For the past few months, Shabana Mahmood has been living inside a certain type of political pressure that builds silently before exploding. The UK Home Secretary is getting ready to present an immigration bill that will annoy nearly everyone because it is too complicated for most people in the middle to understand, too soft for the right, and too hard for the left.
Fundamentally, what she said is a useful concept. The Home Office intends to implement capped safe and legal routes that enable businesses, churches, universities, and community organizations to sponsor refugees entering the United Kingdom. It is based on Canada’s community sponsorship program, which has resettled nearly 400,000 refugees since its inception in 1979. It is difficult to ignore the statistics coming out of Ottawa: about 70% of sponsored refugees find employment within a year, which is 30 percentage points more than those resettled through government programs. It’s not a small difference.
The timing of this change is noteworthy. Mahmood is simultaneously negotiating two political realities. On the one hand, the public has lost faith in an asylum system where hotel costs for migrants continue to rise and there is no indication that small boat crossings will cease. However, some veteran colleagues and Labour MPs feel that the Home Secretary’s recent policies have gone too far and feel more punitive than useful. Last Friday, Lord Dubs, who came to Britain as a six-year-old Jewish refugee from Nazi-occupied Czechoslovakia in 1939, referred to the strategy as “performative cruelty” and suggested Mahmood’s skills might be better utilized elsewhere in the cabinet. Saying that about a current Home Secretary is quite pointed.
Mahmood uses cautious, purposeful language when defending the new routes. She has talked about safeguarding “genuine refugees” while closing loopholes that have, in her opinion, been overused. She doesn’t fully resolve the genuine tension in that framing. For example, it’s still unclear which local organizations will be able to sponsor refugees and under what circumstances. The operational detail is still being worked out, but the general promise is there.
It’s important to note that the UK already has a resettlement program called the UKRS, but the Home Office admits that local councils, not community sponsors, support the “vast majority” of those arriving under it. Theoretically, the new model would significantly increase participation. It is worthwhile to consider whether churches and academic institutions can truly take on that responsibility on a large scale.
An additional layer is added by the political context. According to people close to Andy Burnham’s team, Mahmood will probably remain in her role when he moves into Downing Street next month. Although Burnham has previously voiced concerns about some of the specifics, especially regarding making migrants wait longer for indefinite leave to remain, he generally supports the direction of her immigration plans. Additionally, there has been controversy surrounding Immigration Minister Mike Tapp, who is allegedly accused of briefing the media on the proposals and passing them off as his own. Mahmood reportedly requested that he be fired. No. 10 said no.
As all of this takes place, there’s a feeling that the immigration bill that will be introduced in the Commons next week is more of a public negotiation than a final policy. Under pressure from Labour’s progressive wing, some hardline elements might be changed. Although evidence and politics are not always moving in the same direction, the Canada model provides solid proof that community sponsorship is effective.
Even though her detractors don’t acknowledge it, Mahmood appears to recognize that public confidence in the asylum system is nearly as important as the system itself. For the time being, it’s truly unclear if this specific plan will restore that trust or just make an already tense process more complicated.
