to reach Britain.

He added: 'They don't know how far we have come and what it takes for us to come here.' 

And Rosie, a 16-year-old from South Sudan, told the programme: 'I'm worried, but nothing I can do - God save us.'

Meanwhile, former Home Secretary Suella Braverman told ITV's Good Morning Britain she agreed with the principle of the proposed bill but thought the government's approach did not go far enough.

She said: 'I believe the bill is fatally flawed - that's why I took the decision earlier this year to vote against it - I don't believe it's going to provide the deterrent that we need to stop the boats.

'What we need to see is regular flights being sent off to Rwanda with large numbers of illegal migrants on those flights.

'That's how we send a message to the people-smuggling gangs, to those who are seeking to come here illegally, that they won't get a life in the UK by doing so.

'I do maintain Rwanda is a safe country. The principle of the scheme is something I support - I do believe by getting regular flights off to Rwanda we will stop the boats.

'That's how, largely, the Australians were able to stop their illegal maritime migration problem, by sending people off-shore.

'So I do agree with the principle - what I disagree with is how the government, this government, is going about delivering that scheme.'

She also reiterated her call for Britain to withdraw from the European Court of Human Rights which she blamed for blocking previous Rwanda flights.

She said: 'This is our third bill, this is our third act of Parliament. The government has tried to do this within the confines of the European Convention on Human Rights and it's not worked.

'I believe now the only way to actually ensure that flights can go off, boats can be stopped and we can actually take back control of our borders and laws is to leave the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights.

'We saw in June 2022 how the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg intervened to block the flights from taking off.

'That's an example, one of many examples, of how interventionist this court is - how interventionist and obstructive the European Court of Human Rights is.' 

The UK's Supreme Court has deemed Rwanda an unsafe country for sending migrants to, citing government crackdowns on critics and media, a lack of independence among judges and lawyers and high rejections of asylum claims.

Mr Sunak is expected to deliver a message to peers this morning that his patience has run out, with his pledge to 'stop the boats' on the line.

In a round of interviews, deputy Foreign Secretary Andrew Mitchell upped the ante by branding peers' resistance to sending asylum seekers to Rwanda 'patronising' and said such criticisms at times 'border on racism'.

The proposed law aims to send some asylum seekers on a one-way trip to Kigali in order to deter people from crossing the Channel in small boats.

The Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill and a new treaty are intended to prevent further legal challenges to the stalled asylum scheme after the Supreme Court ruled the plan was unlawful.

As well as compelling judges to regard the east African country as safe, it would give ministers the power to ignore emergency injunctions.

Despite MPs overturning previous changes by the upper chamber, last week peers renewed their demand that Rwanda cannot be treated as a safe country until an independent monitoring body has verified that protections contained in the treaty are implemented.

The provision would also allow the Secretary of State to effectively pull the plug on the scheme if the promised safeguards were not maintained.

The Lords also reinserted an exemption from removal for those who worked with the UK military or Government overseas, such as Afghan interpreters.

Mr Mitchell rejected the calls for Afghans to get special treatment.

He insisted there was a 'safe and legal route' available to them to come to the UK and urged the House of Lords to 'accept the will' of the House of Commons and the British people.

Mr Mitchell told Times Radio: 'We have an absolute obligation to Afghan interpreters, people who served the British Army, served our country during the Afghan crisis.

'But I'm pleased to say that thanks to the scheme that the Government set up, the Arap (Afghan relocations and assistance policy) scheme, something like 16,100 Afghans have been given settlement in the UK.

'So I don't think this amendment is necessary, there is already a safe and legal route for Afghan interpreters and others who served the Army.'

Mr Mitchell said he hoped the Lords would 'accept the will of the elected House now and let the Bill proceed' as 'that is what the British people want'.

If MPs remove those amendments tonight, they would send the bill immediately back to the Upper House - and continue to sit until peers accept.

If peers pass the same amendment twice, the Commons faces the choice of either accepting the change or losing the bill under a rarely-used process known as 'double insistence'.

Crossbench peer and former independent reviewer of terrorism legislation Lord Anderson has raised this possibility and described the legislation as a 'post-truth Bill' that asks Parliament to declare Rwanda is safe when he believes it is not.

However, that is regarded as a 'nuclear option', with Labour indicating it would not try to block the legislation entirely.

Government sources have played down the impact of the wrangling, but many now believe flights cannot begin until mid-June at the earliest.

Downing Street has declined to stand by the timetable previously set out by Mr Sunak for flights to take off in the Spring, merely saying the policy would be implemented 'as soon as possible'.

Mr Sunak vowed on Friday that this evening would be the final showdown, saying: 'The very simple thing here is that repeatedly, everyone has tried to block us from getting this Bill through - yet again you saw it this week.

'You saw Labour peers blocking us again and that's enormously frustrating - everyone's patience with this has run thin. Mine certainly has.

'So our intention now is to get this done on Monday - no more prevarication, no more delay. We will sit there and vote until it's done.

'We're going to get this Bill passed, and then we will work to get flights off so we can build that deterrent, because that is the only way to resolve this issue. If you care about stopping the boats, you've got to have a deterrent.'

Ministers have been indicating that the RAF would be deployed to run the flights, instead of using a private airline.

There have been reports the Ministry of Defence is preparing to repurpose at least one RAF Voyager plane for deportations, with claims the government has struggled to find a private airline.

Meanwhile, about 40,000 migrants living in the UK are still 'pending relocation' after having their asylum claims ruled inadmissible, officials last week admitted.

And Sir Matthew Rycroft, the head of the Home Office, told MPs last Monday the number of migrants arriving illegally in Britain must fall by about 10,000 for the government's Rwanda policy to prove value for money.

He said a one-third reduction in small boat crossings from last year's figure of 29,437 would be needed given the cost of the deportation scheme, which will reach £290million by next year.

Sir Matthew also revealed that the government in Kigali would be handed another £50million almost as soon as the new law aimed at getting flights off the ground was passed by Parliament amid the wrangles between the Commons and the Lords.

More than 40,000 migrants have now attempted the dangerous channel crossing from England to France since Mr Sunak became Prime Minister, figures revealed.

(Fluierul)