On November 19, 2025, the United Kingdom’s Home Secretary, Shabana Mahmood, unveiled a sweeping overhaul of the country’s asylum and policing systems—moves that have ignited fierce debate across the political spectrum, drawn international criticism, and sparked concern among human rights advocates. The reforms, which range from shutting down all asylum hotels to a radical restructuring of police forces, have been described by supporters as necessary cost-saving measures but by opponents as a dangerous lurch toward authoritarianism and ethnic scapegoating.
Mahmood’s asylum policy, announced with much fanfare, promises to close every remaining asylum hotel in the UK, relocating all migrants currently housed there to military bases. According to The Guardian, the Home Secretary declared, “I will close every single asylum hotel.” She touted the government’s progress, noting that the number of such hotels had already been halved since their peak in the summer of 2023. Supporters of the plan argue that this will slash government spending on accommodation and relieve pressure on local communities who have struggled to absorb large numbers of asylum seekers. As they see it, moving migrants to military facilities is a practical solution to a ballooning problem.
However, critics warn that the relocation could create new issues, such as substandard living conditions and security concerns at military sites, while doing nothing to address the growing backlog in asylum processing. As punkacademic highlighted, the policy doesn’t tackle the root causes of the crisis, and may even exacerbate the difficulties faced by those seeking refuge. “Supporters claim this move will reduce spending on asylum accommodation,” the outlet reported, “but opponents warn this plan could spark fresh issues, such as security and living conditions at military sites.”
Perhaps the most controversial aspect of Mahmood’s asylum shake-up is the reduction of refugee status to a temporary affair. Under the new rules, refugees will only be eligible for permanent status after twenty years in the UK—a move that human rights advocates argue will leave thousands in a state of prolonged uncertainty. Even more contentious is the proposal to use artificial intelligence to verify the ages of refugees, a concept floated earlier in 2025. The government claims this will prevent abuse of the system, but critics see it as a dehumanizing and unreliable method that could lead to wrongful denials of protection.
Adding to the sense of alarm, the government has floated the idea of confiscating refugees’ jewelry and valuables to help pay for their processing—a policy that, as punkacademic notes, has chilling echoes of historical injustices. “Jewellery can be confiscated from refugees to pay for processing them, as one minister gleefully told the press—seemingly blissfully unaware of the horrific echoes such a despicable policy conjures up,” the article stated. Alf Dubs, a child refugee who fled Nazi persecution in 1939, was quick to condemn Labour’s plans, asserting that they sought to “use children as a weapon.”
The controversy has not been contained within the UK’s borders. On the international stage, Albania’s Prime Minister, Edi Rama, accused Mahmood of “ethnic stereotyping” and “indecent demagoguery” after her officials singled out 700 Albanian families for deportation. In a pointed message on X (formerly Twitter), Rama wrote, “How can a Labour home secretary so poorly echo the rhetoric of the populist far-right – and single out 700 Albanian families, a statistical drop in the ocean of post-Brexit Britain’s challenges – precisely at a moment when the UK and Albania have built one of Europe’s most successful partnerships on illegal migration?” He added, “Albanians are net contributors to the British economy, and the number of Albanians receiving UK benefits is very low relative to other communities. To single them out again and again is not policy – it is a troubling and indecent exercise in demagoguery.”
The UK government, meanwhile, insists that the removals are necessary. Mahmood stated, “We must remove those who have failed asylum claims, regardless of who they are. Today, we are not removing family groups, even when we know that their home country is perfectly safe. There are, for instance, around 700 Albanian families living in taxpayer-funded accommodation having failed their asylum claims – despite an existing returns agreement, and Albania being a signatory to the European convention on human rights. So we will now begin the removal of families. Where possible, we will encourage a voluntary return, but where an enforced return is necessary, that is what we will do.”
The policy has also sown discord within the Labour Party itself. Health Secretary Wes Streeting admitted his discomfort with the prospect of forcibly deporting families, even as he defended the policy as “the right thing to do for the country.” In an interview with LBC, Streeting said, “Honestly? Comfortable? No. But is it the right thing to do for the country? Yes.” He suggested that the number of forced removals would be low, as the model—similar to Denmark’s—relies on financial incentives to encourage voluntary returns. Still, the unease within Labour ranks is palpable, with at least two dozen MPs raising concerns about the ethics and optics of the policy.
Beyond migration, Mahmood has set her sights on overhauling the nation’s policing structure. Speaking at a major policing conference in Westminster, she described the current 43-force system as “irrational” and a “postcode lottery,” with critical functions like the national police air service and vetting loaded onto local forces at the expense of neighborhood policing. “The structure of our police forces is, if we are honest, irrational,” Mahmood told delegates. “We have 43 forces tackling criminal gangs who cross borders, and the disparities in performance in forces across the country have grown far too wide, giving truth to the old saw that policing in this country is a postcode lottery.”
Mahmood also criticized the piecemeal adoption of new technology in policing, noting that many forces remain dependent on outdated systems. A white paper on police reform is expected in the coming weeks, as forces face a daunting £1.2 billion budget shortfall. In a further shake-up, the roles of Police and Crime Commissioners (PCCs) will be abolished in 2028, with their responsibilities passing to mayors, deputy mayors, or policing boards. Mahmood argued that the PCCs had created unnecessary bureaucracy and hindered cooperation between forces. “Without necessary investment in creating a public profile, too many voters were unaware of the existence of the position, or its occupant,” she said.
As the dust settles on Mahmood’s announcements, the UK finds itself at a crossroads. The government’s drive for reform has won applause from some quarters, particularly those who believe the asylum and policing systems are in dire need of modernization. Yet the backlash—from human rights defenders, international partners, and even within the ruling party—suggests that the path forward will be anything but smooth. With a white paper on police reform imminent and the asylum shake-up already underway, the stakes for Britain’s future social fabric have rarely felt higher.
The coming months will reveal whether Mahmood’s bold vision for law and order can withstand the mounting criticism—or whether it will deepen the divides that have come to define the nation’s politics.
