Shabana Mahmood: Racism, Asylum and Me

Hello and welcome to Political Thinking. If we fail to deal with this crisis, we'll draw more people down a path that starts with anger and ends in hatred. So said my guest on Political Thinking this week, Home Secretary Shabana Mahmoud, as she unveiled a package of reforms designed to combat what she calls "illegal migration" which she says is tearing our country apart. Mahmoud, the daughter of Pakistani immigrants and a devout Muslim, says changes needed in part because a country without secure borders is a less safe country for those who look like me. Shabana Mahmoud, Home Secretary, welcome back to Political Thinking. Thank you. There's some phrases I really want to unpack there because I want to start by trying to understand this journey you've been on towards a tougher approach on migration. I want to start with words you used in the House of Commons, words that you were asked to apologise for by the Deputy Speaker. Words I am not permitted to repeat on air under BBC guidelines, but I'm sure you did it deliberately. You wanted to people to hear, I think, is this right, the sort of abuse that you get? Yes, I did, but it was actually less about me in that moment and more that I was responding to the Liberal Democrats spokesperson at the time, but I had had a similar comment from others during the course of the debate in Parliament, which was to say that I was adopting far right talking points that there wasn't this problem in our country that even acknowledging or suggesting there was was somehow a failure on my part. And I just really wanted to lance that boil because I think that assertion comes from a place of privilege, which is a place where someone doesn't have to walk through their life in this country and ever hear themselves told to f off home. And I just really wanted to challenge that because it is the direct opposite of why I am dealing with these issues. It's my job, I'm the home secretary, but I think that telling the truth about what the scale of a problem is is the first step you have to take before you can think about what the correct solutions are. And it disappointed me very much that so many people in the house, there's still a minority, but you know, they were pretty vocal, were wanting to suggest there wasn't a problem at all. It flies in the face of every experience that I have, my family has, and in fact that my constituents have as well. That they are called what? Fucking packy. So I mean, it's half-smiled when you said that you'd get in trouble for saying that word here on the BBC. I'm going to get in trouble from my mother who does not like me swearing and of everything she saw on Monday, my parents were very proud to me, but my mum said, "Please don't swear." But she knows that it's a swear word I am on the receiving end of, I get, I mean I don't pay attention to social media actually, but there is a ton of abuse that comes in my direction, not just from anonymous accounts every day, but even worse, named people in the real world who email me and write to me and tell me. And if I didn't have police officers as part of my security detail these days, I'm sure many of those would come up to my face and say it too. People would shout that abuse FNP word in your face. Yes, and it has happened more in recent times to not just myself, but close family members. I worry about headscarf wearing women in my family in particular. I'm not alone in that. I mean, every Muslim I know these days worries are a lot more about vocal racism being shouted at them in the street. So it's got worse, because last time you were here on political thinking, we talked about your upbringing. We talked about the fact the parents had come from Kashmir, how there'd been a baseball bat in the family shop to deal partly with thieves, but partly with racist abusers who came into the shop. And you said you were called that word bat then? Yes. I've always been some racism wherever I've been in the country, my childhood, at school, at university, in my working life as well. It's never been there, but it's never been as much as I feel like it is now. I think that I was born in 1980. I spent the early years of my life as we discussed last time in Saudi Arabia, my dad was a civil engineer, so we lived there for a while, returned home in the late '80s. So we had avoided some of the worst of the skinheads, you know, era of British life in the '70s. And whilst it was there, and the first time I was called a pack-y at school, as when I was in junior school, I was seven or eight years old. I've never forgotten it. I didn't know what the word actually meant. I had to ask my parents and I will never forget how sad they were that they were explaining that that's what's said by people who hate us and don't want us in the country. But it's always been there, but it's not been there at the level that I think it is now. Why is that, do you think? Why is it worse now? I think there's more polarization and division in society. I think that there has been a lot of scapegoating of Muslims in particular. The world changed after 9/11. It became much more acceptable to pin the actions of a minority of people claiming to act in the name of our religion on