“Asylum Seekers Have Suffered Trauma Before Coming to the UK” – Apsana Begum Reveals What the Government Should Do Instead of Trying to Stop Them

Apsana Begum has strongly criticised the government’s proposed Immigration and Asylum Bill, arguing that it is more about creating a tough political image than solving the long-standing problems within the UK’s immigration and asylum system. She believes the reforms have not been properly planned and says they risk making an already struggling system even more complicated instead of improving it. In her view, the legislation repeats many of the mistakes made under the previous government’s Rwanda policy, describing it as a new version of the same approach under a different name.

One of her biggest concerns is the proposal to replace experienced immigration judges in the First-tier Tribunal with a new Independent Immigration Appeals Authority (IIAA). She argues that creating an entirely new organisation would be extremely difficult, expensive and time-consuming. According to Begum, the government has failed to explain how much the new body would cost, when it would begin operating or how it would perform better than the existing tribunal system. She believes these unanswered questions suggest the reforms have not been fully thought through.

Begum also questioned whether the proposed authority would truly be independent. Although the government describes it as an independent body, she pointed out that it would be overseen by people appointed by the Home Office. She argued that this raises serious concerns about political influence and fairness. She also referred to warnings from the Law Society, which has said the proposals could weaken people’s right to a fair hearing and should not go ahead in their current form.

She said the growing backlog of immigration appeals is not simply caused by the tribunal system itself but by poor-quality decisions made by the Home Office at the beginning of the process. According to her, too many asylum applications are rejected because of rushed or inaccurate decisions, forcing people into lengthy appeals that could have been avoided if claims had been assessed properly from the start. She argued that focusing on speed rather than accuracy only creates more delays and additional pressure on the courts.

Begum also criticised proposals that she believes would reduce legal protections for vulnerable people, including refugees, asylum seekers, victims of modern slavery and children. She said many of these individuals have already experienced severe trauma before arriving in the UK and warned that removing important safeguards protected under international agreements, including the European Convention on Human Rights and the Refugee Convention, could leave them even more vulnerable.

She expressed particular concern about planned changes to modern slavery laws. Citing warnings from experts, she argued that victims could become afraid to report abuse if they believe they may be detained or face immigration consequences. She said this could make it easier for criminal gangs and traffickers to continue exploiting vulnerable people because fewer victims would feel safe enough to seek help from the authorities.

Begum was also highly critical of the language used during the debate over immigration. She argued that comments suggesting the human rights of foreign sex offenders are being placed ahead of the safety of British women and girls create a dangerous and misleading narrative. While acknowledging that violence against women and girls is a serious issue, she said it exists across every part of society regardless of age, ethnicity, income or background and is overwhelmingly committed by men already known to their victims. Although she accepted that some offenders come from overseas, she argued it is wrong and unfair to present violence against women as an issue imported through immigration alone.

She pointed to an earlier letter signed by more than 100 women’s rights organisations, which warned that linking sexual violence to immigration risks increasing racism, creating division within communities and discouraging survivors from seeking support. According to Begum, such arguments could also distract from the wider effort to tackle violence against women and girls across society.

Begum warned that the Bill could have particularly severe consequences for migrant women, refugees, asylum seekers and victims of modern slavery. She argued that many of the people who are already among the most vulnerable could face greater risks of homelessness, poverty, exploitation, abuse and criminalisation if the proposed measures become law.

She described the Bill as both harsh and largely symbolic, arguing that it focuses more on making political statements than delivering practical solutions. In her view, the proposals are unlikely to achieve their intended goals and instead risk repeating previous failures.

Begum also argued that recent immigration policies should serve as a warning. She said the Rwanda plan proved costly without delivering the promised results and noted reports that the UK’s “one-in, one-out” migrant returns arrangement with France is expected to end after its pilot phase. She predicted that the proposed Independent Immigration Appeals Authority could face a similar fate if it proves too difficult and expensive to operate, leaving taxpayers to cover rising costs while asylum seekers face long periods of legal uncertainty.

She concluded by saying that governments cannot build effective asylum policy around attention-grabbing announcements or attempts to appear tougher on immigration. In her view, such approaches fail to solve the underlying problems and do little to satisfy critics who want even stricter measures. Begum said many of her own constituents are increasingly asking where this direction could lead, questioning whether future governments might come under pressure to introduce even tougher policies affecting people who have already settled legally in the UK.