Mahmood’s con trick exposed
PETE NORTH
There is a lot to be said about Shabana Mahmood’s asylum reforms. Some of her proposals were trailed a couple of days in advance, giving the outward impression that some much needed basic fixes would be made – restoring asylum to a temporary basis and removing some of the pull factors. I fell for it.
As ever, though, it’s never wise to go on pre-release leaks. The full report suggests something more underhanded is in play. It looks like Mahmood is setting out a faster path to naturalisation – allowing migrants to work. The more this is probed over the coming days, the more it will fall apart. Whatever’s going on, she will get found out. She has always favoured an amnesty, and this is a version of her long stated ambition.
The short version is that while stringent new measures will apply to asylum applicants, they will soon be moved out of that category and into the work stream.
As far as the media goes, Mahmood has played a blinder. She has the far left hopping with rage while attracting pragmatic praise from the right – so much so that it might even give Labour a short term bump in the polls. To the casual observer, it looks like Mahmood is sincere.
Even if one is charitable, though, nobody thinks Mahmood’s measures will actually stop the boats. Mahmood’s measures are just designed to keep embarrassing headlines to a minimum – at least as far as her own shop is concerned. But whatever sleight of hand she employs, she cannot conceal the costs, the crime, and the sheer numbers crossing the Channel. That will be the ultimate measure of whether her reforms are successful – and she’s already blown it.
She can establish “safe and legal routes”, cut down the processing time, reclassify asylum seekers, and even eliminate some of the embarrassing ECHR based appeals, but none of this eases the anger that these immigration cheats are here at all. In fact, it will only get worse if immigration cheats are fast tracked into an integration process – especially when Labour’s latest rental market intervention is likely to make the housing situation worse, and when youth unemployment is rising. These measures do not take the fire out of the issue.
In any case, tinkering with the applications and appeals end of the problem still does little to address the pull factors. Migrants are not coming here so they can slowly rot in a grotty hotel. They come so they can send money home. To disrupt that, the Home Office is going to have to come down hard on Deliveroo, illegal subletting, illegal HMOs and organised crime in general. We must repair local authority surveillance and ramp up prosecutions of landlords and business owners who employ illegals.
That, though, is a long term project. Rebuilding the administrative state after three decades of cuts is going to take a decade or more. We’ve lost a lot of the skils base for inspections and prosecutions. Restoring state capacity is not happening soon and Tory daydreams about leaving the ECHR are not going to dent the problem.
Ultimately, only drone attacks directly on the boats, or indefinite detention will solve this problem. If they set foot on British soil they must go straight into camps with minimal provisions – bad enough to make the beg to go home. Personally, I’m no longer prepared to incur this cost even on a temporary basis. I think it’s possible to develop a relatively low cost kamikaze drone under £10,000 a pop that will quite effectively kill all individuals on a dinghy. Death is ultimately the most effective deterrent. I don’t see any moral obstacle to employing lethal force in defence of our borders – and it cuts out any possibility of lengthy appeals.
___
Speaking of drones, if you fancy listening to me drone on for an hour, you can catch me on the Nick Dixon podcast…
This article (Mahmood’s con trick exposed) was created and published by Pete North and is republished here under “Fair Use”
See Related Article Below
Immigration: smoke and mirrors
This left the debate centred on previous medias coverage rather than the detail, with the subsequent media coverage echoing the mood music with scant regard for the nuts and bolts of the actual policy proposals.
The BBC – predictably – has already fallen into this trap, along with many others, posting a quickfire article for the idle and uninitiated, with the heading: “Key takeaways: What are the proposed asylum system reforms?”.
First in line is the declaration: “Refugee status to become temporary”, with the text telling us that “people granted asylum in the UK will only be allowed to stay in the country temporarily, with their status reviewed every 30 months”.
This means, says the BBC, people could be returned to their home country if it is judged “safe” in a scheme that mirrors the approach in Denmark, where refugees get two-year permits and must reapply when they expire.
Refugees, we are told, will also need to be resident in the UK for 20 years before they can apply for permanent residence or indefinite leave to remain – up from the current five years.
To be fair, the article does go on to say that “meanwhile, the government will create a new ‘work and study’ visa route and encourage refugees to find employment or begin education in order to switch onto this route and earn settlement more quickly”. But that detail is tucked in at the end, with no elaboration. And, as always, the devil is in the detail – and that detail is formidable.
