Labour asylum reforms face backlash

Baron Alf Dubs, a Labour peer, has become the latest in a line of party members to speak out against Shabana Mahmood’s deeply racist asylum seeker policy changes.

On BBC Radio 4’s Today programme, he called the amendments “a shabby thing” and accused Mahmood of seeking “to use children as a weapon”.

Dubs’ criticism is particularly significant because he himself came to the UK as an asylum seeker. Born in Prague in 1932, he was the son of a Jewish father and a non-Jewish mother.

He was among the children from then-Czechoslovakia brought into the UK on the kindertransport, fleeing Nazi persecution. When he arrived in Liverpool Street Station, Dubs was just 6 years old.

Back in 2020, Dubs explained that his lived experience as a refugee was a decisive factor in his political foray:

I got involved in politics because I was passionately trying to understand why what had happened to me had happened. So I eventually went into politics and into the Commons, and then got into the House of Lords. One of the issues about which I’m particularly concerned is that of refugees, especially child refugees – understandably, given my own background (although the cause is important, regardless of whether the person advocating it has been a refugee, himself or herself or not).

It’s not only a humanist cause, but it’s one of the causes that I feel very, very close to, and I’m still involved and active in.

‘No automatic family reunion’

Among the numerous cruelties in the government’s policy document, published yesterday, is:

Longer path to settlement: No indefinite settled status until 20 years in the UK, with requirements to be set in a future consultation.
No automatic family reunion: Family reunion rights will not be automatic for those on core protection; stricter requirements will apply.
Revoking duty to support: The legal obligation to provide support to destitute asylum seekers will be replaced with a discretionary power.
Contributions mechanism: Those with some assets or income will be required to contribute to the cost of their support.

The Canary will be delving into the abhorrent document further tomorrow. However, for now, rest assured that keeping families apart and stealing refugees’ jewellery is far from the worst of it.

Responding to the proposals, Lord Dubs told BBC Radio 4’s ‘Today’ programme that he was “depressed” by his party’s treatment of asylum seekers. He also stated that “on the whole, I think we’re going in the wrong direction.”

Understandably, given his own experiences, Dubs spoke out in support of asylum-seeking children:

There is a proper case for children, there is a proper case for family reunion when there are children who are on their own, […] to use children as a weapon as the home secretary is doing I think is a shabby thing.

The Labour peer also talked about how the proposals would serve to heighten the lack of integration between asylum seekers and the communities around them.

Dubs stated:

What it will do is to increase tensions in local communities and will make this country less welcome than we have traditionally been to welcome people who come here fleeing for safety. What we need is a bit of compassion in our politics.

He reasoned that if asylum was treated as temporary, people in the UK would have no reason to champion the integration of asylum seekers.

My particular fear is integration in local communities: if people are here temporarily, and people know they’re here temporarily, then the danger is that local people say, well, you’re only here for a bit, why should we help you to integrate? Why should your kids go to local schools? And so on.

‘Perverse incentives’

The government is also attempting to argue that leniency towards families with children when their asylum claims are refused creates an incentive to bring children on small-boat crossings.

The published policy document stated:

Under today’s legislation, families who have one or more children under the age of 18, at the point they were refused asylum, continue to receive support until the youngest of those children turns 18. This is true even if the family has exhausted all their appeals and is not cooperating with the returns process. This creates a perverse incentive to remain in the UK without status, undermining the integrity of the system. Therefore, as part of the aforementioned consultation, we will consult on commencing measures in the 2016 Immigration Act which will allow us to remove support from families who do not have a genuine obstacle to leaving the country.

Communities secretary Steve Reed echoed this talking point, stating that “compassion isn’t all on one side of this argument”. He went on to ask:

What kind of system is it if it has within it incentives that encourage parents to put their child on such a perilous journey on the open seas that can result in that kind of harm and death?

He stated that, over the past year, 14 children died after their boats capsized during Channel crossings over the last year. Of course, this neglects the fact that asylum seekers frequently have no alternative safe routes. The “perverse incentive” is wanting to keep your kids with you as you flee persecution.

Reed went on to say:

One of the reasons that you see the rise of far-right political parties and the tension we’re seeing in communities is because of this issue. Those far-right parties are not interested in fixing the problem. They only exist because this problem exists.

Let’s be clear; far right are racists and xenophobes. They’re angry at the very presence of asylum seekers in this country. However, it’s a perverse thing to see that and then conclude that if we remove the asylum seekers, the far right will vanish.

As Lord Dubs stated: