Amid growing public concern over migration and a political threat from Reform UK, the Labour government has proposed sweeping reforms to the asylum and refugee system. The home secretary, Shabana Mahmood, says the plans will address an “out of control” asylum system.

By restricting the rights of refugees, the proposals aim to make Britain a “less attractive” destination for people who arrive without documentation. But they also risk making an already-bureaucratic system even harder for refugees to navigate – and for an overstretched Home Office to administer.

Central to the proposals are changes to refugees’ rights to settle in the UK. Currently, people who are granted asylum (recognised by the government as refugees) can apply for settled status after five years, giving them a pathway to potential citizenship and a stable future. Under the new plans, the wait to apply for settled status will be extended to 20 years. Refugees would need to reapply to remain in Britain every two and a half years.

The precise conditions for such “earned settlement” are still to come, but these plans indicate that being in work or education will be central.

The potential for family reunification, the route through which refugees can sponsor close family members to join them in Britain, will be restricted to those in work or study and even then reunification is not guaranteed.

These proposals mean that people who have been recognised as needing humanitarian protection will be under constant review. For a Home Office already struggling to manage an application backlog, the addition of a sizeable number of reviews each year will add even further pressure and expense. The Refugee Council estimates that were this policy in place today, it would mean potentially reviewing the status of “1.4 million people between now and 2035” at a cost of £730 million.

For refugees, this change will increase their insecurity and hinder integration. Finding housing, employment and education opportunities are all made harder with insecure status. The emotional burden of that insecurity – two decades of trying to integrate, with the threat of removal hanging over them throughout – is considerable.

A hardline stance on deportation

Mahmood is proposing changes to legal frameworks and the asylum appeals system, to make it easier to remove “failed” asylum seekers. This “hard-headed approach” introduces the possibility of deporting families “who have a safe home country they can return to”.

With Reform UK proposing a widespread deportation programme if elected, the current government risks legitimising the detention and removal of children who may have spent their childhood in the UK.

The question remains of how far a Labour government is willing to go in to order to apply such a policy. Will they (and their voters) be happy to see images of families and young children detained and deported? Will this be seen by ministers as an acceptable cost in order to claim the government has “restored order” to the UK’s borders?

Removing support for asylum seekers

The government is currently legally obligated to support asylum seekers who would otherwise be destitute. This obligation is partly what’s led to the controversial reliance on hotels to house people awaiting a decision on their claims.

Read more: How the UK became dependent on asylum hotels

The government wants to revoke this duty and make it a discretionary “power” of government.

Support and accommodation will be removed from asylum seekers found to have committed a crime, including illegal working. It will also be revoked if asylum seekers refuse to be moved or are found to be “disruptive in accommodation”. It is unclear if the government will want to pursue this path and remove all support from people who cannot legally be removed from the country. Adding to street homelessness is not the sign of an effective policy.

The government will also “require individuals to contribute towards the cost of their asylum support where they have some assets or income”. With ministers adamant that this will not mean confiscating family heirlooms, as was the case in Denmark, the effect of this is likely to be minimal. Very few people fleeing conflict and persecution travel with considerable assets.

A more significant contribution is expected from those with the right to work. The main problem here is that most asylum seekers in Britain are currently denied the right to work, with the exception of those who have been in the asylum system for over 12 months and who fit a limited range of skilled roles. Extending the right to work further would mean a reduced reliance on the state for housing and greater pathways to integration. But this is not part of the proposals.

The message of these proposals is clear – asylum seekers should be docile guests with no right to complain about the conditions of their accommodation (which have been notably horrific) or about the denial of their rights.

Safe and legal routes

The government has restated its commitment to “safe and legal routes” to Britain, and will introduce an annual cap on the number of arrivals. Communities would also have the opportunity to sponsor specific refugees, and there would be a limited route for highly-skilled refugees. Refugees arriving through these routes would have a ten-year path to settled status.

These proposals expand the possibility of safe and legal routes beyond current schemes for groups from Afghanistan, Hong Kong and Ukraine.

They also show a renewed emphasis on refugee sponsorship, making the case that communities should have a say in supporting refugees. In a divisive political climate, this is a positive move that will encourage integration.

But there’s a risk it could operate in place of, rather than alongside, government support to protect the rights of refugees. And that developing more safe and legal routes could be used to justify hardline measures directed towards asylum seekers already in Britain.

Read more: Channel crossings: what is a safe and legal route?

Will it work?

Home Office research has indicated that social networks, language and cultural connections are the most significant factors influencing decisions and that deterrent measures have little effect on number arriving in the UK.

Rising asylum applications are an indication of the unstable world we live in. Seeking to evade responsibilities for supporting refugees will not change that.

Then there are the political challenges to navigate. Will the British public be supportive of the removal of people who have been neighbours and community members for a decade?

As the last Conservative government found, talking tough does not in itself fix the asylum system. It very often exacerbates the failures of the system, distracts attention and drives resentment towards asylum seekers and refugees.

This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit, independent news organization bringing you facts and trustworthy analysis to help you make sense of our complex world. It was written by: Jonathan Darling, Durham University

Read more:

Jonathan Darling receives funding from the Economic and Social Research Council. He is a trustee of the No Accommodation Network.