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?

In terms of countries outside the bloc’s laws Denmark is different. Not related to that but more the EU restrictions.

However, Denmark also benefits from a unique legal situation: Though a member of the European Union, it is not subject to European Law in many instances.

This is because, after a failed referendum in 1992 on the EU's Maastricht Treaty, the country was granted an opt-out clause from shared EU laws so that the treaty could still come into force.

In the case of immigration law, this meant that the EU had to assure Denmark that it would not have to participate in the bloc's common asylum policy.

Other EU nations — such as Germany — do not have an opt-out clause and would therefore be in breach of EU law if they pursued similar laws to deter migrants and refugees from reaching their shores.

Which is NOT leaving the ECHR and is exactly what Labour have proposed.

Just 2.5% of asylum claims have been rejected in UK courts due to ECHR legislation.
And amazingly only 13 in the Strasbourg court, since 1981.

The only reason Reform/Tories want to leave the ECHR is to roll back British rights and have even less protections.

@EasternStandard We aren't in the EU.

Really you didn’t need to waste an @ on that.

Well you did go on and on about Denmark's situ, which is hardly relevant.

I thought perhaps you didn't realise we had left the EU

It was easy to copy and paste if you’re not interested scroll on by.

Not about being interested or not.

Its about being clear that Labour can bring in these reforms whilst staying IN the ECHR.

Other parties are arguing differently for their own reasons, which not for our benefit.

If you were a cynic you might think other parties have deliberately overplayed the impact of the ECHR in order to leave.

I found it interesting so I posted it 🤷‍♀️

I’m happy to engage with others.

I think it's a huge shame that Labour believe that changing their rhetoric to appease people will actually appease people and stop Reform getting elected. I mean, I understand why they have to try it, politically speaking. But the reality is that you're never going to shift most people's entrenched views. Take the mumsnet audience, for example, and one or two frequent posters in particular.

"Labour aren't doing enough about immigration! It's time they listened to us - we're not racist!"

Labour: "Ok, here's something".

"It's not enough!"

Labour: "Ok, here's more. And we're also now going to talk more like Farage."

"Ha! We see you. We see through you."

Labour: "No, honestly. We really are completely genuine about this. Here's some policies that lots of people have been calling for, but the Tories never did."

"No, sorry. We don't believe you. You've made the country worse in 18 months than the previous government did in 14 years."

Because the problem is actually that Farage has been extremely effective at selling one lie: solve immigration and all your woes will be solved. It doesn't matter that Brexit was a failure at doing what it was marketed to do. It is him who has divided this country, assisted by the press. It is him who has empowered and legitimised openly racist views to be shared, frequently. That's not me saying that everyone who is concerned about immigration is racist, by the way. But he's almost entirely responsible for opening the door to, and amplifying, those who are.

You cannot out-Farage Farage. In trying to, all Labour is doing is selling its soul to the highest bidder in the vague hope that it'll stop him marching into Number 10. It won't. Because this was never really about immigration, but the dangerous ambitions of one man who wants power at any cost.

I know that Reform voters don't like others drawing a comparison with 1930s Germany. But the German people had absolutely no idea what they were voting in, either. They didn't vote for mass deportations, front doors knocked down and lofts raided. They didn't vote for extermination camps and the invasion of other countries. They voted for control of their borders, German jobs for German people, bread on the table, a heated roof over their heads. They were sold a lie. Yet we're not allowed to draw those comparisons, are we?

I really hope that Labour's tough, new immigration rhetoric is successful at keeping Farage out of Downing Street. But I suspect that instead it will further divide the nation and push many Labour voters further left, splitting the vote and enabling quite the opposite.

I agree with every single word of this and I share your concerns.

Labour have to deal with the reality of what we have now, not what we'd like.

Public opinion has shifted.

But i do agree Labour shouldn't try to out Reform, Reform but they can deal with migration AND still be a left of centre party and deal with the longstanding issues we face.
She mentioned 700 Albanian families living in tax payer funded housing, no one should be defending that, we cannot provide refuge for all the worlds poor.

