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

[Papyrophile]

Is Shabana Mahmood right or wrong to restrict asylum seeker's rights? In general?

Why would someone have to be brave to have an opinion? Why don’t you start by saying what you think of her plans?

Why are you naming her as an individual rather than talking about the government’s plans?

Context helps.

I think she is right that something has to be done.

I like that she’s looking to Europe for examples. Makes a change to try and learn from other countries.

I absolutely think this is a step in the right direction. Things are out of control. I also think she comes across very well in the interviews she did today.

If your (insert any foreign person) neighbour asked you for a tenner, and you genuinely couldn't afford to give it to them, because you didn't have enough money yourself. What would you say to someone who suggested that you were being racist when you refused to help them?

I think it’s great. And so relieved it’s the Labour Party introducing it. The Tories would have had their arse handed to them on a plate.

Shabana Mahmoud is the Home Secretary, in charge of the internal affairs, policing and general management of the UK. Police, justice etc. A government department that is always viewed as the hardest to run, and the most likely to go awry.

Specifically, I would be interested in your responses to her proposals for asylum seekers, trailed today.

The only way they are going to tackle the problem is by stopping the ability for people to work illegally. Yes there are fines for employing illegal workers and yes they introduced right to work checks and they are making noises about digital ID cards.

Many of the people coming on small boats (and I know they are the minority of immigrants) are coming to work illegally. Remove that possibility and they will go elsewhere. How you do that though I'm not sure.

I think she has read the room and her response is perfect.

What do you think?

Right now, the zeitgeist is havering between the "accepting every refugee and economic migrant" and total close down. Upfront, I lean towards close down. I love our country's landscape, and I'd be angry if it was all built up.

The changes seem pretty limited in practice but the shift in tone is very welcome.

Not specifically that the tone has become more hard-line. I think that’s probably inevitable and right, given the situation, but it’s not the thing that heartens me the most.

But that we’ve finally broken with the “nothing can be done” line that Labour defaults to on any issue involving laws. You are the government, you have agency and a mandate and a majority. Use it! Or what’s the point of being in power.

Step in the right direction. Forget race and politics for a moment, we are hideously overcrowded and our wildlife is dying out. Seeing a few green fields isn’t the same as having enough rural green for food production, green lungs and habitats. We’ve destroyed our country and rather than yet more short termist Ponzi schemes we need to reduce the population and salvage what we can

Your poll doesn't really indicate the question maybe edit it? I don't know if you're BU or not.

I think there will be general support for this in the average British home, even if people are publicly outraged by it. Tens of thousands of undocumented young men (often with very different cultural attitudes) arriving and flooding small towns will of course lead to a backlash. I'm just glad Labour are finally holding their noses and trying to admit that there's a problem.

Can you say what the yanbu / yabu means?

It's hard to vote as you haven't said what the voting options mean.

I think Mahmoud is a very competent politician who has communicated effectively. The rhetoric that she has adopted was very offputting for me, but I do understand why she has adopted it and I appreciate that I am not the target audience. I also believe that she is genuine in saying that she believes this issue needs to be tackled in order to improve community cohesion.

I am still struggling to understand the detail of some of the proposals and what they might mean in practice. I cannot really form a proper view without understanding some of these details more.

At first glance, I welcome the plan to introduce safe and legal routes for people who are claiming asylum, but I would like to see more info about what this would actually entail.

I don't support the idea of making refugees wait for 20 years before they can get settled status. I just don't think it's right to leave traumatised people in limbo for that many years, and it seems likely to me that this will actually serve as a barrier to integration as people won't know where they stand or whether it's worth the effort to put down roots. Having said that, Mahmoud did indicate that there would be ways of shortening this period - it would be good to understand more about how she plans to make that work.

I really don't understand the proposal about scrapping the statutory requirement to house and support asylum seekers or what that means in practice. What support are local authorities going to offer if they are told that it is "discretionary"? Does it mean that those who are not supported will be permitted to work? Or will it be the expectation that they live on the streets/beg/steal/rely on charity? Or what?

I'm not sure about the idea of using AI to assess the age of child migrants. I'm not clear as to how accurate that would be, but I would not be in favour of such technology if there is any risk that vulnerable children might be failed as a result of incorrectly treating them ascadults.

Can't remember what else was in there right now.

I do think that the proposed measures will be popular overall, as they're clearly designed to appeal to those who want a hard line on immigration. However, I remain unconvinced that any of these suggestions are necessarily going to stop people from coming, because I don't think they're coming for the supposed perks in any case, but rather because of family ties, language issues, historical associations etc.

In principal I don’t disagree. The current system disproportionately impacts the most vulnerable, including women, children, and the elderly who are least likely to be able to make a long journey seeking asylum, as well as the those without the means to finance it, and ultimately creates a drain of young men and those with skills and money leaving their country of origin permanently, meaning that once stability is restored that country is less able to rebuild itself internally. Disincentivising those who are economic migrants with a higher barrier to permanent citizenship whilst ensuring those who genuinely need safety are given it is fair. A system which reviews a refugee’s status and considers when it would be safe for them to return home and to expect that is reasonable and I don’t think that’s racist - it’s ultimately how we’ve approached recent Ukrainian refugees, after all.

But ultimately I think we need a total rehaul of asylum routes to the U.K. whereby people can apply formally in their country of origin or from a nearby safe country and be assessed through formal channels: many people arrive “illegally” because that’s the only option available to them, we won’t stop people trafficking until there are viable alternatives.

I think it’s hypocritical after all their rhetoric and I’m not sure it’ll do much.

Sorry, to all asking that question; I didn't think it through coherently.

YABU means you think this is racist/unfair/ and
YANBU means you align with tighter controls for the right to live in the UK and benefit from its social provision.

I was watching this on GBnews.

It won't make a bit of difference. We can't deport anyone now, imagine trying to return someone to Afganistan for example after this proposed 2 years - who decides it's safe?, you can bet the person you are trying to deport won't think it's safe and so the merry-go-round round of HR claims and court appeals begin.

@TheCheekysloth, as I've never seen GB news, I assume that this is casting a slur on my integrity.

It doesn't go far enough. And it won't happen.

employers are required to check an employees right to work
in the U.K. A digital ID won’t change that if an employer isn’t checking in the first place.