LONDON: A Syrian asylum-seeker facing deportation from London to Rwanda has described his detention at Gatwick detention center as a struggle with “constant nightmares and insomnia,” the Independent reported on Friday.
After arriving in the UK from his war-torn country in 2022, 25-year-old Mohammed Al-Kharewsh, who was recently released on bail from the immigration removal center near Crawley, said: “The environment was overwhelming, and I struggled with constant nightmares and insomnia.
“After surviving a challenging journey, the reality of my situation was hard to grasp. I kept questioning why I was being detained for deportation.”
Describing the 25 days of his detention at the center, Al-Kharewsh, who is reportedly scheduled to be deported on one of the first flights to Rwanda, said that he became depressed and experienced “anxiety and despair” as he repeatedly questioned why he was among the first chosen for deportation.
The 25-year-old claims that the idea of being separated again from his brother, who was granted asylum in the UK as a minor, is “extremely intimidating.” They were separated the first time by the war in Syria.
On May 1, Al-Kharewsh was apprehended during a routine reporting visit to immigration, taken to Gatwick and put in a room with a fellow Syrian refugee with mental health problems. He had been living in Acton with his brother, who rents a flat and works in construction.
The Independent’s report added that many asylum-seekers had been released on bail after Rishi Sunak said that flights would only go ahead if he won the July 4 election. Labour have pledged to scrap the £290 million scheme if they win power.
The 25-year-old said that he was forced to leave Syria two years ago after being pressured to either join the Syrian army or resistance fighters.
Anyone who came to the UK irregularly after Jan. 1, 2022, such as Al-Kharewsh who arrived via small boat, is in line for removal to Rwanda under Sunak’s scheme.
Speaking about his detention, Al-Kharewsh said: “In the rooms, I was housed with another inmate in a shared room. Beds were provided, but the environment itself was far from comfortable. There was a shopping area and a gym available for us, but I was too preoccupied with the constant thought of deportation and my low mood to make use of these facilities.
“We were provided with food, but I only ate enough to survive. My mind was preoccupied with the hopes of a better future. And that hope seemed to slip further away each day. The looming threat of deportation hung over me, adding to my stress and anxiety, and the detention center was incredibly difficult.”
Al-Kharewsh said that he left Syria for the “safety of myself and my family.” He said that his child and wife remained in Syria and are now safer since he left without being forced to pick a side in the armed conflict. He hopes that they could join him one day in the UK.
His younger brother supports him, and a second brother who arrived in the UK earlier this year. Al-Kharewsh only found out that his brother was living in the UK once he arrived, and he is anxious that they are not separated again.
“In the UK I managed to reunite with my siblings for the first time. So going through the trauma of displacement again is extremely intimidating. Also relocating to a country like Rwanda — given their history of conflict and violence and having no support network there — would make me more vulnerable,” he said.
Al-Kharewsh has been told his asylum claim is inadmissible and that the Home Office intends to deport him to Rwanda, but his second brother has yet to hear anything about his asylum claim.
Asylum-seekers are told that Rwanda is known as “the land of a thousand hills,” and that Rwandans are friendly to visitors.
One page of a leaflet that is given to asylum-seekers in detention, titled “Is Rwanda safe?” says that the country is a “generally safe and secure country with a track record of supporting asylum-seekers.”
In November, the UK Supreme Court ruled that UNHCR should be trusted in their assessment that Rwanda is not a safe country for asylum-seekers.
The UNHCR warned High Court judges only this week that it may have new evidence from 2024 that Rwanda has endangered asylum-seekers. The UK parliament passed a law declaring Rwanda to be a safe country this year despite the Supreme Court’s decision.
The Home Office did not comment.
Syrian asylum-seeker describes detention as struggle with ‘constant nightmare and insomnia’
https://arab.news/ygn3y
Syrian asylum-seeker describes detention as struggle with ‘constant nightmare and insomnia’
- “After surviving a challenging journey, the reality of my situation was hard to grasp. I kept questioning why I was being detained for deportation,” said Mohammed Al-Kharewsh
- He is reportedly scheduled to be deported on one of the first flights from the UK to Rwanda
Tug of war: how US presidents battle Congress for military powers
- The last official declaration of war by Congress was as far back as World War II
WASHINGTON, United States: Donald Trump’s unleashing of operation “Epic Fury” against Iran has once more underscored the long and bitter struggle between US presidents and Congress over who has the power to decide on foreign military action.
In his video address announcing “major combat” with the Islamic republic, Trump didn’t once mention any authorization or consultation with the US House of Representatives or Senate.
In doing so he sidelined not only Democrats, who called for an urgent war powers vote, but also his own Republican party as he asserts his dominance over a largely cowed legislature.
A US official said Secretary of State Marco Rubio had called top congressional leaders known as the “Gang of Eight” to give them a heads up on the Iran attack — adding that one was unreachable.
Rubio also “laid out the situation” and consulted with the same leaders on Tuesday in an hour-long briefing, the US official said.
According to the US Constitution, only Congress can declare war.
But at the same time the founding document of the United States first signed in 1787 says that the president is the “commander in chief” of the military, a definition that US leaders have in recent years taken very broadly.
The last official declaration of war by Congress was as far back as World War II.
There was no such proclamation during the unpopular Vietnam War, and it was then that Congress sought to reassert its powers.
In 1973 it adopted the War Powers Resolution, passed over Richard Nixon’s veto, to become the only lasting limit on unilateral presidential military action abroad.
The act allows the president to carry out a limited military intervention to respond to an urgent situation created by an attack against the United States.
In his video address on Saturday, Trump evoked an “imminent” threat to justify strikes against Iran.
- Sixty days -
Yet under this law, the president must still inform Congress within 48 hours.
It also says that if the president deploys US troops for a military action for more than 60 days, the head of state must then obtain the authorization of Congress for continued action.
That falls short of an official declaration of war.
The US Congress notably authorized the use of force in such a way after the September 11, 2011 attacks on the United States by Al-Qaeda. Presidents have used it over the past two decades for not only the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan but a series of operations in several countries linked to the “War on Terror.”
Trump is far from the first US president to launch military operations without going through Congress.
Democrat Bill Clinton launched US air strikes against Kosovo in 1999 as part of a NATO campaign, despite the lack of a green light from skeptical lawmakers.
Barack Obama did the same for airstrikes in Libya in 2011.
Trump followed their example in his first term in 2018 when he launched airstrikes in Syria along with Britain and France.
But since his return to power the 79-year-old has sought to push presidential power to its limits, and that includes in the military sphere.
Trump has ordered strikes on alleged drug trafficking boats in Latin America without consulting Congress, and in June 2025 struck Iran’s nuclear facilities.
Perhaps the most controversial act was when he ordered the capture of Venezuelan president Nicolas Maduro in a lightning military raid on January 3.
Republicans however managed to knock down moves by Democrats for a rare war powers resolution that would have curbed his authority over Venezuela operations.
Trump has meanwhile sought to extend his powers over the home front. Democrats have slammed the Republican for deploying the National Guard in several US cities in what he calls a crackdown on crime and immigration.
