Voices: ‘The narrative has been overtaken by far-right lies’: Readers weigh in on Labour’s asylum crackdown

Labour’s move to toughen Britain’s asylum rules has landed with a thud of uneasy acceptance among Independent readers.

Home secretary Shabana Mahmood has insisted the system is “broken” and in urgent need of order – and many commenters said Labour is simply confronting political realities that can’t be ignored any longer, even if the tone made some uncomfortable.

But that reluctant support was matched by flashes of frustration. A smaller, outspoken group fear the party is drifting too close to the Reform playbook, especially after the government revealed plans to overhaul human rights laws and change how the ECHR is interpreted to make deportations easier.

For these readers, proposals to limit rights to family life, speed up removals and even bar certain countries from UK visas risk validating the narratives Labour once resisted and chips away at the party’s values.

What united readers was not a single viewpoint, but a shared sense of wrestling with the trade-offs. Some saw the move by Labour as necessary reform, while others saw a worrying shift to the right – with many left wishing the choices weren’t quite so stark.

Here’s what you had to say:

Any endorsement from [Tommy] Robinson is not a good look. However, the asylum/immigration nettle has got to be grasped (it should have been done years ago) and all credit to Mahmood for doing so.

Immigration numbers, both legal and illegal, over the last decade have been far too high and need curtailing. Those Labour backbenchers complaining should represent the majority of voters’ wishes who, along with the NHS and the cost of living, continually put ‘immigration’ at the top of their concerns.

Noverngit1

When you’ve got the likes of 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’re playing at.

In post-Brexit Britain it’s very hard to see how anyone – especially anyone from the Labour Party – can out-do Farage on his cruel plans for asylum seekers, and yet here we are.

Copying Reform’s playbook allows Farage to own the issue because he’ll drive the debate further to the right and, in doing so, he’ll take the Labour Party with him.

Labour’s harsh and vindictive policy on asylum seekers will gift the far right the advantage and it’ll leave the party looking cruel and incompetent in the process.

Big mistake, because Labour cannot out-Farage the far right and it’ll only be their downfall if they try.

Amy

The hope for a reasoned debate on immigration and asylum has gone. I think we are at a point where any party that does not talk tough on immigration knows that it has no chance at the next election. Labour are in the unfortunate position of being in charge when the music stopped, so more than simply talking tough (and probably failing to deliver on most of it), they have to actually do something.

Stanley Oliver

The ECHR protects everybody in the UK and beyond. It gives the right to privacy, the freedom of expression, to assembly, to free and fair elections (sadly nothing about democratic elections), the right to life, right to a fair trial, to belief, and so many others. You remove these rights from one, you remove them from everybody.

As for interfering in the courts, what chance does anybody have of a fair trial if the home secretary is interfering? This is the reason 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 government ordering judges.

LadyCrumpsall

These policies are eminently sensible. Young men arriving illegally by small boat, seeking asylum from France! We shouldn’t really be paying for their food, board and mobile phones with limited taxpayer resources.

Skilled migration through legal routes is something very different, and we shouldn’t be deporting migrants who positively contribute.

Tradehunter

Many, perhaps most, are not against helping those in need (like Afghan women judges, doctors and teachers) but want to be able to do so in accordance with certain criteria: numbers limited to those readily assimilable, those genuinely in need, ability to make a net contribution, willingness to adapt etc.

This is not far right or intolerant, but reflects a love of country, community and humanity.

Bruxellois

There has to be a deterrent, particularly for those coming on the boats. Whilst these are strong measures, as long as they are implemented fairly I think it is a good thing. We have to do something – doing nothing isn’t an option.

Markie

Emulating the ultra-right has not brought voters back to Labour-like parties anywhere in Europe, neither has holding on to neo-liberal economics. Both have only estranged voters from the left, while gaining no votes from the right who can get those policies even more extreme somewhere else. Why would you vote for a party cosplaying Reform (or the Tories when right-wing economics is your choice) when you can vote for the real thing?

Gom Jabbar

A good Labour MP supports measures which will stop Reform getting into power, because if they reject all measures, that will surely happen. There is a chance to do something worthwhile without going all Reform and therefore keeping open the chance of re-election.

For instance, I would favour more returns (how are Germany happy to send folk back to Afghanistan when we aren’t?) and blocking all legit migrants from countries which won’t agree to a returns policy (the ruling classes in those countries will fall in line). There are others which aren’t evil and in total might stop the far right deciding the issue. Pragmatism doesn’t look abundant with Labour MPs though – look at welfare reform.

Masterofnothing

As I see it, this is going too far (especially with the 20 years to become citizens/settled).

However, we also have a big issue in that too many people see everything as black and white, when there is a whole lot of grey here. We need to accept non-perfect compromise as being reality.

It’s not “welcome everyone who crosses” but neither is it “deport all the foreigners”.

I think that Labour are at least trying to address this.

Does it go too far in places? I think so, yes. But is it better than doing nothing? Definitely.

On the ‘return hubs’:

This is nothing like Rwanda. Rwanda was sending everyone away. This is sending away people who aren’t seeking asylum/refugees. That seems reasonable to me (especially once formal routes to apply are set up).

Someone182

I rather reluctantly agree with the hardening of the rules because the narrative has been completely overtaken by far-right lies and half-truths. The volume of irregular migrants staying in the UK, be it by boat or by overstaying, is around 400,000 over the last four years. While violent crime is at its lowest in over 20 years and forecast to be even lower this year, all the fear-mongering by the right wing is just that. They are using the issue as a divisive tool to split society.

I know a couple of friends who have been ‘informing’ me of ‘facts’ they got on social media, and I then go away and check with Gen AI. It is half-truths deliberately twisting the issue to something negative. Negative social media threads that are enraging people are completely everywhere. This is against a group who are one of the most vulnerable in the UK.

Migration does put pressure on the UK, especially as migrants are not allowed to contribute to society while waiting to be processed. And the Boris wave of legal migration puts pressure on housing and schools. It has come down by around 50 per cent recently. The real questions are: why did that huge wave not provide any growth? The huge damage of Brexit and the massive profits taken away from the UK are not benefiting the public. How can we reverse that?

Theframe

Shabana Mahmood’s proposed amendments to the ECHR will be a positive step in the right direction. These changes, once they become effective, will not prevent genuine asylum seekers from receiving the long-term protection they need. It is of vital importance that the UK officials who deal with immigration do not lose their sense of fairness and compassion when processing applicants.

Of equal importance, the facility to remove applicants who do not fit the necessary criteria – especially those from criminal or terrorist backgrounds – will be made much easier. I really hope that the forthcoming laws will operate in a humane manner too.

JanetC

Some of the comments have been edited for this article for brevity and clarity.

Want to share your views? Simply register 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 adhere to our community guidelines, which can be found here. For a full guide on how to comment click here.

Source: UK Politics - www.independent.co.uk