Britain’s House of Lords dealt a sharp setback to the government on Wednesday by voting to change key Conservative Party immigration legislation and potentially delay a controversial plan to put asylum seekers on one-way flights to Rwanda.

It was an unusual show of opposition from the Lords, many of whom objected to the policy on legal and constitutional grounds. Although the Conservative government, with a comfortable majority in the House of Commons, can eventually get the bill passed, the back-and-forth with the House of Lords, the unelected upper house of parliament, could hamper the government’s hopes for a quick start can thwart. to a plan it sees as crucial to its fortunes in an election year.

Prime Minister Rishi Sunak argues that the flights to Rwanda, a small country in East Africa, would be a vital deterrent and could stem the flow of tens of thousands of people who make the dangerous, often illegal, small-scale crossing from France to Britain every year to make. often unseaworthy boats.

The government does not expect such flights until May, and following the House of Lords’ actions on Wednesday, that timeline could now move to June. The Prime Minister’s Office had no immediate comment.

Those chosen for the first flight are expected to file legal challenges that could further hamper the plan.

Under the legislation, the asylum claims of those deported from Britain would be assessed in Rwanda. But even if the claims were successful, the deportees would remain there and not be allowed to settle in Britain.

The policy was started almost two years ago by former Prime Minister Boris Johnson. But despite paying hundreds of millions of pounds to Rwanda as part of its deal with that country, the British government has so far failed to send a single asylum seeker there.

The government is under intense pressure over the arrival of small boats on British shores, which have become a symbol of its failure to control immigration. Taking control of Britain’s borders was a central promise of the 2016 Brexit campaign, championed by Mr Johnson and backed by Mr Sunak.

In June 2022, a last-minute legal action grounded the first scheduled flight of asylum seekers to Rwanda, and the policy has since been suspended. Last year, the UK High Court ruled against the plan, saying that Rwanda was not a safe destination for refugees and that there was a risk that some sent there would be sent back to their countries of origin, where they could be in danger.

The bill discussed on Wednesday overturns that ruling, declaring Rwanda a safe country and instructing the courts to consider the country as such. This approach was heavily criticized in the House of Lords, which includes former lawmakers, lawyers, judges, civil servants and diplomats.

In a debate last month, Kenneth Clarke, a Conservative former finance minister, said the legislation set “an extremely dangerous precedent” by legally contradicting the Supreme Court.

During its deliberations, the House of Lords put forward a series of amendments, but these were rejected this week by the elected and much more powerful House of Commons. On Wednesday, the Lords voted to reintroduce seven amendments, including one requiring Rwanda to provide proof that it is a safe destination for refugees.

The Senate can do little more than postpone a bill, and due to a lack of democratic legitimacy, it invariably ultimately bows to the will of the House of Commons. But that didn’t stop some members from taking a challenging tone.

“I know that some noble Lords believe the House of Commons should have the final say,” said David Hope, a retired Scottish judge who is an impartial member of the House of Lords. ‘But on this occasion I really invite your Lordships who are prepared to take this position to think very carefully.’

Vernon Coaker, a member speaking for the opposition Labor party, which opposes the plan, criticized the government for refusing to give any weight to the previous amendments tabled by the House of Lords. Any delays in the deportation policy were the government’s fault, he said, because it controls the parliamentary timetable.

But he conceded that the legislation would eventually pass. “We have said all along, and I repeat here, that it is not our intention to block the bill,” he said.

In addition to the legislation, known as the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill, the British government negotiated a new treaty with the Rwandan government to try to address the Supreme Court’s concerns.

Under the latest version of the plan, even those whose asylum claims were rejected while in Rwanda would be allowed to stay there. This was intended to allay fears that they could be sent back to their country of origin, where they might be in danger.

Yet the bill has been strongly criticized by human rights organizations. “All this could now come to an end if the government abandons its cruel policy of refusing to decide on asylum claims this country receives,” said Sacha Deshmukh, CEO of Amnesty International UK.

For the House of Lords, the unelected counterpart of the House of Commons, Wednesday could mark a rare moment in British politics: the ermine-clad barons and baronesses of that old chamber will vote on whether to leave an elected British Prime Minister must brave above a flagship. policy.

The Lords will hold a crucial debate on the policy, which would put asylum seekers on single flights to Rwanda. They are attached several amendments to the bill in an attempt to weaken it; the government, with its large conservative majority in the House of Commons, has systematically stripped them down.