the whole of us. And all of us being held to account for the actions of those individuals. So it has been growing over a period of time, but I think at the moment there is deep polarization. It isn't just in relation to what I, to be in extremism or terrorism, but it is about the issue of migration itself. The story of who we are is Britain. And I think minority Britain's, I feel, is being contested today in a way it hasn't for a decade or more. You know what some say and some say it in the House of Commons. They say you make it worse by saying that the country is divided. You're fueling the divide. You're legitimizing the comments that some people make. But I'm struck by that phrase that you had. I know that the country without secure borders is a less safe country for those who look like me. You're claiming are you that if you get this right, this package on illegal immigration, there'll be less of that racist abuse. I think that secure borders are a precondition to unlock what I also believe is true, which is that the British people are a generous people, that we have welcomed people from all over the world. And we have been willing to go on a journey with those people who have made this country their home, like my parents and others who've come here as migrants. We've gone on the journey with them that at the end of that journey they become one of us. And I think that story of how we all become one of us is a really powerful thing about our country. It's an incredible thing in this multi-faith, multi-ethnic democracy of ours. But I do think secure borders are a condition of that because when people feel that they are in charge of who comes in and who has to leave, that is the basis on which the wider generosity of the people is unlocked. To spell out your fear if this doesn't work or if these measures are not taken, you talked about fear turning into hatred. You talked in your conference speech about patriots like me, some of them, who've gone on to something much darker. What did you mean? Look, I think what starts as resentment, a feeling of unfairness, can over time, turn to anger and anger over time for some people can turn to hate. And when I have been making my comments, so at conferences you just quoted or even in the Chamber on Monday, I'm not addressing the people that have already crossed every line there is to cross. I'm not addressing the bigots and the people that don't think I'm English, the people that hate me because I'm a Muslim, that don't think I have a right to be in this country. They're not in my mind at all. What I'm addressing is the well of people who are angry and frustrated and who want change and who feel ignored and I'm addressing them and I am saying to them, I recognise the thing that's fueling your resentment, that sense of unfairness is a real thing. So firstly I'm acknowledging they're not making it up. The bigots haven't got in their head and accepted them into believing a thing that is not true. They believe a thing that is true. I recognise the thing they believe is true. I'm saying to them is I believe we in mainstream politics can speak to the challenge that you are making of us. We can run a better system. And that is why I think it's so important that we win this argument because if we fail, if everyone in mainstream politics basically either doesn't want to talk about this, doesn't want to address it or doesn't have the will to come up with the solutions that are needed, then I do think you leave the space for much darker. But here's what worries some people. They often think of Tommy Robinson, Steven Yaxley-Lennon, who tweeted not "over support" for you, but he said the Overton window has been obliterated, well done patriots. In other words, he feels that your announcements are proof that he's winning because the window of acceptable ideas has been opened to these sorts of measures that would have been unthinkable for the Labour Party a few years ago. No, like, and you know, I find it so offensive actually in the chamber when people were quoting that particular person, "atmies, this is a person who hates me because I'm a Muslim, who thinks that I'm a lesser kind of human being because I'm a Muslim and who follow as regularly tweet pictures of me at mosque events where I, of course, as a practising Muslim woman, were a headscarf, pictures of me with the word of God in Arabic behind me as a way of inciting hatred towards me." So it's deeply offensive. He knows what he's doing as well. He is setting his people once again after me. [BLANK_AUDIO] I am unig ddech yn gallu gwneud oes i'n gallu gwneud i'r gweithio'r ymwyr, ddol, ac yna yn gallu gwneud i'r gweithio. A yma yn gallu gwneud i'r gweithio. A ffydwch yn gallu gwneud i'r gweithio. No, a ffydwch yn gallu gwneud i'r gweithio. going to bring forward the legislation that I've been setting out. Regardless of whether you shot the migrants, you're shocking some people who are lifelong supporters of a British approach to refuge. Most notably, Lord Dubs, 92 now, came over to this country on the Kindertransport, the son of a Jewish father in Czechoslovakia who survived because of the welcome that Britain gave to him. He said to me on the today programme, the other morning, "I am