The UK’s Asylum U-Turn Is Too Little, Too Late

Practically overnight, the UK government remembered that its country had borders. Over the weekend, Labour home secretary Shabana Mahmood promised that she would introduce sweeping reforms to the nation’s asylum and immigration system, and that she would put a stop to the “golden ticket” currently being offered by Britain’s “excessively generous” system. 

That includes making refugee status temporary, immediately returning refugees whose countries become safe, restricting family reunion along financial and English-proficiency lines, and imposing a 20-year wait for those who arrived illegally to apply for permanent residency. Currently, migrants are entitled to benefits and to remain in the UK unconditionally after spending just five years here. According to Mahmood, this is what is needed to fix the country’s “broken” system, which is “tearing Britain apart.” If successful, they will mark the most dramatic overhaul since the Second World War. 

Mahmood’s plans are remarkably sensible. And, importantly, they are exactly the kind of measures the Right has been demanding for years now. The UK’s reforms are explicitly inspired by Denmark (which currently rejects around 95% of asylum claims), with the aim of reducing the many pull factors that make the UK an attractive target for asylum seekers and illegal migrants. On top of this, it emerged last night that Mahmood was threatening to place visa bans on three countries that are currently refusing to accept deportations from the UK. Angola, Namibia, and the Democratic Republic of Congo have a month to start cooperating, before the UK begins introducing sanctions. 

Naturally, this has prompted accusations of “far-right racism,” “cruelty,” and of being a “brutal step backwards.” Mahmood, herself the daughter of legal migrants, seems unfazed by this, reasserting that none of this is “racist,” but rather an urgently necessary shake-up that makes the system fairer for both legal migrants and those already living here. 

Why the change of heart? Labour’s apparently Damascene conversion is no doubt partially spurred on by Reform UK’s sustained success in the polls. Studies also show that immigration is the top concern among voters, and that the vast majority of Britons believe that illegal migrants should be deported—including most Labour voters. 

Mahmood does, however, somehow manage to make this overhaul about the so-called “far-right.” Writing for the Guardian, she expressed concern that lax border security was leading to anger about mass migration, which in turn could result in a “less safe country for those who look like me.” Even now, border control cannot be a good in and of itself—it is only another path to create a “Greater Britain, not a littler England.” 

Whether or not these reforms lead to real change remains to be seen. Strengthening our borders may be popular with voters, but it is deeply taboo, if not outright reprehensible, among our political elites. Even within her own party, she faces far greater resistance. Labour backbenchers and even senior party figures are reported to be uneasy about the reforms, and some are already threatening resignation.

Mahmood could face legal pushback, too. The UK justice system is notoriously soft on asylum applications and is in thrall to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), often refusing to grant deportation orders on the most absurdly flimsy grounds. Thankfully, then, Mahmood intends to reform that too. Under the new rules, asylum seekers will only be able to make one single appeal, rather than endlessly spamming appeals until something sticks. The courts will also be instructed to apply the ECHR more restrictively, and a new body will be created to fast-track cases relating to dangerous criminals. Judges will be required to prioritise public safety over human rights. This will hopefully put an end to foreign criminals being denied deportation due to bogus human-rights claims. 

These measures cannot come soon enough. So far this year, 39,075 migrants have entered the UK illegally by crossing the channel—the second-highest annual figure ever recorded. Beyond the raw numbers, unchecked mass migration has eroded public trust in the state’s ability to keep people safe. The UK has allowed the large-scale movement of men, many of whom we know virtually nothing about. What we do know is that these foreigners are disproportionately responsible for crimes such as sex offences. The lack of communication between international and even national police authorities also means that many of these new arrivals already have criminal records. 

As it is, the government’s sudden U-turn on migration will be too late for the likes of Rhiannon Whyte, who was brutally murdered earlier this year by Deng Chol Majek, a Sudanese small-boat migrant previously denied refugee status in Germany. Majek was staying at an asylum hotel in Walsall, where Whyte was employed, when he decided to randomly attack Whyte while she was waiting for her train home. The reform will be of no use, either, to Wayne Broadhurst, a binman who was attacked and killed by a suspected Afghan refugee while walking his dog in Uxbridge. Nor will the changes save Gurvinder Singh Johal, who was stabbed to death by an illegal migrant from Somalia who was lashing out after having been denied asylum in the UK. 

The fact is, measures like these are the bare minimum for keeping Britain’s public safe and its migration system fair and beneficial. There was no good reason for refugee status to be indefinite. There was never an excuse not to deport violent criminals. It was neither justified nor reasonable to expect the UK to take responsibility for housing the world’s needy or persecuted. British taxpayers were certainly never asked how they felt about subsidising the lives of economically unproductive, or simply inactive, foreigners. Those whose families have lived here for generations did not give successive governments permission to import entire communities of people who would not only refuse to integrate, but would in some cases also attempt to impose their way of life on the host population. 

We shouldn’t get ahead of ourselves. After all, there is no guarantee that Mahmood’s reforms will succeed. But it is remarkable that we now have a Labour government that is willing to make these promises. The fact that mainstream politicians are now taking migration seriously is a promising sign that the Overton window is shifting in our favour. We can all hope there will be many more such revelations to come.