There’s nothing tough about Shabana Mahmood’s migration plans, and I can prove it

This article was first published in The Telegraph.

The Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood has announced what are supposedly Britain’s toughest immigration rules yet. Legal migrants could face waits of up to 20 years to get settled status. Those who arrive illegally could face having their assets seized – to contribute to the costs of hosting them. 

Yet the tough talk has obscured that her policies will likely increase the number of refugees coming to Britain. As some have already noted, the toughest plans will also be the hardest to get past the courts, so will likely be watered down or prevented. Meanwhile, the new work and study option for asylum seekers would allow them to apply for settlement after 10 years, while working here and being able to bring over family members. 

Even waiting 20 years for settlement  looks less daunting once you examine the proposed discounts. Work in the public sector? Five years off. Volunteer in the community? Five years off. 

There is another Trojan Horse lurking in the plans, however. These are the much vaunted safe and legal routes for refugees. One of the frequent criticisms of plans to try and stop the small boats crossing the English Channel is that, for most people seeking asylum, there is no safe and legal route on which to travel.

There are already some legal routes, like the Mandate scheme for those with relatives who are already here, but these only take a few refugees. There have also been various bespoke routes from Syria, Ukraine, Hong Kong and Afghanistan. Although these routes do offer more control and greater vetting, there are still issues: on one Afghan route alone there have been at least 28 violent criminals and one referral to Prevent over terrorism fears, with the Home Office admitting their data is so bad that this is likely an undercount.

The new Immigration White Paper recommits to these routes but plans to shift the focus of safe and legal asylum to refugee sponsorship, whereby “voluntary and community sector organisations” can sponsor individuals for settlement in Britain. They say this will lead to better levels of integration and lower costs for the taxpayer, as well as giving communities a greater say.

Although this new model will supposedly be based on local capacity to support refugees and the numbers coming will be “tightly controlled”, this would give a greater role to NGOs and other civil society bodies to sponsor refugees. That might sound nice on the surface, but these organisations often have a bad record on such decisions, and the system would be open to abuse.

Take the Church of England, which has been credibly accused of turning a blind eye to fake conversions by asylum seekers. That includes the asylum seeker, and supposed convert, who tried to blow up a hospital in Liverpool. 

Or what about Green Lane Mosque in Birmingham, to which the Government was going to give £2 million in funding? This was only frozen after a media investigation revealed that preachers at the mosque discussed the correct way to stone a woman to death. The mosque is registered as a charity and, presumably, could be allowed to sponsor refugees under these new rules. We could also see a sudden explosion of new voluntary organisations, set up to take advantage of these new sponsorship rules.  

The new routes would also be offered to refugee and displaced students. That could mean more cases like that of Palestinian student Dana Abu Qamar. After the October 7 attacks, she spoke of her “pride” and as a result was due to be deported, only to win on appeal under human rights law. 

Far from being tough, these new rules would actually expand the number of refugees who can come to Britain, as they would be on top of the existing routes. The Government announcement optimistically claims it would be a “clear alternative” to entering illegally. But with the removals rate so low, any migrant who wouldn’t qualify for entry under these plans would still have the incentive to come illegally anyway. 

Mahmood’s plans will only increase the number of migrants coming to Britain and by placing responsibility for sponsoring these refugees into the hands of community groups, many of whom may be neither neutral nor trustworthy, the Government risks further abuse of an already much-abused system.