Labour is at a crossroads on illegal migration

However, there is unease about some of her proposals, and rightly so.

Ms Mahmood has certainly set out some bold plans because, as she puts it, she sees it as a “moral mission”. She understands that “illegal migration is tearing our country apart” and “dividing communities”, she says.

That much is unarguable, and streamlining the process and dealing with appeals more quickly should help with reducing the numbers already in the UK, but those things will not, by themselves, “stop the boats”.

The new draconian restrictions on eligibility for social security benefits and citizenship might serve as a deterrent, but perhaps not one as effective for a determined migrant, refugee or economic, as is intended.

The new rules also have the perverse consequence of making it more difficult for immigrants to do what is continually demanded of them – to “integrate” and become “British”. They cannot be truly “settled” if they are to wonder if their country of origin is going to be judged “safe” by the UK authorities every 30 months, and it seems unfair to deprive them of child benefit if they have spent decades earning a wage in the UK.

Ms Mahmood may also have to face the moral question of separating families if the situation at “home” improves, given that their children, born in the UK, won’t even have visited the country of origin.

As with the Windrush scandal, the scope for appalling injustice and abuse of human rights is obvious. Already, we know that the Home Office has discussed plans to confiscate jewellery, valuables and e-bikes belonging to refugees in order to pay for accommodation and other costs as part of sweeping reforms to the asylum system, emulating Denmark’s punitive “jewellery law” as part of a wider push to mimic the most successful elements of their immigration policy.

There also has to be doubt as to whether the Home Office has the resources to make such a cumbersome system work. One way to introduce more order into the system would be to create safer and securer routes for genuine refugees, as was done under the special Syria, Hong Kong, Ukraine and Afghanistan schemes.

A more humane approach at the point of origin would compensate for a tougher attitude towards those attempting to cross the English Channel. But this country would still have to determine how many refugees, and irregular economic migrants for that matter, it was prepared to accommodate.

In any case, the national conversation about migration has never been conducted in a calm and fact-based manner. Instead, it has been emotionally charged and tangled up with arguments about grooming gangs, Brexit, welfare reform, the jobs market and the wilder hinterlands of outright racism. A rational debate about immigration is probably impossible, such is the mood of modern Britain.

Nevertheless, to the extent that the arguments have been aired, it has become fairly clear that a significant proportion of the British population believe either that there is, for practical purposes, no such thing as a genuine refugee who arrives on a boat; or that even if there are perfectly genuine asylum seekers seeking safety in the UK, the country is “full” and unable and unwilling to honour any such international or moral obligations.

Against such a background, there is little point in politicians, including Ms Mahmood, declaring that Britain has always been and will always welcome refugees fleeing from persecution and torture. Much of the country no longer subscribes to what has become a shibboleth, if it ever did.

Yet, despite the efforts of the extremists, Britain is a successful multiracial, multifaith, multicultural society. There can be tensions, and a sudden arrival of any group will inevitably place a strain on public services, but Britain’s social and economic problems do not stem from immigration, and it is a dangerous fantasy to suppose that they do. The UK has historically suffered from inadequate investment, productivity growth, skills shortages and periodic wider shortages of labour.

The global financial crash of 2008, Brexit and the Trump tariffs have all exacerbated these long-term trends. They did not begin with, nor were they the result of, immigration; indeed, without migration Britain would be worse off, and the health, social care, leisure and agricultural sectors would be in an even worse situation than they are now. When Britain had many fewer Black and brown faces, it faced relative economic decline, depressions and recessions, housing shortages and crime, just as it does today. Blaming “outsiders” for any nation’s difficulties quickly descends into racism, as we have unfortunately witnessed.

The arguments in favour of migration are being lost in a maelstrom of prejudice, disinformation, twisted facts and an increasingly virulent strand of open racism, particularly Islamophobia, let loose on social media. If Ms Mahmood’s overhaul of asylum policy does restore some faith in it, then that will at least help ease tensions and create the conditions for a saner, more measured and less racially charged debate.