‘The narrative has been overtaken by far-right lies’: Readers weigh in on Labour’s asylum crackdown

L.Abour’s move to toughen Britain’s asylum rules has been met with uneasy public acceptance. Independent readers.

Home Affairs Minister Shabana Mahmood insisted the system was “broken” and order was urgently needed, and many commentators said that while the tone might offend some, Labor was facing political realities that could no longer be ignored.

But this reluctant support was accompanied by flashes of disappointment. A smaller, more outspoken faction fears the party is moving too closely to the Reform playbook, especially after the government announced plans to overhaul human rights laws and change the way the ECHR is interpreted to make deportations easier.

For these readers, proposals to restrict rights to family life, accelerate removals and even ban some countries from UK visas risk validating the narratives that Labor once resisted and erode the party’s values.

What united readers was not a single point of view, but a common feeling of struggling with compromises. While some saw Labour’s move as a necessary reform, others saw a worrying shift to the right; Many on the left also wished the elections weren’t so rigid.

Here’s what you need to say:

Grasp the nettle

any confirmation [Tommy] Robinson is not a good look. But the asylum/immigration issue needs to be grasped (this should have been done years ago) and Mahmood should be thanked for doing so.

Immigration numbers, both legal and illegal, have been very high over the last decade and need to be reduced. Labour’s supporters complaining must represent the majority of the wishes of voters who consistently put “immigration” at the top of their concerns, alongside the NHS and the cost of living.

noverngit1

Copying the Reformation’s playbook

When the likes of Tommy Robinson, Nigel Farage and Kemi Badenoch support your asylum policy, you seriously need to step back and question what you’re playing at.

It’s hard to see how anyone in post-Brexit Britain, especially anyone from the Labor Party, could outdo Farage in his cruel plans for asylum seekers, and yet here we are.

Copying Reform’s playbook allows Farage to own the issue because he will shift the debate further to the right and take Labor with him in doing so.

Labour’s harsh and vindictive policy towards refugees will give the far right an advantage and make the party look cruel and incompetent in the process.

Big mistake, because Labor cannot leave the far right behind and if they try it will only be their downfall.

Amy

speak harshly

Hope for a reasoned debate on immigration and asylum is now gone. I think we’re at a point where a party that doesn’t talk tough on immigration knows it has no chance in the next election. Labor are in the unfortunate position of being in control when the music stops, so they really need to do something, rather than just talk tough (and probably fail to deliver on most of it).

Stanley Oliver

ECHR protects everyone

The ECHR protects everyone in the UK and beyond. It grants the right to privacy, freedom of expression, right to assembly, free and fair elections (unfortunately nothing about democratic elections), right to life, right to a fair trial, right to belief, and many more. You take these rights from one person, you take them from everyone.

As for interference in the courts, what chance does anyone have of a fair trial if the home secretary is intervening? This is why we need the European Convention/Court of Human Rights. Would you trust a far-right politician with your rights? The ECHR is a last resort and is impartial rather than the government giving orders to judges.

LadyCrumpsall

Logical

These policies are perfectly reasonable. Young men seeking asylum from France are coming illegally by small boat! We shouldn’t be paying for their groceries, meals and cell phones with limited taxpayer resources.

Legal skilled migration is a very different thing, and we should not deport immigrants who make a positive contribution.

Trade Hunter

Many are not against helping those in need

Many, perhaps most, are not against helping those in need (such as Afghan women judges, doctors and teachers) but want to be able to do so in accordance with certain criteria: numbers limited to those who can be easily assimilated, those who are truly in need, a clear ability to make a contribution, willingness to adapt, etc.

This is not far-right or intolerance, it reflects love for country, society and humanity.

Bruxellois

We must do something

It needs to be a deterrent, especially for those coming by boat. While these are strong measures, I think it’s a good thing as long as they’re implemented fairly. We must do something; Doing nothing is not an option.

Markie

Why should you vote for a party that makes a Reformation costume?

Emulating the far right has not brought voters back to Labor-like parties elsewhere in Europe, nor has it helped to hold on to neo-liberal economics. Both merely drew voters away from the left and failed to attract votes from the right, which could make these policies even more extreme elsewhere. Why vote for a party that pretends to be Reformation (or the Conservatives, if your preference is right-wing economics) when you can vote for the real thing?

Gom Jabbar

A chance to do something worthwhile

A good Labor MP would support measures that would prevent Reform from coming to power, because if they reject all measures it will surely happen. He has a chance to do something worthwhile without resorting to reform and thus keeping his chances of re-election open.

For example, I would prefer more repatriation (how would Germany be happy to send people back to Afghanistan when we are not?) and blocking all legal immigrants from countries that do not accept the repatriation policy (the ruling classes in those countries will fall in line). There are others who are not bad and who, in total, might prevent the far right from deciding the issue. But there doesn’t seem to be much pragmatism among Labor MPs; Look at welfare reform.

master of nothing

lots of gray

From what I see, this is going too far (especially when you have 20 years to become a citizen/resident).

But with so much gray here, we have a big problem with too many people seeing everything in black and white. We need to accept imperfect compromise as reality.

This is not “welcome everyone who passes”, nor is it “deport all foreigners”.

I think Labor is at least trying to solve this problem.

Does it go too far in some places? I think so, yes. But is it better than doing nothing? Definitely.

In ‘return centres’:

This place is nothing like Rwanda. Rwanda was alienating everyone. This is to alienate people who are not seeking asylum/refugees. This makes sense to me (especially once official recourses are established).

someone182

The narrative has been taken over by far-right lies

I reluctantly agree with the tightening of the rules because the narrative is completely covered in far-right lies and half-truths. The number of irregular migrants staying in the UK by boat or overstay has reached around 400,000 in the last four years. With violent crime at a 20-year low and predicted to be even lower this year, this is exactly what the right wing is fear-mongering about. They use the issue as a divisive tool to divide society.

I know a few friends who ‘inform’ me about ‘facts’ they’ve gotten on social media, and then I go and consult the AI ​​Generation. Deliberately turning the issue into something negative is a half-truth. Negative social media topics that make people angry are literally everywhere. This is against a group that is one of the most vulnerable groups in the UK.

Immigration puts pressure on the UK, especially as immigrants are not allowed to contribute to society while they wait to be processed. Boris’s wave of legal immigration is putting pressure on housing and schools. There has been a decrease of around 50 percent recently. The real question is: Why didn’t that giant wave produce growth? The huge damage from Brexit and the huge profits taken from the UK are not benefiting the public. How can we reverse this?

frame

humane attitude

Shabana Mahmood’s proposal to amend the ECHR would be a positive step in the right direction. Once in place, these changes will not prevent genuine asylum seekers from receiving the long-term protection they need. It is vital that UK immigration officials maintain a sense of fairness and compassion when considering applications.

Equally important, it is made much easier to exclude from the application those who do not meet the necessary criteria, especially those with a criminal or terrorist background. I really hope that future laws will work in a humane way.

JanetC

Some of the comments in this article have been edited for brevity and clarity.

I want to share your opinions? Just register your information below. Once you sign up, you can comment on the most important stories of the day for a chance to be featured. Alternatively, click ‘sign in’ or ‘sign up’ in the top right corner to log in or register.

Make sure you comply with our terms community rulescan be found Here. For a complete guide on how to comment Click here.