“The Home Secretary sounds like a Reform supporter,” said Nigel Farage. “Well done patriots,” said Tommy Roboinson. Shabana Mahmood’s proposed reforms to Britain’s immigration rules have drawn fulsome support from some obnoxious quarters – and outrage from Labour MPs and progressives.

There is so much wrong with the new regime proposed for refugees that it is difficult to know where to begin. Let’s start with motive.

“The new asylum proposals outlined by the Home Secretary are not driven by humanity, fairness or even economics,” writes  Labour’s former Director of Policy Andrew Fisher. “They are driven by political cowardice.”

With reports of a new 20-year wait to secure indefinite leave to remain for those claiming asylum and populist gimmicks like seizing jewellery and assets from small boat migrants to help pay for accommodation, Keir Starmer’s 2020 pledge to have “an immigration system based on compassion and dignity” is well and truly dead.

If the aim of the changes is to halt the rise of Reform, they are likely to fail on this front. Manchester University Politics Professor Rob Ford points out: “Labour can never be the party of those who reject the asylum principle. Hardline immigration conservatism is owned by the right. Low-trust radical right voters will never believe an approach like this because they know it runs against the grain of the Party’s core electorate and history – so will fail.”

He concludes: “Labour seem to now come up with a new kamikaze nosedive operation to alienate social liberals while failing to attract Reform-curious voters every month.” He adds that, like Labour’s fiscal policy, it reinforces a belief among naturally Labour- leaning progressives that under Keir Starmer’s leadership, Labour “is a hostile environment to their values. But it substitutes nothing else.”

Labour MPs speak out

As well as accelerating the drift of Labour voters to the Greens, Lib Dems and others, Shabana Mahmood’s proposals are likely to provoke more internal division within the Party. Even moderate Labour MPs are incensed. Stella Creasy MP described the reform as “not just performatively cruel, it’s economically misjudged,” adding that “if you can’t stabilise your status, you will always struggle to get a job, a bank account or a mortgage, making it more likely you will be dependent on state or charity support.” She warned that “ICE-style raids on Britain’s streets” would be the only achievement of the Government’s “brutal” reforms.

Another usually loyal MP, Tony Vaughan, said the Government was taking a wrong turning: “The idea that recognised refugees need to be deported is wrong.” He added: “The rhetoric around these reforms encourages the same culture of divisiveness that sees racism and abuse growing in our communities.”

John McDonnell MP pointed out that Vaughan was “certainly not what the media would call a ‘usual suspect’. I suspect he is reflecting here what many in the PLP feel.”

Apsana Begum MP tweeted: “Policies to punish asylum seekers and refugees are a defeatist attempt to outdo Reform. There’s no dignity nor compassion in treating people fleeing persecution with appalling hostility and suspicion. It’s morally, politically and economically wrong and will only pave the way for a far-right government.”

Nadia Whittome MP agreed: “The government should be ashamed that its migration policies are being cheered on by Tommy Robinson and Reform. Instead of standing up to anti-migrant hate, this is laying the foundations for the far-right.”

Richard Burgon MP agreed, saying: “This approach isn’t just morally wrong; it’s politically disastrous.” He concluded: “This failing Labour leadership is choosing to fight on terrain set by Farage. In doing so, it is paving the way for the first far-right government in our history.”

Sarah Owen MP argued it was possible to take tough stance on illegal immigration, while having a “compassionate, fair and legal path for those seeking refuge.”

She added: “Taking jewellery from refugees is akin to painting over murals for refugee children. These repugnant ‘deterrents’ did not work for the Tories, and they won’t work for us.”

Stroud MP Simon Opher said Labour should “stop the scapegoating of immigrants because it’s wrong and cruel,” adding: “We should push back on the racist agenda of Reform rather than echo it.”

Alloa and Grangemouth MP Brian Leishman, who only recently had the Labour whip restored after being suspended for voting against the two-child benefit cap, also spoke out, as did Stourbridge MP Cat Eccles who said: “I’m massively disappointed and angry about what the Home Secretary is saying.”

MP for York Central Rachael Maskell said: “The dehumanisation of people in desperation is the antithesis of what the Labour Party is about,” and Middlesborough and Thornaby East MP Andy McDonald called the proposals “cruel, unfair and unworkable”.

Poole MP Neil Duncan-Jordan, who also recently got the Labour whip restored, said trying to steal votes from Reform was an “electoral dead end,” adding: “Kicking out recognised asylum seekers doesn’t speak to any of our values.”

Montgomeryshire and Glyndwr MP Steve Witherden said: “The problems the country faces won’t be solved by demonising asylum seekers.” Ian Byrne MP agreed, calling the reforms “morally bankrupt and politically disastrous.”

Diane Abbott MP was excoriating: “Draconian, unworkable and potentially illegal anti-asylum policies only feed Reform’s support. The government has learnt nothing from the period since the general election.”

Bell Ribeiro-Addy agreed: “The government’s latest asylum proposals seem calculated to do nothing but inflict more misery and uncertainty on people seeking safety in this country. This is not opposing the politics of hatred and division, this is holding the door open for them.”

In a detailed statement, Kim Johnson MP called the proposals “contemptible”. She added: “the government is choosing to attack the wrong 1%. Instead of taking from the most vulnerable, they’d do far better to focus on the billionaires who are really tearing this country apart.”

Paul Nowak, General Secretary of the Trades Union Congress, also added his voice. Speaking to Byline Times in advance of the Government’s latest plans, he said: “I’ve been very clear in terms of Labour: I don’t think you can out-Farage Farage.”

What is to be done?

A sensible debate about asylum would look at why record numbers of people are fleeing their home countries. As Andrew Fisher points out, “Our far-from-ethical foreign policy sees British weapons currently brutalising innocents from Sudan to Palestine. We have a responsibility to stop funding conflict, but instead we are cutting international aid and continuing arms exports and political support for dictatorships and warmongers.”

“We need to do more to integrate asylum seekers quickly – that means allowing them to work, if they’re able, to support themselves – and providing language and health support for those who currently cannot,” says Fisher. But the last Tory Government cut free English lessons for those whose first language isn’t English and Labour has not restored them. Such an approach would not just be more ethical: it could save the Government money on asylum costs and provide extra tax revenues for the Treasury.

Olivia Blake MP agrees: “We often claim that the UK is welcoming, but these reforms undermine that narrative. Punishing people who have already fled danger, and stripping recognised refugees of stability, does not strengthen the system.”

She adds: “If we want an asylum system that works, the answer is simple: safe routes, faster decisions, the right to work for asylum seekers, and meaningful support for integration.”

Take action

Speaking this morning, Lord Alf Dubs described the proposals as  “shabby” and called for more compassion in politics. Momentum agreed, adding: “Labour adopting anti-refugee rhetoric risks emboldening Reform to promote even more racist and radical measures against migrant communities.”

A draft motion for Constituency Labour Parties on the issue is being circulated.

Image: Shabana Mahmood KC MP https://www.flickr.com/photos/uk_parliament/54087412451/in/photostream/ Copyright: House of CommonsAttribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.0 Generic CC BY-NC-ND 2.0 Deed