The time was right. On Tuesday morning, the “Bibby Stockholm” was docked in the port of Portland, on the south coast of England. She is a huge accommodation ship that looks like a floating prefab building. In the future, several hundred refugees will be accommodated in the 222 rooms.

Rishi Sunak’s government has made stopping cross-Channel migration a priority. A few hours before the arrival of the “Bibby Stockholm” the most important step towards this goal was taken: the British Parliament approved a drastic tightening of asylum rules. This paved the way for King Carlos III to put the controversial project into practice.

The rather bleak atmosphere of »Bibby Stockholm« is a symbol of the Conservative government’s harsh refugee policy; Critics speak of a »prison ship«. In recent decades, the motorless barge built in 1976 has served in Germany, the Netherlands and Scotland, among other things, as a shelter for the homeless and accommodation for asylum seekers or construction workers. The owner, the Bibby Line shipping company, advertises “luxury life on board” and notes that the now-renovated ship has en-suite bedrooms, dining and leisure facilities.

The “Illegal Migration Act” means that all people who arrive in Britain irregularly are automatically deported, without being able to claim asylum. They will be returned to their country of origin, if deemed safe, or to a third country. Immigrants can be detained until they are deported.

The law was condemned in the strongest possible terms by various quarters. UN Human Rights Commissioner Volker Türk said the law would have “serious consequences for people in need of international protection.” It creates “a dangerous precedent for reducing asylum obligations.” Other countries could follow Britain’s example. Also in the British press the criticism is sometimes severe. The “Independent”, for example, talks about a “cruel law” that can do little to stop boat trips across the English Channel.

Many critics warn of the psychological consequences for refugees, who are often already traumatized. But there are also concerns about feasibility. For example, where should people be deported? Since Brexit, the UK is no longer subject to the Dublin rules and there are no bilateral repatriation agreements with EU countries. Although the government has identified several dozen “safe third countries”, it has not yet negotiated any agreements allowing the transfer of asylum seekers. The only exception is Rwanda: London and Kigali agreed in the spring of 2022 that the sub-Saharan country will host thousands of refugees who genuinely want to apply for asylum in Britain and receive financial compensation in return.

But a few weeks ago, the London Court of Appeal dealt the government a blow: It ruled that Rwanda could not be classified as a safe third country, making the deportation program illegal. Critics also say that the sub-Saharan country will hardly be able to accommodate as many refugees as London expects: Kigali says that in a trial phase it could house around 1,000 people, a no-brainer compared to the 45,000 migrants who arrived by boat in 2022 alone. Britain. Brittany.

First thousands of refugees would have to be held in British reception centres. But here, too, there is a lack of capacity: there are some 2,500 places in England and Wales, and half are already in use. Countless people would have to be temporarily accommodated in accommodation, for example in hotels or former barracks. “Knowing they will be deported, many may simply go into hiding,” writes Enver Solomon, head of the Refugee Council.