worried that Shabana Mahmoud is using children as a weapon because you've said that you would be willing to send children and families back home." What do you say to him? "Well, look, I adore Lord Alfdubs. I think he's a really tremendous human being and I always listen carefully to what he said, but on this occasion I do disagree with him. Firstly, I would never use children as a weapon. That is not what is happening here. I set out a clear policy that for those people who arrive with their children who are failed asylum seekers, we're not talking about people who have refugee status. We're talking about people who do not have refugee status because they've been through their multiple claims. They've been through the courts and they have been found not to be asylum seekers, not to be refugees. They've failed in their claim. We have not been removing those people to safe countries. I gave the example of Albania in my speech because we have a number of families from that country. This is a safe country. It's a signature to the ECH child. We have a returns agreement with this country and we're not returning those families because they're at least one child who's under 18. I think a lot of your— You see what they have been in prime minister said about this? Yes, well— He's accused of ethnic stereotyping in decent demogogory and he's accused of poorly echoing the rhetoric of the populist far right. We obviously disagree and look, we are talking about people who have failed in their asylum claim. We're not talking about people who are refugees. You also talk about people who have failed. You changed the status of a country aren't you? Because one of the things you've said is that you would review if a country was now safe. So let's take a Syrian couple who fled Assad's brutal regime, maybe came here on a lorry before. Many people came here on the boat. They've got a child that they had here, child starting secondary school. You could say Syria is safe now. Assad has gone. Do you say that that child, that family, has to go back? So, well, if I just finished the point on the—when you have failed asylum seeking families, I think most of your—most of your viewers and your listeners would acknowledge that there is a perverse incentive there to still travel with your children, maybe put your children at danger if you know that we would never ever remove a family with children when they have failed in their claim. And it is British taxpayers who are footing that bill. And I am sorry to say, you know, if people mind that, but it is true. And I have a responsibility to run a system based on fairness and contribution. And that is what I'm going to do. Now, I'm not a Syrian family. Yes, so look, if people get—if people come to this country through illegal means, so not through a safe and legal route, but through other means, then I think it is right for us to save that journey is not going to be worth it because the rules that you are going to be subject to are going to be tougher. In the future or now? Well, from the other words, could this be retrospective? From the moment the rules come in, and we will set out all of those changes in legislation. It is because you praised David Blumke as I am secretary of admire, and he said to get these measures through Parliament, it will undoubtedly be necessary to clarify precisely what the status will be of children born in the UK. We will, and let me just address that point because I was very clear in the statement as we published it that we will consider the issues relating to children specifically and differently, not just for children of people who have come here who have been born in this country, but also for those who arrive unaccompanied where we have another kind of problem. So I will deal with the issues of children separately, and I will set out those plans in due course. So you accept—it has got to be clear. I recognise that there is an issue in children, but I was very open about that in the asylum policy statement itself, but it is right that if you are a failed asylum seeker, the fact that you have a child under 18 is not a reason why you should remain here in supported asylum accommodation forevermore. Let's just try and clear up a few policy questions quickly before we talk more about the philosophy of what you are trying to do as well. Can asylum seekers have their jewellery taken away from them in order to contribute to the cost? If they have lots of jewellery. We are not going to be taking anybody's jewellery or any other assets at the border. Let me just be very clear about that. In the change that we have, we are making what we have in mind are those who do have high value assets or have access to income. So a really smart watch, a diamond necklace. In fact, the thing we are talking about is e-bikes, because lots of people currently being supported in hotels have clearly access to money that they can get e-bikes and cars. So the example I used in the Chamber was a gentleman who had access to £800 a month from family members in this country and had enough money to go and get himself an Audi. And he was not required under any of our rules to contribute towards the cost of his asylum accommodation. So he has not been