Unfortunately for Labour, they face a v hostile media, todays news was all about Labour splits/bank bench MPs scupper her plans etc etc & how it wont work.

Contrast this with how Tory plans were greeted.

I may be wrong, but I think I heard that 20 years is the maximum.
And that that time would be reduced for people who contribute/integrate to the country.

Which would be a rational proposal.

At the moment, it seems like you can get here, get someone pregnant (even before your case has been decided), and immediately claim a right to family life under the EHCR and then the courts block your deportation.

Perhaps though, would-be immigrants would be wise not to have children without thinking about the consequences - i.e. can you support them without recourse to benefits, and are you prepared to uproot them and move home again. This latter point is not that much different to people who (legally) move from UK to Australia, Germany, Canada, etc and then decide it's not the country for them (or lose their job there) and repatriate.

I think in this debate we always focus on the outliers.

If someone has been accepted here as a temporary refugee during a conflict, say, and does not support themselves or their family during that time, and does not look like they will do better in the future - why shouldn't they go back to their country of origin?

I think here on MN we'd say any man doing that was a cocklodger and tell the woman to kick him out rather than carry on supporting him.

This 100% ^

I dont care about their safety, where they live, whether they can support themselves, see a doctor or get NHS treatment. So long as my taxes are not paying for it.

Anyone who thinks public concern about immigration is just something that's been whipped up by Nigel Farage and the 'right wing press' needs to look across the channel. Every country in W. Europe is going through this right now. It's why Germany has 152 far right MPs (much more far right than Reform).

Let's help people in need in other countries, but not by bringing in thousands of the sharpest elbowed undocumented males to live in our poorest neighbourhoods. Its a recipe for disaster.

Interesting?

But if asylum seekers are all clustered in HMOs in the poorest areas, which is what is happening, it does have an impact and people are going to be concerned.

Telling them there's nothing to worry about won't help. In fact, it has the opposite effect.

I refer to this Wiki page of statistics. The best I have...

You will see most European countries have roughly 1 immigrant to every 4/5 'home-grown' citizen. Other countries have more but they generally have lower population densities than England (even UK as a whole).

The stats on reproduction are that immigrants still have fairly high rates compared to the below-replacement levels of the non-immigrants. So even without further immigration the balance will continue to shift.

A near 20% (in UK roughly 12,000,000) section with different backgrounds and outlook is destabilising for the status quo.

You can argue whether that's a good thing or bad but I don't think you can argue that the UK is miserly with its acceptance of immigrants.

Nor do I think you can reasonably argue that all the concern is confected by the media and the right wing. People are seeing change and they are not surprisingly nervous about it. Particularly when services and accommodation are hard to come by feelings of injustice start to surface.

I think most people are keen to help others when they have a surplus, much less so when they don't and are struggling themselves. In particular it seems to many that the well-off political and lawyerly classes are happy to welcome more people to serve them coffee and bring their takeaways and wash their cars and don't see the tussle for basic accommodation because they are the property owning classes.

I agree. And the issues need to be addressed but with honesty and compassion

Agree with some PPs that the word racism is grossly overused, mostly by people who don't really know what it means.. To those who like throwing this word around - I am strongly opposed to hordes of undocumented men illegally forcing their way into my country. Which 'race' do you believe I am opposed to? I would genuinely like to know.

I agree @Portakalkedi

However looking at this thread now, anyone who says so is having their messages removed for stating the obvious.

Your concerns are shared by most people about illegals forcing their way in.

It may not seem like it in MN but the majority feel the same way.

it may not seem like it in MN

Mumsnet is crawling with anti immigrant sentiment. It's not confined to asylum seekers and people arriving on boats either.

Implying that you can't be racist if you are not directing your racism towards a certain "race" is not a cogent argument. You can just not like any race other than your own, surely? I'm not suggesting you are racist by the way.

Also crawling with people accusing others of being racists because they have shared uncontrolled immigration concerns. Guess it depends what you’re looking for.