‘This is a moral mission for me, because I can see illegal migration is tearing our country apart, it is dividing communities. People can see huge pressure in their communities and they can also see a system that is broken, and where people are able to flout the rules, abuse the system and get away with it.’
These are not my words, the words of a Tory or Reform MP, or of Rupert Lowe. They are the words of Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood, who is to announce a number of new asylum policies today. The Home Secretary’s goal is to ‘make it less attractive’ for illegal migrants to come to Britain and ‘make it easier to deport illegal migrants off British soil’.
This is a significant change from the distant days of July when Keir Starmer and Yvette Cooper announced the ‘one in, one out’ deal with France. In the summer, the PM and then home secretary seemed to hope that deporting a handful of migrants over the Channel would deter the relentless flood of asylum seekers arriving in Britain drawn by the lure of housing, work in the gig economy, and the very low chance of ever being deported.
Since then, we’ve had a relentless succession of headlines about migrant crimes. Hadush Kebatu, who sexual assaulted a 14-year-old girl in Epping. Deng Chol Majek, who murdered mother and migrant hotel worker Rhiannon Whyte. Haybe Cabdiraxmaan Nur, who stabbed a stranger, Gurvinder Johal, while he was queueing in Lloyds Bank. Every of these crimes has shown us that many of the illegal arrivals who come Britain are dangerous men who violate our people and our generosity.
There has also been a rising sense of chaos as thousands of illegal migrants continue to cross the Channel, exacerbated by the struggle to deport migrants at pace or scale. Kebatu was even released in error, spent an hour and a half trying to re-enter Chelmsford prison, and then wandered about London for two days.
Now the new home secretary is acting. This afternoon she will deliver a statement on asylum policy to parliament. She will announce changes far greater than anything the Tories ever dared.
Asylum will no longer be permanent. Once someone is granted asylum it will be reviewed regularly, and migrants will be ‘forced to go home once their country of origin is deemed safe’. There will be a 20-year wait for permanent settlement, unless migrants work or study. This is in contrast to the current model where migrants are granted indefinite leave to remain, and the right to access benefits, after five years. It has also been reported that the Home Office intends to revoke the 2005 rules which require the government to provide housing and support to destitute asylum seekers.
Mahmood seems to understand more than any other member of the government how late the hour is. She is expected to say in parliament today: ‘If you don’t like this, you won’t like what follows me.’ She’s right. We are fast approaching the point at which the British people will vote for a government that solves migration at almost any cost.
Will the Home Secretary’s plans be enough? There are some obvious risks. Reviewing all asylum grants every 30 months will place vast additional pressure on a department which is already struggling to manage the asylum backlog. Might there be a temptation among staff to make asylum renewal almost automatic, in order to save time? The lack of state support for asylum seekers means many will seek to work here illegally.
The question of removing those migrants may also run into difficulties. It seems that ‘Trump style’ visa bans are to be introduced for countries which refuse to accept the return of illegal migrants, with Angola, Namibia and Congo first in the firing line.
As for the revocation of refugee status, many asylum seekers make their applications on the basis of personal risk, not the particular state of their country. Under this scheme how would it ever be possible to prove their claim is no longer valid? How might English courts react to such efforts?
Mahmood’s team are confident
And what of other legal challenges? While the Home Office is drawing a link with the Danish system, which operates within the ECHR, no doubt we will see substantial legal challenges from those activists and NGOs whose greatest love seems to be flooding the country with unvetted men. The removal of the obligation to support destitute migrants will almost certainly see a judicial review, and it’s hard to understand at this stage how it will interact with the statutory duty on local authorities to house those who are destitute. Will the law need to be changed to draw a distinction between citizens or residents and temporary migrants? This would be a very welcome step if so.
To achieve all of this the Home Secretary will have to bring significant primary legislation. She has form in this regard, having used parliament’s might in the spring when crushing the Sentencing Council. Labour MP’s supported that legislation, but will they back these sweeping changes? I understand that Mahmood’s team are confident they will, realising that electoral oblivion awaits the party if it can’t solve the migration crisis. But there are already warning signs, with some Labour MPs publicly attacking the policy.
It’s high stakes. We are at the most three and half years from the next election. If Mahmood’s plan is to work, she needs parliament and the machinery of the state to match the urgency she has brought to her office.
If the Home Secretary succeeds, she will have saved the Labour party, and made a very strong case for replacing the prime minister when the time comes. If she falls short, then all she will have done is gifted the next government policies and tools it can use to pursue a full remigration agenda. Already other parties are raising their promises of deportations.
Comments