No one, least of all the Lords themselves, believes that the Senate will ultimately torpedo the legislation. In the unequal clash between the elected Commons and the unelected Lords, the Lords invariably yield. But they could delay its passage by another week or two, which could be enough to jeopardize Prime Minister Rishi Sunak’s goal of putting the first flight to Rwanda in the air by the end of May.

That would thrust the House of Lords into Britain’s electoral politics in a way that is unusual for an institution that sees itself as a cool-headed, measured check on the more unruly House of Commons.

The prospect of sending asylum seekers to an East African country – and overruling a High Court ruling – has provoked so much opposition, even from Conservative peers, that it has shaken the Lords from their usual deference.

“This is about people who have a fundamental objection to a piece of government legislation,” said Simon McDonald, a former head of Britain’s diplomatic service who became a contrarian or non-partisan member of the House of Lords, where he is known. as Baron McDonald of Salford, in 2021.

“Personally, I would be disappointed if we just gave in,” he said. “For me, we have to work hard on the conditions that must be met before the law comes into effect.”

The Rwandan government, Mr McDonald said, had to show it had taken safeguards to ensure the rights of asylum seekers arriving there from Britain were not breached. Several Lords amendments aim to do this, but the government has rejected them on the grounds that they are simply another legal hurdle preventing flights from taking off.

Timing is important for the government. Mr Sunak has defended the Rwanda policy as the best way to deter migrants making the dangerous crossing of the English Channel in small boats. Under the law, they would remain in the African country even if they were granted refugee status.

Stopping those Channel crossings is one of his government’s five fundamental objectives, and Mr Sunak hopes the flights will help the Conservatives close a yawning poll gap with the opposition Labor party.

But the policy has run headlong into concerns about human rights and the rule of law, which have roiled the normally equal Lords. The Supreme Court ruled in November that Rwanda was not a safe country for refugees, prompting the government to reform policies to address these concerns — insufficient, according to critics.

Several members of the chamber are retired judges and civil servants who see themselves as guardians of the courts and of Britain’s adherence to international law. They use the levers they have to force the government to correct the legislation.

“The way the Lords operates, like much of the British constitution, is based on convention rather than rules,” said Richard Newby, the leader of the Liberal Democratic Party in the House of Lords. “The question is how far you push a convention, rather than whether you break a rule.”

Mr Newby predicted that Mr Sunak’s Conservative government would not muster the votes of enough members on Wednesday to force the Lords to overturn the amendments. That means the bill will be returned to the House of Commons, most likely with fewer amendments.

The resulting back and forth could ensure that the bill does not become law until after the Easter holidays. However, Mr Sunak has appealed to the Lords not to “frustrate the will of the people”. recent poll suggests that a majority of the British public do not support the policy.

The House of Lords, the largest legislative assembly outside China, has about 800 members, including 91 who have inherited titles, and 26 archbishops and bishops. Its ranks include former politicians, advisors and diplomats; most are appointed for life.

The Lords meet in an ornate hall that has too few seats on busy days. Below them is a gilded throne, inlaid with rock crystals and covered in red velvet, from which King Charles III speaks when he opens Parliament.

Members, who can shape laws and ask questions without the inconvenience of running for office, can claim up to 342 pounds, or $435, in per diem. There are also other advantages: an office in the parliament complex; a parking lot; and luxurious, subsidized food and drink options, including the wood-paneled Bishops’ Bar.

But the members also work.

“The Lords is where you get effective supervision,” says Jill Rutter, a senior research fellow at UK in a Changing Europe, a research institute. “The House of Commons virtually did not examine the Rwanda bill because it was passed very quickly.”

“The problem,” she added, “is that the Lords actually know it is a ridiculous and illegitimate institution, which is why it almost always collapses.”

Yet, even within these limitations, the House can influence and even change policy. In 2015, the Lords convinced the government to reconsider cuts to social benefits. Just last week it was the prospect of defeat over an amendment to a bill in the Lords that prompted the government to promise new rules banning foreign state ownership of British newspapers and magazines.

David Lipsey, a Labor member of the Lords, said he expected his party to push for around half a dozen amendments. He said it was “fairly unlikely” that Labor would continue its opposition beyond Wednesday, even if there were good reasons for it.

“The Lords have always had the role of a backstop in stopping governments from doing things outside the bounds of democratic and legal decision-making,” said Mr Lipsey, who became a member in 1999 as Baron Lipsey of Tooting Bec.

