Starmer facing fresh challenge as Labour MPs condemn asylum plans | Immigration and asylum

Keir Starmer faces another major challenge to his authority after angry Labor MPs called for changes to tough new immigration measures that would increase deportations of children and families.

The policies, which include the possibility of seizing asylum seekers’ assets to add to the costs, have caused significant divisions within the party, with some MPs accusing their colleagues of failing to take public anger about illegal immigration and asylum seriously.

The Conservatives have said they would support the government passing tough new laws in the event of a major Labor rebellion.

Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood has outlined a series of radical measures, including how the government will seek to change the way the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) is interpreted by UK judges, to stop asylum seekers exercising their right to family life to avoid deportation.

Policies include advising on implementing the removal of families, including children, who have been denied the right to settle in the UK and refused payments encouraging them to leave.

“We will launch a consultation on the process for removing families, including children,” a policy document published on Monday said.

At least 20 MPs have publicly expressed their concerns about the policies, including Folkestone MP and former human rights lawyer Tony Vaughan, select committee chair Sarah Owen, and 2024 intake MPs including Simon Opher, Abitsam Mohamed and Neil Duncan-Jordan.

Florence Eshalomi, chair of the housing and communities select committee, asked Mahmood in the House of Commons if he was confident the policies would not have “unintended consequences”.

A government source said there would be a “huge amount of interaction” with concerned Labor MPs and insisted unaccompanied minors would not be deported.

“The crisis at our borders is an existential problem for mainstream parties. If we cannot solve the crisis at our border, dark forces will come after us,” they said. “Politics is about having a debate about what you think is right. That’s what the home secretary is doing today.”

But MPs said there were widespread concerns about “morally bankrupt” moves to speed up the deportation of families in particular, which in practice would mean more detention of children before deportation.

“As a Labor MP, I did not stand for election to take distressed children to deportation flights,” one MP said. Another MP sitting in the seat facing the Greens said that they faced a big reaction on social media. A third said: “The whole thing is terrible. Straight out of the far-right playbook. Many of our colleagues think the same.”

Opher said the government “needs to stop the boats because it’s dangerous, and we have to stop scapegoating immigrants because it’s wrong and cruel.” Measures that create bureaucracy and distrust do not provide clarity or strengthen control; “It costs money, wastes time, and weakens the system.”

Owen, a leading organizer against government welfare cuts, said: “A strong immigration system need not be a cruel system. It goes without saying, but refugees and asylum seekers are real people fleeing war and persecution.”

Duncan-Jordan said: “My taxi driver told me this morning that after 20 years of living in this country he is no longer welcome, despite paying his taxes and contributing to the local community.

“British values ​​extend beyond holding raffles or cutting the half-time orange. We are caring, tolerant and generous. Kicking out prominent defectors does not align with any of our values. It hardens us as a nation and portrays Britain as cold and uninviting, as is its weather.”

Some Labor aides have also expressed dismay at the proposals and expressed doubts that the government could pass them without taking further action on some of the measures, including asset seizures and the right of refugee families to achieve permanent settlement in less than the proposed 20 years.

The government has already had to proactively announce that it does not intend to confiscate refugees’ jewellery.

“I guess what the PLP is? [parliamentary Labour party] A member of parliament said that they saw this as an opening proposal. “I’m sure they will want to try and listen to the concerns because we know what happens when they don’t.”

One bench-sitting MP said they were particularly disturbed by the rhetoric that the UK was the “preferred destination” for refugees; They said this wasn’t entirely true – given that the UK is the 14th most popular country according to the latest data.

However, another MP said they did not think this would mean immediate rebellion or resignation. “We want to read the proposals and then hear from other interested parties and get expert advice.

“It was the same with welfare, and then the picture became clearer. No one doubts the need to combat illegal immigration, but there are parts of this that do not strike me as a clear deterrent and will only increase people’s suffering.”

But a significant number of MPs said they were convinced of the need to undertake “the unthinkable” when it comes to the asylum system, given the threat of Reformation and the much more draconian measures Nigel Farage’s government could introduce.

“People need to be realistic,” one minister said. “The public is moving much faster than their colleagues on this issue because they recognize that the stereotype of deserving refugees has changed dramatically over the last decade due to the number of people on the move.”

The Ministry of Internal Affairs’ asylum policy document states that refugee status will be made temporary and will be reviewed every 30 months.

The government also plans to weaken the rights of asylum seekers under Article 8 of the ECHR, which provides for the “right to respect for family and private life”.

The policy document states that this is used by illegal immigrants to “stop” their deportation. It proposes to “strengthen” the public interest in interfering with Article 8 and to limit this article to the “immediate family”.

The UK will also lobby to counter the “extension over time” of Article 3 of the ECHR, which prohibits torture, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, and to “enhance” its use to now allow criminals to remain.

The Ministry of Internal Affairs’ plan states that a new objection body will be established in order to speed up dismissals. This staff will include “professionally trained judges” and its aim will be to “expand the capacity of the appeals system”.

Enver Solomon, Chief Executive of the Refugee Council, said: “What is forgotten here is that behind these proposals there are men, women and children who have survived war, persecution and unimaginable loss and arrived in the UK with almost nothing.

“These reforms sound difficult, but they won’t solve the real problems in the asylum system. Instead, they risk creating more delays, more stress and more inhumane treatment for the people the system is supposed to protect.”