granted refugee status. He is just waiting for his claim to be heard. So he is in asylum accommodation because we have a duty to support these people whilst the claims being heard. And he doesn't have to contribute at all. Now most British citizens have to contribute towards the cost of often accessing the benefit system. So the key thing is that the public is not going to be able to access the cost of the asylum. So the public is not going to be able to access the cost of the asylum. Yes, so I've already asked my officials to pilot a small programme where we often more than what we currently do for a period just to see how that changes. A lot, 25,000, that sort of. Haven't highlighted upon the full sums involved yet, but I am willing to consider a big increase on what we currently pay. And that is because for each asylum seeker in the country, it's £30,000 per individual per year. So I think some of money, and if we can persuade people to return to their home country with a cash payment, that is often better value for the taxpayer. I know it sticks in the crawl of many people and they don't like it, but it is value for money. It does work and a voluntary return is often the very best way to get people to return to their home country as quickly as possible. The central philosophical thing that was the big change from the policies that Alftubbs loved so much was the idea that asylum is temporary. Now just a few minutes ago, you attacked Nigel Farage for putting anybody on notice that maybe one day they would be turfed out of the country. And you worry that people who looked like asylum seekers in inverted commas, the wrong colour skin in inverted commas, the wrong faith wearing a headscarf, isn't that also true of a policy that says you're only a temporary guest here as an asylum seeker. I think it's important that we recognise that refugee status, what it means today, is not what it meant when people like Alft and others came to this country. Often the people who claim asylum in this country when they reach our shores are doing so having gone through multiple safe countries in Europe before they came here. I think it's right that I say if you're going to come in this way we will still, if we find you to be a refugee, provide you with protection, you have sanctuary here, but it is not permanent, it is temporary. And that is my way of signalling to people looking to get on a boat or overstay their visa. That is the very worst way to try and get to this country or to remain in this country. But what I've also been clear about is within that core protection route where we're providing temporary sanctuary and it's reviewed every two and a half years. If those individuals are willing to work and want to make a contribution we will create within that core protection model a work and study route for those people to begin contributing to life in this country and to help integrate themselves. And the path to settlement there will not be as good as if you came on a safe and legal route what will be better. So what I'm trying to do is signal this is the worst way to come and this is the hardest way to have a life in this country. Safe and legal routes are the best way to come to this country and that life and that path to settlement will be easier and quicker. So I am deliberately trying to show the difference because I want to change the calculus of the people that are making these decisions. And by trying to change the calculus you're saying asylum is temporary not permanent, you're saying we may take some of your money away, we may bribe you to go back home, we may send you abroad with your children even if they brought here. Wouldn't that be neatly summed up by the phrase hostile environment? I think we're trying to show that there are ways to seek refuge and sanctuary in this country that we find acceptable because we can control them and we can do them in a way that unlocks the full. There's hostile, that was a good idea. I love the phrase "freeze" that they used and was condemned by labor people. Look, I think we're a generous people. And I am deliberately trying to send a message, don't get on about it. It is a dangerous thing to do. It puts your life at risk, but it also makes a lot of very bad people richer than they need to be. But you're the same person as a bad venture. Who called for a general, I must amnesty for illegal immigrants. You signed a letter urging the Prime Minister Boris Johnson at the time to halt the deportation of 50 Jamaican people. I believe visited a great refugee camp in 2015 and wrote, "You would run, I would run there running, we must do our part to help them." Do you accept you've been on quite a journey? No, because I still believe in sanctuary. I believe in helping people, I believe in our country, playing a part to offer refuge to people. But the way to do that is not to see the British Navy effectively acting as a taxi service across the channel saving lives. It's not to make people smugglers rich people indeed. That is absolutely the wrong way to come to this country. But I do want to create those safe and legal routes. I've already set out plans for community sponsorship, for talented students, for skilled workers. I want them to have a