Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Original poster

Labour's new policies for asylum seekers

994 replies

frommyheadtomyfeet · 17/11/2025 07:51

Are rumoured to follow Denmark's, which include the seizure of valuables from people arriving here to pay their accommodation costs.

Is anyone else disgusted by this?! How will it work, they can take people's jewellery, phones etc., and leave them with nothing? What sort of message does that send?

OP posts:
Thread gallery
9
poetryandwine · 17/11/2025 14:18

EasternStandard · 17/11/2025 14:16

They could have but it was scrapped.

Show quote history

Right. But here we are

Leavesfalling · 17/11/2025 14:18

frommyheadtomyfeet · 17/11/2025 14:14

It was scrapped because it was illegal and nonsensical.

Show quote history

It wasn't illegal. The election was called just as the legal ducks had been put in a row. Bit of an odd decision by Rishi really although I dont think it would have made much difference.

poetryandwine · 17/11/2025 14:17

Leavesfalling · 17/11/2025 14:11

France! They came from France.

Show quote history

France has no obligation in international law to ‘take them’. Especially because they have not even applied for asylum there.

BTW France accepts more refugees than the UK does.

EasternStandard · 17/11/2025 14:16

poetryandwine · 17/11/2025 14:15

If someone won’t say what their home country is and has no papers, it is impossible to deport them. No third party country takes people from the UK

Show quote history

They could have but it was scrapped.

poetryandwine · 17/11/2025 14:15

This reply has been deleted

This has been deleted by MNHQ for breaking our Talk Guidelines.

If someone won’t say what their home country is and has no papers, it is impossible to deport them. No third party country takes people from the UK

EasternStandard · 17/11/2025 14:15

frommyheadtomyfeet · 17/11/2025 14:14

It was scrapped because it was illegal and nonsensical.

Show quote history

It’s not working out well for Labour at all is it?

InTheMoodToHuff · 17/11/2025 14:14

I don't know why we're even bothering to discuss these proposed plans. They won't happen. The ehrc has been and will continue to be, the major obstacle in implementing any new strategies to limit illegal migration. The courts will ALWAYS favour the rights of asylum seekers; has time not taught us this by now? If a judge can prevent an asylum seeker from being deported over a chicken nugget, how do you think it will go down when jewellery is being seized? Until a party is bold enough to take us out of the ehrc absolutely nothing will change.

Original poster
frommyheadtomyfeet · 17/11/2025 14:14

EasternStandard · 17/11/2025 14:10

Labour scrapped it before it started.

Show quote history

It was scrapped because it was illegal and nonsensical.

OP posts:
Justlostmybagel · 17/11/2025 14:12

EasternStandard · 17/11/2025 14:10

Labour scrapped it before it started.

Show quote history

I'm pretty sure there was one guy, who went voluntarily.

Leavesfalling · 17/11/2025 14:11

This reply has been deleted

This has been deleted by MNHQ for breaking our Talk Guidelines.

France! They came from France.

wombat1a · 17/11/2025 14:11

Perhaps the best answer is to invade these war torn countries and reform the British Empire then? When they are back on their feet they can then go independent? Is that a better idea OP?

Lets sort out the root of the problem ---- oh wait that really worked for the Afgans and the taliban didn't it.

Sorry OP UK is already over crowded and we need to make it less attractive to refugees, deportation flights using the RAF and their transport planes and just take them back perhaps?

DebbiesKitchen · 17/11/2025 14:11

This reply has been deleted

This has been deleted by MNHQ for breaking our Talk Guidelines.

EasternStandard · 17/11/2025 14:10

Justlostmybagel · 17/11/2025 14:08

Didn't they only send that one guy to Rwanda? I wonder what he's up to.

Labour scrapped it before it started.

Leavesfalling · 17/11/2025 14:10

poetryandwine · 17/11/2025 14:07

The problem is, to where?

Show quote history

If they can't say where they are from how can they prove refugee status?

Leavesfalling · 17/11/2025 14:08

Justlostmybagel · 17/11/2025 14:08

Didn't they only send that one guy to Rwanda? I wonder what he's up to.

I thought Labour binned it before anyone was made to go. Maybe a couple went voluntarily?

DebbiesKitchen · 17/11/2025 14:08

This reply has been deleted

This has been deleted by MNHQ for breaking our Talk Guidelines.

Justlostmybagel · 17/11/2025 14:08

Didn't they only send that one guy to Rwanda? I wonder what he's up to.

poetryandwine · 17/11/2025 14:07

PropertyD · 17/11/2025 14:05

Can we all agree that people without ID can be sent back?

The problem is, to where?

Leavesfalling · 17/11/2025 14:06

PropertyD · 17/11/2025 14:03

Agree (a lot!)

Show quote history

Also these are hardly going to be boats stuffed with the doctors and engineers we were promised that they are. If they can't prove where they are from they can't prove their qualification and are therefore not going to be much use to us.

As with any one who is a member of a profession.

EasternStandard · 17/11/2025 14:06

poetryandwine · 17/11/2025 13:55

Asylum applicants would need to pass the current intake interview and possibly further screening mechanisms in order to work. They could certainly be required to hold passports, which would be a step in the right direction.

Show quote history

You didn’t answer on not being allowed to settle and being used as a flow of cheap labour. Is that what you’re after?

Plus I thought asylum claimants often fled without documents / passports due to personal risk, are you now saying that’s not the case?

OneDearWasp · 17/11/2025 14:06

Of course we can't take everyone. But saying that isn't a magic incantation that will summon a workable solution.

Rwanda didn't seem remotely likely to work given that a couple of hundred people at most would be sent there. Maybe Labour should have let it continue and show it failed but that would have cost £££

For the avoidance of doubt, I am NOT in favour of unlimited migration or open borders. I am in favour of realistic policies that have a chance of working and of politicians who are brave enough to stop pretending there is a simple quick solution to boats, asylum and inward migration (which are three different issues). And yes, in favour of policies that would overall reduce migration.

PropertyD · 17/11/2025 14:05

Can we all agree that people without ID can be sent back?

Nofireplace · 17/11/2025 14:04

Notmycircusnotmyotter · 17/11/2025 13:37

Did it f*ck. A desperate excuse by a violent man.

Show quote history

I assume the poster was talking about this guy who try that excuse and there really is nothing to discuss bar better tracking of people like him
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-43498151

Hussein Khavari waits at a court room prior to the expected proclamation of sentence at the regional court in Freiburg

Germany migrant jailed for life for murdering Freiburg student

The rape and murder of a medical student in 2016 fuelled tensions over the mass influx of migrants.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-43498151

PropertyD · 17/11/2025 14:03

Leavesfalling · 17/11/2025 14:01

I think they need to prove where they are from and show evidence that they are genuine refugees. Otherwise they should be deported. If they have the wherewithall to arrange passage across the EU and then illegal boats then they should be able to prove where they are from.

Show quote history

Agree (a lot!)

Dollymylove · 17/11/2025 14:02

PropertyD · 17/11/2025 13:58

Why are they told to throw their ID away? What have they got to hide?

So they can pretend they are fleeing a war zone