So who is going to be brave enough to ask whether Shabana Mahmood's proposed reforms are right/sensible/racist?

It’s the government at fault. Tory and Labour to a lesser extent given they’ve just taken over but they need to act asap….

We don’t need the boat arrivals nor the massive Boris wave …both should be removed and returned to their home countries for starters.

The message needs to go out coming by boat you won’t be allowed to stay…

You seem to keep apologising and keeping pushing the narrative oh poor immigrants give them a chance…why? We are full and certainly do not need the dregs of the third world here on our shores.

There were videos circulating last week of them in France marauding about a small town carrying a boat the scenes were awful an intimidating mass …coming to a town near you soon.

No thank you.

Nearly all immigration is controlled by gov, they are the ones who grant visas. So 14 years of tory, who granted record numbers of visas, while at the same time making cuts to our services (when arguably they should be putting more in to account for the higher numbers in the UK), so really is at fault here? The immigrants or the government? Let's blame the correct people...

The young men in small boats lie and lie, they pretend to be younger than they are, they throw any any ID, they claim to be gay or a Christian and so it goes on.

I would put a hit squad of Home Office officials in boats around the UK to process an application. The current set up is rubbish.

Decision is made, no appeals, no chance to work in nail bars and car washes, cash in hand, no chance to met some daft women who then gets pregnant.

Yet we seem to bend over backwards to give these young men the benefit of the doubt EVERY SINGLE TIME. Hence their claim is upheld and what 80% are allowed to stay. Why? We know nothing about them, we dont know often where they have come from. Other EU countries have a much lesser % of claims agreed. Reminds me of the spiralling benefits bill - why do we do this to ourselves??

I agree that Universities rely on international students. However, 16,000 of them applied for asylum in the last year.

www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/sep/02/home-office-tells-foreign-students-they-will-be-removed-if-they-overstay-visas

Illegal and legal migration has destroyed the U.K. The sheer numbers are too high especially since the Boris wave…hopefully they will be deported.

Some serious deportations need to take place …we are full to bursting and can’t cope. Everyone is sick of it!

The boat arrivals are from the worst third world countries ! Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq etc . We do not want them here - they don’t share our values and are a serious threat to our safety.

I recently had the misfortune to drive through Bradford and it was a shock you can’t believe it’s the U.K.

Grim doesn’t even touch the sides.

No it wasn’t a deterrent asylum was just as high in 2002 pre Brexit. Take a look.

Do you see the DA acting as a deterrent in ROI? Can you say how?

Yep, brexit also resulted in mega wealthy leaving too. It's the gift that just keeps giving, sigh.

Brexit was because of Farage. No, he may not have been involved in negotiations, thank god, but that's far too hard for him anyway.

He's a racist grifter who has had a massive part in destroying this country. And people still falling for it, he'll finish it off if Reform get in.

Brexit has also led to many less foreign students coming to UK. who bring in a lot of income. Universities have had to make redundancies because of this.

My posts do not. I am very well aware of the differences.

It also acted as a deterrent, people now know they cannot be sent back and numbers did increase.
It also made things harder with no access to the EU database which has held up claims.

There used to be a popular song, sung by Florrie Ford in 1906, entitled:
"My Wife Won't Let Me."

In this, Florrie sung about being waiting at the church to be married. Her intended eventually sent her a note saying that he wanted to marry her but

"My wife won't let me!"

The joke of the song was that although he had promised her marriage, he had done so confidently making all sorts of promises but knowing-when it came down to it-that he would be saved from having to marry her, as his wife forbade it.

In this case, the Home Secretary knows that she has to say something-even though Sir Keir and his Attorney General have declared all immigration laws, "racistl."

So, like the chap in the song she can shout about her new rules while confidently expecting that the ECHR will not let her do it.

We are the bride who believe all the guff, she is the groom who says much but won't deliver because she relies on her spouse (THE ECHR) forbidding it.

She can then pretend to wring her hands while laughing her head off, knowing it was all bullshit to begin with and relying on being able to say that

"The ECHR won't let me!"

‘Sending people back’ really was limited pre Brexit. I think people do need to understand the agreement better.

Send them back where?

How simple and shows lack of understanding. By the way, we used to be able to before Brexit. Damn, the UK shot itself in it's foot is so many ways with brexit and the idiots believed Farage when said UK can take control. It's almost comical.

I suggest you google 'Yellow peril'.
Once upon a time East Asian people were demonised, we were told that their way of life undermines Western civilisation, that their values were barbaric and nothing like ours.

Sound familiar?

We do control our borders and we do pick and choose who to let in on the whole. Again, boat crossings are just one part of the story.

It’s your posts that mix them up. It’s easy to be sure, this is about asylum.

A few posts on here about the work situation changing. That will be a big factor if so.

First of all, I think it has to be made very clear that none of the new measures are applied retroactively. Fair enough if rules going forward are toughened up, what I can't abide is goalposts being moved once someone has already made a life here. Second, tinkering with the ECHR rules is completely unnecessary. I heard a report on Denmark this morning stating that they were able to restrict asylum access without resorting to ECHR amendments. That whole ECHR debate is a very slippery slope and something that could have really bad consequences in the wrong (fascist) hands. Denmark is held up as an example here, so I suspect that she is only mentioning the ECHR to gain points with would-be Reform voters (which is utterly futile anyway).

I know that. Not sure others are quite so sure and think all migration (and asylum seeking) is via boats across the channel.