For sure, Mahmood’s new scheme does indeed make life more difficult for unreconstructed refugees (those who have had their asylum applications accepted). Currently, they are given a five-year resident permit after which they could apply for indefinite leave to remain (ILR).
Until very recently, they were also able to bring their families to join them in the UK, without incurring a fee and without having to demonstrate that they could accommodate or otherwise support them.
Under the new scheme, labelled “Core Protection”, those qualifying for refugee status or humanitarian protection under international receive an initial 30-month residence permit, which is renewable only if protection needs persist (e.g., home country remains unsafe).
There is no automatic path to family reunion or settlement. ILR, a precursor to citizenship, is delayed until 20 years of residence, subject to strict conditions such as language proficiency, employment, and no criminal record.
This is very much what has made the headlines, and one of the Telegraph’s accounts stops there, without going any further – unlike the BBC. But it is what can happen next which is all-important, the so-called protection “work and study” visa route.
Set out in the full policy document, entitled “Restoring order and control”, it provides the perfect escape route for the aspiring economic migrant.
The government, says the statement, “does not believe that refugees should seek to remain on Core Protection long-term”. Instead, it tells us: “We want to encourage refugees to integrate more fully into the communities providing them sanctuary”.
To address this, it continues “we will encourage refugees to switch out of the Core Protection route wherever possible”. Those who obtain employment or commence study at an appropriate level and pay a fee will be eligible to apply to move into this route and, once there, they can “earn” earlier settlement, potentially in 10 years, the same as “legal” immigrants.
In other words, there is no distinction made as between illegal and legal migrants, in terms of how long it takes to apply for citizenship, while the illegal immigrants who successfully achieve refugee status gain the advantage of being permitted to work or study here, without first having to go through the hoops of obtaining sponsors and applying for visas. Once established on this “work and study” route, they can bring their families in to join them.
It is clearly the government’s intention that this route should be the default option which essentially means that it is creating a fast-track system to drive asylum seekers into the workforce with the reward of citizenship.
Despite this, Mahmood has said she is emulating the system adopted by Denmark, which has had considerable success in reducing the number of illegal immigrants seeking asylum. But, whatever she might claim, there are very important differences between this and her proposed scheme, not least in the absence of any comparable “work and study” fast-track route.
For those who are interested and have the stamina, I have set up an explanatory thread via Grok which sets out the detail on the differences. In short, Denmark’s path is more prescriptive and potentially exclusionary for refugees facing integration hurdles and, although this does have an 8-year concession on citizenship, the UK’s route prioritises flexibility for “high contributors”, aligning with post-2025 reforms to reward economic input.
On top of this, Mahmood is planning on establishing “safe and legal routes” into this country, making sponsorship “the primary means by which we resettle refugees, with voluntary and community organisations given greater involvement to both receive refugees and support them”.
We are, it seems, to remain “open, tolerant, and generous”, with the Muslim Lady arguing that her “reforms” are designed “to bring unity where others seek to divide”.
For all that, there are other aspects aimed at increasing the number of failed asylum seekers that can be deported, such as a visa ban on countries which refuse to take back their own nationals, plus measures for enforcing the removal of families, including children.
Mahmood also intends to strengthen the government’s approach to dealing with protection and human rights claims that are clearly without merit, aiming to move straight to removal without an appeal. There will also be changes to the appeal system.
In addition, there will be legislation to accelerate appeals for removable high-harm cases, foreign national offenders, and others who are detained and readily removable. This latter provision aims to by-pass the ECHR restrictions, by invoking the “public interest” exemption afforded by the Convention, particularly in respect of Article 8.
These measures will have the effect of cutting down on the more egregious and headline-grabbing cases, where migrants have been able to game the system but, in terms of overall numbers, the effect can only be marginal.
In the round, it is very hard to see how Mahmood’s new policy will have any deterrent effect on potential illegal immigrants. They will know that, if they get into the country, a job and citizenship await them – the so-called “golden ticket” which keeps the boats coming. In those crucial respects, nothing has changed.
As always, we are being treated to a smoke and mirrors policy, designed to dazzle and confuse, concealing the fact that nothing much is going to change.
MAHMOOD LIED OVER MIGRANTS
Shabana Mahmood has lied to the piublic about how her migrantion changes will help the country. New rules will create new loopholes for migrants to stay in the UK.
WATCH:
Featured image: Flickr
••••
The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)
••••
Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.
••••
Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.
••••
Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of The Liberty Beacon Project.
Leave a Reply