Add thelocalreport.in As A Trusted Source
lAbor’s step Tighten Britain’s asylum rules has landed with uneasy acceptance among Independent Reader.
home Secretary Shabana Mehmood have insisted that the system is “broken” and needs to be urgently fixed – and many commentators said Labor It is simply confronting political realities that can no longer be ignored, even if the tone makes some uncomfortable.
But that reluctant support was also accompanied by a tinge of disappointment. A small, vocal group fears the party is getting too close Improvement Playbook, especially after the government revealed the plans Radical changes in human rights laws and how to change ECHR This has been interpreted to make deportation easier.
For these readers, proposals to limit family life rights, speed up deportations and even ban certain countries from UK visas risk validating the narratives that Labor once opposed and eroding the party’s values.
What united readers was not a single point of view, but a shared sense of grappling with trade-offs. Some saw Labour’s move as a necessary reform, while others saw a worrying shift to the right – while many on the left wished the alternatives were not so clear.
Here’s what you had to say:
catch the nettle
no support from [Tommy] Robinson doesn’t look good. However, refuge/immigration Nettle needs to be understood (this should have been done years ago) and all credit to Mahmood for doing so.
Immigration numbers, both legal and illegal, have been very high over the past decade and need to be reduced. Those Labor backbenchers complaining must represent the wishes of the majority of voters, who consistently rank ‘immigration’ at the top of their concerns, along with the NHS and cost of living.
Copying Reform’s Playbook
When you have guys like Tommy Robinson, Nigel Farage And Kemi Badenoch supporting your asylum policy, you seriously need to take a step back and question what on earth you are playing at.
In post-Brexit Britain it is very hard to see how anyone – especially anyone from the Labor Party – could outwit Farage in his cruel plans for asylum seekers, and yet here we are.
Copying Reform’s playbook gives Farage his own take on the issue because he will move the debate to the right and, in doing so, he will take the Labor Party with him.
Labour’s harsh and vindictive policy on asylum seekers will benefit the far right and make the party look cruel and incompetent in the process.
Big mistake, because Labor cannot overtake the far right and it would be their downfall if they tried.
talking tough
Any hope for a rational debate on immigration and asylum is gone. I think we’re at a point where any party that doesn’t talk tough on immigration knows it has no chance in the next election. Workers are in the unfortunate position of being in charge when the music stops, so more than just talking the tough stuff (and probably failing to accomplish most of it), they have to actually do something.
ECHR protects everyone
The ECHR protects everyone in the UK and beyond. It gives the right to privacy, freedom of expression, assembly, free and fair elections (sadly nothing about democratic elections), right to life, right to fair trial, right to belief and many other rights. You remove these rights from one, you remove them from all.
As far as interference in the courts is concerned, what chance does anyone have of a fair trial if the Home Secretary is interfering? This is why we need the European Convention/Court of Human Rights. Would you trust a far-right politician with your rights? The ECHR is the last resort and is neutral rather than dictated by the government to judges.
Intelligent
These policies are very sensible. Young people seeking asylum from France are coming illegally in small boats! We really shouldn’t be paying for their food, meals and mobile phones with limited taxpayer resources.
skilled migration Going through the legal route is a very different thing and we should not be deported migrants Who make positive contributions.
Many people are not against helping the needy
Many, perhaps most, are not against helping those in need (such as Afghan women judges, doctors and teachers) but want to be able to do so according to certain criteria: numbers limited to easily assimilable people who are truly in need, ability to make a net contribution, willingness to adapt, etc.
This is not extreme right wing or intolerance, but reflects love for country, community and humanity.
We have to do something
There should be a preventive measure especially for those coming on boats. Although these are strong measures, as long as they are implemented fairly, I think it’s a good thing. We have to do something – doing nothing is not an option.
Why vote for a party that advocates reforms?
Nowhere in Europe has imitation of the far-right brought voters back to parties like Labour, nor has neo-liberal economics taken hold. Both have only alienated the left while not getting any votes on the right, which could make those policies even more radical elsewhere. Why would you vote for a party promoting Reform (or the Tories when right-wing economics is your preference) when you can vote for the real thing?
a chance to do something meaningful
A good Labor MP supports measures that will prevent Reform from coming to power, because if they reject all measures, that will certainly happen. There is a chance of doing something meaningful without doing all the reforms and hence the chance of re-election has been kept open.
For example, I would support more returns (how is Germany happy to send people back to Afghanistan when we are not?) and blocking all legal immigrants from countries that will not agree to a return policy (the ruling classes in those countries will agree). There are others that are not bad and may overall deter the far right from making decisions on the issue. However, pragmatism does not seem to be in abundance among Labor MPs – look at welfare reform.
a lot of gray
As I see it, this is going too far (especially with 20 years to become a citizen/settled).
However, we also have a big problem that many people see everything as black and white, even though there is a lot of gray in there. We need to accept non-perfect compromise as reality.
It is not “welcoming everyone who crosses the border”, but nor is it “deporting all foreigners”.
I think Labor is at least trying to address it.
Does it go too far in some places? I think so, yes. But is it better than doing nothing? Definitely.
On ‘Returns Hub’:
This is nothing like Rwanda. Rwanda was bidding farewell to everyone. It is turning away people who are not seeking asylum/refugees. This seems reasonable to me (especially once a formal route to application is established).
The story is surrounded by far right lies
I reluctantly agree with tightening the rules because the narrative has become completely overrun with far-right lies and half-truths. The number of irregular migrants living in Britain in the past four years, whether by boat or by staying for a longer period, is around 400,000. While violent crime is at its lowest level in 20 years and is projected to drop even further this year, all the fear mongering being peddled by the right wing is just that. They are using this issue as a divisive tool to divide the society.
I know some friends who are ‘informing’ me about ‘facts’ they found on social media, and then I go and check with General AI. This is a half-truth and the issue is being deliberately given a negative spin. Negative social media threads that make people angry are totally everywhere. This is against a group that is one of the most vulnerable in Britain.
Migration puts pressure on the UK, especially when migrants are not allowed to contribute to society while waiting to be processed. And Boris’s wave of legal migration puts pressure on housing and schools. Recently it has decreased by about 50 percent. The real questions are: Why did that huge wave not produce any development? The public is not getting any benefit from the huge losses caused by Brexit and the huge profits snatched from Britain. How can we reverse that?
human way
Shabana Mahmood’s proposed amendment to the ECHR would be a positive step in the right direction. These changes, once in effect, will not prevent genuine asylum seekers from obtaining the long-term protection they need. It is extremely important that UK officials who deal with immigration do not lose their sense of fairness and compassion when processing applicants.
Of equal importance, it will be made much easier to screen out applicants who do not meet the required criteria – especially those with criminal or terrorist backgrounds. I really hope that the upcoming laws will also work in a humane manner.
Some comments in this article have been edited for brevity and clarity.
want to share your thoughtsSimply enter your details below. Once registered, you can comment on the day’s top stories for a chance to be featured. Alternatively, click ‘Log in’ or ‘Register’ in the top right corner to sign in or sign up.
Make sure you follow us Community Guidelinesthat can be found HereFor a complete guide on how to comment Click here.