future in this country and I want my country to play its part. And I know our people are generous enough to want to do that. But that generosity comes at a price if you cannot secure your own border. Then you cannot get the public consent that is necessary for either having an asylum system at all or ever offering safe and legal passage into this country. I want to retain that and that is why we need stronger measures in order to secure our border. I want to turn to something you said earlier and that you talked to me about last time you're on political thinking which is the importance of your faith. And you were very open. You were unfashionably open about the fact that was the most important thing in your life. Although you stressed it was personal, rather than something you were in any sense, trying to impose on other people. There's a quote in the Kiran. I suspect you know it. We made you into peoples and tribes so that you may get to know one another. Do you worry that that's the opposite of what's happening in modern society? That far from getting to know one another, we are disappearing into our tribes. We are living in ghettos. We are being hostile to one another on social media. There's certainly more polarisation around than there used to be. And I think that the work of integration has been difficult. I think that there are challenges that we face. I think fundamentally people on a personal level in this country are pretty good at extending the hand of friendship to one another. But there's definitely much more suspicion around. And I think in the post-October, October 7th environment, sending interfaith work and certainly relationships between Muslim and Jewish communities I know from personal experience have been involved in a lot of that interfaith work. That has really fallen over. And I think that these are the fire and meant for bringing people together is very difficult. Because you've talked about the fact that many people want to see control in the immigration system. They want to see that numbers being way down and what they are now, legal as well as illegal migration. But you yourself raised the possibility that there's a prejudice against Islam. And you hear it more and more in politics people talking about Christian values in opposition to rather than complementing Muslim values. Do you worry that we're now living in an age in which people look at your faith and say, "We actually think it's a malign force in society. We're uncomfortable with it." I think there's certainly more people that advance that argument and that think that way. I was just struck as you were, say, putting your question because one of my neighbours who I get on very well with, there's a very decent person, but out of seemingly nowhere started telling me, "Well, my sister actually, that Islam needs a reformation." And it was a bit of an odd segue into a conversation that shouldn't have gone in that direction really. I mean, people have views about my religion, sometimes informed by social media, sometimes by others. I think the cause isn't it, that they're sort of urging Muslims they know and like and see in public life to kind of challenge other Muslims. You may say it was a completely unreasonable answer to one Christian, "Why aren't you judging another?" Well, quite. This goes back to what we were talking about, the start of this discussion, which is the extent to which the majority, often the silent majority, is held to account for the actions of a minority. I've had this put to me quite a bit, particularly since I've been home secretary, because the idea of having a home secretary has made many people have a conneption or two, this idea that it's not possible to be a faithful devout Muslim. But that's because people have a vision of faithful devout Muslims as some terrorist or someone that wants to blow everybody else up. They don't have the vision of a faithful devout Muslim that is my lived experience of my fellow Muslims in this country, millions of Muslims in this country who go about their lives peacefully and who in fact see faith as something that calls them to public service, to try to live a good life, a peaceful life, and who mostly just want to go about their business in peace and harmony with their citizens. And that's the majority experience. But even if they don't see. The fortunate position we've been in is that the minorities actions and their behaviour has somehow overpowered the narrative about the rest of us. Even if they don't see terrorists, they may see intolerance. And as soon as you were the victim of it, you almost lost your seat in the general election. Number of your colleagues did lose their seats to pro-Garza candidates, anti-Israel candidates. And you, as we discussed last time you were on, you and your family had the most extraordinary level of abuse. For someone born in the community you represent, living in the community you represent, living next door to your parents, your father was chairman of the Labour Party in Birmingham. And, nevertheless, I think I'm rising, you were branded an infidel. It's not the first, I mean, over 15 years of political life, I've been branded many things an infidel amongst them on a number of occasions. What