Keir Starmer's Labour government is facing a significant challenge to its authority as newly proposed hardline migration measures have sparked widespread dissent among Labour MPs. These policies, aimed at curbing irregular migration and asylum claims, have caused deep divisions within the party, with some members accusing their colleagues of not adequately addressing public concerns about illegal migration, while others are vehemently against what they deem as morally bankrupt and cruel proposals.

Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood outlined a comprehensive 33-page document titled 'Restoring Order and Control,' detailing radical measures to reduce arrivals and increase removals. Key among these is the proposal to re-interpret the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) by UK judges, specifically targeting Article 8 (right to family and private life) to prevent asylum seekers from using it to avoid deportation. The government intends to legislate to ensure Article 8 applies only to immediate family, limiting its scope, and will also lobby to 'evolve' Article 3 (prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment) to counteract its perceived expansion.

A major and contentious policy involves the enforced removal of families, including children, who have been refused the right to settle in the UK and have declined payments encouraging voluntary departure. The government plans to launch a consultation on this process, offering financial support for families to return home and escalating to enforced returns if refused. This includes commencing measures in the 2016 Immigration Act to remove support from families without genuine obstacles to leaving. The Home Office is reportedly targeting around 700 Albanian families who have refused to return after their asylum claims were rejected. Critics draw parallels to hardline policies seen in the US under Donald Trump, highlighting that currently, the Home Office does not prioritize the removal of failed asylum families, leading to hundreds living in government-funded accommodation.

Furthermore, refugee status will no longer be permanent; it will be made temporary and reviewed every 30 months, a significant reduction from the current five-year initial period of leave. This model appears to be inspired by Denmark's system, though experts note that few claims are typically reviewed and revoked in that country. The government also plans to axe the legal requirement to support destitute asylum seekers, a duty introduced in 2005 under EU law. This will be replaced with a discretionary power, denying support to those who could work, including individuals who entered the country on work or student visas before claiming asylum, as well as those who work illegally, commit crimes, or do not comply with deportation orders.

To accelerate removals, a new appeals body staffed by 'professionally trained adjudicators' will be formed to expand the capacity of the appeals system. Another proposal involves consulting on the possibility of confiscating assets from asylum seekers to contribute to the costs of the system, although the government has already clarified it does not intend to proactively seize jewellery from refugees.

The policies have been met with alarm and strong opposition within the Labour party. At least 20 MPs, including former human rights barristers and select committee chairs, have publicly expressed concern. Tony Vaughan, the Folkestone MP, Sarah Owen, and 2024 intake MPs like Simon Opher, Abitsam Mohamed, and Neil Duncan-Jordan are among those voicing discontent. Many describe the ramped-up deportation of families as 'morally bankrupt,' with some vowing not to support 'bundling distressed children on to deportation flights.' MPs in Green-facing seats reported facing significant backlash on social media, with one describing the measures as 'straight out of the far-right playbook.'

Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood defended the measures in the Commons, rebuking MPs for suggesting she used divisive language and referencing her personal experience with racial slurs. Keir Starmer also defended the plans, stating that Labour inherited a 'broken asylum system' and needs to fix it by stopping unwarranted arrivals and returning those who are not genuine refugees. A government source indicated there would be 'a huge amount of engagement' with worried Labour MPs and stressed there would be no deportations of unaccompanied children, acknowledging the crisis at the borders as an 'existential issue for mainstream parties.'

However, critics from outside the party, such as Enver Solomon, chief executive of Refugee Council, argued that the proposals, while sounding tough, would not fix the real problems in the asylum system. Instead, he warned they risk creating more delays, stress, and inhumane treatment for vulnerable individuals who have survived war and persecution. Despite internal concerns and skepticism that the proposals could pass without some climbdown, particularly on asset seizures and refugee families' rights to earlier settlement, a significant number of Labour MPs are convinced of the need for tough measures given the threat from Reform UK and the potential for even more draconian policies under a different government. They believe the public's perception of the 'deserving refugee' has dramatically changed, necessitating robust action.