While Labour’s double-digit poll lead means it is likely to form the next government, the party’s leaders know that if elected they would not automatically have a majority in a chamber where many members are uncommitted.

“Labor doesn’t particularly want to set the precedent that it’s OK for the Lords to throw out a flagship piece of government legislation because there may be things they want to do,” Ms Rutter said.

The elections, most likely scheduled for this fall, have also given non-aligned members pause. Some worry that they are being portrayed by the government as obstructionists, who could weaponize the unelected body in a campaign. Others worry about constitutional reforms that could threaten their status.

The Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, spoke out strongly against an earlier version of the Rwanda bill last year, saying it “fails to deliver on our history, our moral responsibility and our political and international interests.”

But in an interview last December he said: ‘I would like to play as small a role as possible in the debate. We are within a year of the election.”

Four days ago, Britain's Prime Minister Rishi Sunak urged the House of Lords, the unelected upper chamber of Parliament, to not to block his plans to put asylum seekers on single flights to Rwanda, describing his controversial migration policy as “the will of the people.”

The Lords did not play ball on Monday evening.

Instead, they voted to delay the crucial treaty with Rwanda that underpins Mr Sunak's legislation – underscoring the hostility among some members of the House to a divisive policy since it was introduced by Boris Johnson, then Prime Minister, in 2022. .

In practical terms, the vote has limited impact because the House of Lords – a legislature made up largely of former politicians, civil servants and diplomats, as well as 26 bishops – does not have the power to prevent the treaty from coming into force. .

But it is a symbolic setback for Mr Sunak and suggests the Lords could try to amend the wider legislation, the so-called Rwanda Security Bill, which they will debate next week. It could also strengthen asylum seekers' future legal challenges against their deportation to the African country.

The Conservative government's Rwanda plan would mean anyone arriving by small boat or other “irregular means” would be unable to claim asylum in Britain. Instead, these asylum seekers would be detained and then sent to Rwanda. Their asylum cases would be heard in the African country, and they would do so resettled there.

By threatening asylum seekers with deportation to Rwanda, Mr Sunak hopes to deter people from making the dangerous crossing of the English Channel. But so far, despite Britain paying £240 millionapproximately 300 million dollars, to the Rwandan government, no one was put on a plane to the African country due to legal problems.

In any case, experts say, it is unclear whether the plan will have the promised deterrent effect, given that those traveling in small boats are already risking their lives in the hope of reaching Britain.

Legal specialists say the policy also threatens the UK's human rights obligations. In November, the British Supreme Court ruled, based on expert evidence from the United Nations, that Rwanda is not a safe country for refugees and that the plan would violate national and international law.

In response, the government has created the 'Security of Rwanda' bill, which explicitly declares the African nation a safe place for asylum seekers – contrary to the Supreme Court ruling – and that of the British courts and tribunals demanded that they treat the country as such.

In an attempt to overcome High Court objections, Mr Sunak agreed to a treaty with Rwanda promising several guarantees for asylum seekers, including that they would not be expelled from the African country even if their claims were rejected. It was the ratification of that treaty that the House of Lords voted to postpone on Monday evening by 214 votes to 171.

The Lords voted in favor of a motion stating that the government should not ratify the Rwanda Treaty “until Parliament is satisfied that the protections it provides have been fully implemented, as Parliament is asked to make a judgment on the basis of the treaty say that Rwanda is safe.”

With his Conservative Party lagging in the polls as the British economy stagnates, Mr Sunak has invested enormous political capital in the Rwanda policy, but it has increasingly become a source of division within his own party.

Alice Lilly, a senior researcher at the Institute for Government, a London-based think tank, said: “This is the first indication that the Rwanda policy is unlikely to pass through the Lords unscathed.”

She added that, by pointing out shortcomings yet to be addressed in Rwanda's immigration system, the House of Lords vote “could be referred to in future legal challenges” over Mr Sunak's plan by those opposing deportation to the African country.

The motion to delay the treaty was tabled by Peter Goldsmith, a former attorney general and member of the House of Lords for the opposition Labor Party. He said Monday's vote was the first of its kind since the current treaty ratification legislation came into force in 2010. He said the motion was “unprecedented.”

John Kerr, a member of the Lords, a former diplomat and not affiliated with any political party, expressed his opposition to the Rwanda plan. “Those we transfer to Rwanda will never have their asylum applications heard in this country,” he said. “We intend to wash our hands of them and declare them inadmissible: Rwanda's responsibility, not ours.”

He called the migration plan 'unconscionable'.

