The scene on the French beach was chaotic. As a group of men dragged an inflatable boat towards the sea, scores of would-be migrants ran towards it.

They clamberedTo climb awkwardly or with effort especially by using both the hands and the feet. aboard until the boat was dangerously overloaded. But for some the end had already come.   

Two people had drowned, while three appeared to have been trampled to death.

This happened on Monday night, just as Britain's Rwanda bill finally passed into law.

The idea is to send asylum seekers and people arriving in Britain illegally to the African country for their cases to be considered. Even those granted asylum will have to stay in Rwanda.

The government says if migrants know they might end up in Africa, they will not risk crossing the Channel in small boats.

From the start, the plan faced legal challenges. Sending asylum seekers to another country was seen as avoiding Britain's responsibilities. The fact that Rwanda has a poor human rights record made the situation even worse.

Under international law, people cannot be deported to countries where they will be at risk. At the end of last year, Britain's Supreme Court ruled that the scheme was illegal because Rwanda could not be trusted to treat migrants well.

To get around this, the government introduced a bill which ruled that Rwanda is a safe country, whatever anybody says. This is the bill that has just been passed despite many rejections by the House of Lords.

According to one of its members:¹ "The benefits of the Rwanda bill remain to be seen. Its costs will be measured not only in money but in principles debasedReduced in value or quality....

"Parliament is asked to declare that Rwanda will always be a safe country... we are asked to be complicitTo be involved with others in an unlawful or morally wrong activity.  in a present-day untruth and a future fantasy... The Rwanda bill is a legal fiction that makes the law look like an ass, and those who make it, asses."

Is this a shameful moment in British history?

Yes: Britain has a responsibility to look after persecuted people. The bill defies both British and international law and is complete nonsense: you cannot make a country safe simply by saying that it is.

No: Illegal migration is a huge problem which requires radical solutions, and this will deter people smuggling. In 200 years people will realise that the Rwanda scheme was the obvious one to adopt.

Or... Britain is trashing its reputation for a scheme which will probably fail. Migrants who are prepared to risk their lives are not going to be put off; only a few will be deported, at enormous cost.  

Clambered - To climb awkwardly or with effort especially by using both the hands and the feet.

Debased - Reduced in value or quality.

Complicit - To be involved with others in an unlawful or morally wrong activity.