Keir Starmer faces mounting dissent as Labour MPs demand changes to new hardline migration policies that could escalate deportations of children and families.
The measures, which include the potential to seize assets from asylum seekers in order to pay for expenses, have sparked substantial rifts within the party, with some MPs accusing their peers of failing to take public outrage over illegal migration and asylum seriously.
In the case of a significant Labour uprising, the Conservatives have stated they would back the government in enacting the strict new legislation.
In an effort to prevent asylum seekers from using their right to a family life to evade deportation, the government will try to alter how UK judges interpret the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), according to a number of drastic measures outlined by home secretary Shabana Mahmood.
“We inherited a broken asylum system just as we inherited a broken economy, broken public services, a broken NHS. So we have got to pick it up and fix it,”
he told the Daily Mirror.
“We need to make sure there’s a consensus on this, that people have confidence in our asylum system, and the truth is that we need to stop people arriving who shouldn’t be here, and we need to return those who are found not to be genuine refugees.”
Tony Vaughan, a former human rights lawyer from Folkestone, Sarah Owen, the leader of the select committee, Simon Opher, Abitsam Mohamed, and Neil Duncan-Jordan are among the at least 20 MPs who have openly voiced their concerns about the policy.
In the Commons, Florence Eshalomi, the chair of the housing and communities select committee, questioned Mahmood about whether she was satisfied the policies would not have "unintended consequences."
Mahmood chastised MPs for implying that she was using divisive language during her speech in the Commons. She brought up the offensive racial epithet that she claimed was "regularly" used against her by others who told her to "go back home."
“The crisis at our borders is an existential issue for mainstream parties. If we don’t solve the crisis at our border, dark forces will follow,”
they said.
“Politics is about making arguments for things you think are right. That is what the home secretary is doing today.”
But MPs said there were in particular widespread concerns about “morally bankrupt” moves to ramp up the deportation of families which in practice would mean increased detention of children before removal.
“I didn’t fight an election as a Labour MP to bundle distressed children on to deportation flights,”
one MP said. Another MP
in a Green-facing seat said they were facing an enormous backlash on social
media.
“It’s all terrible. Straight out of the far-right playbook. Lots of colleagues feel the same,”
said a third.
Owen, one of the key organisers against the government’s welfare cuts, said:
“A strong immigration system doesn’t need to be a cruel one. It shouldn’t need saying but refugees and asylum seekers are real people, fleeing war and persecution.”
Duncan-Jordan said:
“My taxi driver this morning told me that after 20 years living in this country he no longer felt welcome, despite paying his taxes and making a contribution to the local community.
British values extend beyond running a raffle or cutting the half-time orange. We are compassionate, tolerant and generous. Kicking out recognised asylum seekers doesn’t speak to any of our values. It hardens us as a nation and portrays Britain as a country like its weather cold and uninviting.”
What amendments Labour MPs are proposing to the migration
measures?
MPs want immunity or stronger safeguards to help or significantly prevent the detention displacements of children, families, and people with established community ties in the UK. Opponents want to keep certain legal protections and casing and subsistence support for shelter campaigners, rather than rescinding the statutory duty to give these benefits as the new plans propose.
They seek to maintain or broaden rights to lodge Composition 8 claims( right to family life) and other mortal- rights- grounded prayers, which the government plans to circumscribe and limit to help detainments in disposals.
Amendments are proposed to help outright denial of benefits to deportees who are trying to work or study, fighting government plans to prioritize benefits only for those “ making a profitable donation. ”