Last week the House of Commons voted in favor of the policy after two tense days of debate, which exposed deep divisions within the Conservative Party. At one point, about 60 lawmakers on the right of Mr. Sunak's party tried unsuccessfully to tighten the Rwanda law, trying to pre-empt the legal challenges that most experts agree will arise. as soon as the government tries to send asylum seekers to Rwanda.

The House of Lords is expected to begin debating the security of the Rwanda bill on January 29. While the chamber cannot block the legislation, it can defer bills for up to a year if they were not included in the ruling party's election manifesto. The Lords can also propose changes to legislation that must then be debated in the House of Commons, a process known as “parliamentary ping-pong“Because amendments can go back and forth between the two houses a number of times before a bill is passed or, occasionally, defeated.

AMONG THE BROS: A story of a brotherhood crimeby Max Marshall

“It’s almost a sign of prestige,” an anonymous student tells journalist Max Marshall in “Among the Bros”: “While everyone is refining their lives to prepare for the professional world,” he and his fraternity brothers “go hard .” No matter what damage they do in the process, he knows he is so well connected that “I will still be taken care of.”

This confession is stunning in both self-awareness and audacity, and succinctly captures the environment in which Marshall’s gripping crime story takes place. In American higher education, the Greek system openly touts its traditions—something the author knows well from his years as a Delta Sigma at Columbia, where he graduated in 2016. But “Among the Bros” reveals an unofficial mantra that seems to underlie American higher education. core of elite Greek life: we will behave badly, and we will get away with it.

Set in South Carolina’s rural College of Charleston, the book tells the story of Mikey Schmidt, a scruffy, 6-foot-2 freshman from Atlanta who wears Augusta National jerseys and drives a Mercedes as he competes for a place among the larger students. , wealthier members of the prominent Sigma Alpha Epsilon fraternity. Marshall doesn’t know if he’ll get an offer from SAE (“he told people he got one, but the SAEs I spoke to said they didn’t remember meeting Mikey as a freshman”), but we do know that Schmidt eventually comes to work for him. Kappa Alpha – a ‘middle class’ frat with origins linked to the Ku Klux Klan – despite coming across as a ‘try-hard’ to many of the brothers during recruitment.

Mikey soon forms the brotherly bond he hoped for with KA president Rob Liljeberg, who shares Mikey’s interests in weed and video games. After watching “Rob sell marijuana at a rapid pace” from his dorm room, Mikey leaves his business with fake IDs to dedicate himself fully to the drug trade. By 2016, the operation has grown into a multi-tiered group that supplies not only the College of Charleston, but campuses across the South, with millions of dollars worth of cocaine, narcotics, Xanax and other drugs.

After fifteen months of researching sorority culture at the University of Alabama, I got the sense that what the young women of Tuscaloosa were looking for in the Greek system was a sense of belonging. But in this page-turning triumph, the pack mentality ventures into darker, more dangerous waters, exposing a rigged system of money and power that is alive and well in the American South.

Marshall cites the influence of the 1978 film “Animal House” on elite white fraternity culture, which subsequently evolved from vest-wearing campus leaders to fun-loving rule breakers who nevertheless remained above the law. With the cinematic precision of a true crime documentary (“Murdaugh Murders” I think), “Among the Bros” explains how the consequences of this paradigm shift turned deadly.

Told with journalistic integrity, sense of humor and gruesome detail, Mikey Schmidt’s rise from try-hard to major drug kingpin is as breathtaking to watch as the ring’s decline, in a 2016 bust that involved tens of millions of dollars in drugs brings the light. illegal drugs. The implosion of the brotherhood is happening quickly; as one KA reminds us, “You can’t spell frat without rat.”

The injustice of the subsequent legal process is devastating, but not surprising. Schmidt is sentenced to ten years without parole, but most of the ring’s dealers receive at most probation and can still graduate. (C of C even allowed Kappa Alpha to return to campus in 2020.) The slippery slope of impunity begins with a student-friendly local attorney who gets the brothers’ DUIs erased from their records; it ends with student drug traffickers dodging prison sentences even after one of them is murdered.

“If the fallout from the drug crisis has taught them anything,” Marshall writes, “it’s that as long as you’re one of the guys, you can usually go as fast as you want without having to learn anything.” No matter how much their classmates and victims hate them, they know: “One day they will all work for us.”

AMONG THE BROS: A story of a brotherhood crime | By Max Marshall | Harper | 291 pages | $30