I would say is, it's still not right or fair to malign an entire community as if they are all extremists or intolerant. I think there are particular issues in politics and Gaza, I think, has played out in its own difficult way, for the Labour Party as well. But there were just as many people in my own community who were also assisting me and supporting me through that difficult time. And many people who still disagree with me politically, who would say it's crossing a line to start calling somebody else an infidel. So it's a much more nuanced and complex picture than I think is sometimes. But is it part of the old John Hobb I guess as Home Secretary to worry about integration, to worry about that sort of extremism and to do something about it? Yes, I do worry about it. I've been worrying about it a lot since the 5th of September when I took over this job, but actually concerned about how communities relate to one another has been something that has been a feature of my politics for a long time. It's why I've always supported and taken part in interfaith work. It's why I believe, actually, in my constituency, I feel I've been at the sharp end of race relations. I represent a place where lots of people are very different to one another live together. And it's why I don't really like the, there's nothing to see here, side of politics. Or let's just celebrate everybody side of politics, because actually the messy truth is something in between. And human beings who belong to different groups, yes I think as a Muslim we should all get to know one another. But sometimes we don't necessarily get along. And so you have to have rules of the game that everybody plays by, which is why I always plead for tolerance. People think tolerance is a bad thing, but I actually think it's a superpower, because you should be able to tolerate people you disagree with and still live alongside peacefully and in harmony. And I think that is what we should do. Just tolerance for example, me that as a homosexual you would be rather tougher on those pro-Palestinian marches, which people might say, why shouldn't you be pro-Palestine, but which lead many British Jews to be terrified. Jews who go to synagogue and have to have police protection. Jews who get spat at in the streets. Jews who feel that their children aren't safe going to school if they wear anything that reveals that they're of the Jewish faith. Is that something he's hoping to do you now want to do something about? Well I mean I think at first it's a tragedy that people feel that they cannot express who they are openly for the sake of their own safety. One of the things that I found most affecting and gutting when I was up in Manchester, there's a tragedy of what actually happened. And the sadness that people had died, but it was the stories of people who talk about their children needing to know how to be safe at school and how to be able to run and hide just in case they're attacked just for being Jewish. I was very deeply affected by all of those stories. What I would say is that I'm pro-Palestinian myself as in I have a long-term track record of being a supporter of the Palestinian cause and believing in a two-state solution as safe and secure Israel alongside a state of Palestine as well. And you know the right to protest is not something that's going to be weakened on our watch, but in the modern era. You must do it. I mean you lay down in the same trees in Birmingham, 10 to 11 years ago. I've taken part in protest myself. There's nothing wrong with people wanting to go out and protest. It's an important part of our democracy, but I think it is right that we ask ourselves a question about the pressure that can also be felt if you think you're on the receiving side of that, receiving end of that protest. We place conditions on protests to make sure that we can be safe. hyn gyd ni commenting £ awais y nid am pan g馴榸 anim roedd mwyn apodaeth am yrdim gwneud bethau fel Maybellоль Jie活is rhめて i mi dddechrau ffynmill ar efo Basgol ar pat thankful o teian hynnydd yma o chi aml ifallu allwllf y tyfu 発au rejoorol can Bar七 newydd yr un bod sy'nweddol, ac yn faging difi fod ni amddwn o fyís mwyr. Ondd ddi got'r systrad wrth oedd yn â startedi flouriasr yn cael fydd Tom Leif Nun wedi cael gan yn edrychael, byddai jarig wnedd chi, edrychPM oedd y odc mun. Da cwaithedrian o fllidaith yn cael, yw bywaman. Mae'n quélyfaaf, mae Dominalityëudır oedd ce��au Octia dethaeth. Jefrau Johor. OEC. Unaldd給 y turfниll sy'rorm ynbarodol yn gweith Consumer Class 'gynaeth Journ이라는 selenig. ond yżwn y parwysiant bod fel tra er lle 외�nyż, ac werlus maint eit genw Donald Trump yn ediro. Mae yw s rushedol ei gallwyr o'r dal wbl dyma i newiddelen? Fodaf� cwls yn anod o'r Scourletia affarwym chwetherg. Mae'n ffordd gyda wedi cyfriodd yn ymwch hynny, diolch yn cael ei yma. Mae'r wyf yn ffordd sector, mae'n ffordd yr angen yn ni, a oes. Mae'n ffordd yr angen yn yna i'r cyfriodd yn cael ei yma. Mae'n ffordd yr angen yn yna i'r cyfriodd i yma. Mae'n yna i'r cyfriodd yma. Mae'n ffordd yr a ni'r cyfriodd yn yma. Mae'n ffordd yr angen i'r cyfriodd yr angen i'r cyfriodd yr angen. Mae'n ffordd yr angen i'r cyfriodd yr angen. Mae'n ffordd yr angen. Mae'n ffordd yr angen.