‘Shabana Mahmood’s Asylum Plans Will Put Lives at Risk for No Purpose’

Read our Monthly Magazine

And support our mission to provide fearless stories about and outside the media system

SUBSCRIBE TODAY

The most important part of the international refugee protection order is the principle that it provides protection. However, protection does not just come from being able to escape the circumstances of persecution. It also comes from the ability to then rebuild your life in safety and security afterwards. With her announcement this week that refugee status in the UK will now only be “temporary”, the Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood has fatally undermined that principle, while also creating an entirely unworkable system which will end up pleasing no-one.

Putting those seeking asylum through reprocessing every two and half years will leave them in a state of limbo. It will also mean that they remain perpetually in fear for the future, that is a situation which should never be allowed to exist. 

It is noticeable in the Home Secretary’s defence of this policy that she uses the phrase “legitimate grievances” instead of “legitimate concerns”. It is not an accident. There are no “concerns” which are alleviated by putting people seeking asylum at risk of exploitation, and increasing the mental and health impacts which the stress of this causes. Instead, it has to be defended based on a vibes-based argument. It is essentially an acknowledgement that the policy is not supported by evidence.

Not only will the policy cause significant harm to those fleeing war and persecution though, it also makes no political sense if this Government is serious about fixing issues in the country and reducing division. 

Already many initial asylum applications are taking more than a year to process. Asylum applications by their nature can be complex. Safety is recognised, under international law, as a personal thing. Adding the additional burden and bureaucracy upon the Home Office of having to re-evaluate proposals every 30 months is functionally impossible under the current system. Considering the Home Secretary complained that the costs of the asylum system are too high as it stands, this policy seems entirely counterproductive in that it will dramatically increase them.

Nigel Farage’s Long History of Crying ‘Fraud’ Whenever His Party Loses Elections

The Reform UK leader has a long record of blaming his own party’s election defeats on “cheating” by ethnic minorities, yet no evidence of it can ever be found

Josiah Mortimer

The Refugee Council estimates that over the next ten years approximately one million reviews would be necessary under this policy. That is clearly beyond the reach of a department which struggles to process the existing claims which it has from the proportionally, in comparison to many other countries, few applications which it receives each year.

Leaving people in limbo, without any guarantee of security, creates the additional issue of placing them in more precarious positions. It is already shown that this increases the risks of both people becoming undocumented and of people being exploited, particularly by human traffickers. This would create a result from this policy which is entirely at odds with this government’s claim that they are focused on reducing the number of undocumented migrants and tackling exploitation and human trafficking.

It is not just in practice that this policy fails. It fails on a political level as well. The political argument for Labour’s increasingly hostile position on immigration in general, and asylum in particular, is that it is aimed at preventing Reform from gaining ground. As was shown in Gorton and Denton though, it is a false claim.

Reform has already announced policies which would fundamentally go further than Labour could hope to do, primarily due to the issue of their possible illegality in many cases. Reform voters are not going to suddenly support Labour because they implement draconian and discriminatory policies against those seeking asylum and other migrants. Labour does lose support, as has been seen for a year now, from centre and left voters who recognise how far these policies go in practice. All the while, by pushing this narrative, Labour reinforces Reform’s claims that there is some kind of “crisis” around migration.

Policy has to be based on evidence, and what is going to create the best outcome. Labour’s approach however is to ignore the evidence and instead base it on their own perceptions, which are not backed up by evidence.

They talk about wanting to reduce division and increase integration and then implement policies which increase division and reduce integration. They talk about the “costs” of the asylum system and implement policies which will increase them. They talk about creating a “fairer immigration system” and yet push for one which increases discrimination. None of this is good policy. It is, however, inhumane and cruel towards those who are just trying to find some form of stability and safety after being through so much.