UK Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood has defended proposed changes to the country’s asylum system that could result in the deportation of families with children whose asylum claims are rejected.
Speaking about the planned reforms, Mahmood said the government is still consulting on the practical details of how removals involving families would be carried out. She argued that effective enforcement of immigration rules is necessary to maintain the integrity of the system and to manage public spending.
According to the home secretary, failing to enforce immigration regulations could leave the government responsible for significant long-term costs associated with supporting families who remain in the country after unsuccessful asylum claims. She said such expenses ultimately fall on taxpayers.
Mahmood acknowledged that reducing irregular migration presents complex challenges and said there are no straightforward solutions. However, she maintained that the credibility of the immigration system depends on the consistent application of its rules.
At the same time, she stressed that any actions involving children would be conducted in a humane manner. Mahmood noted that the UK already has established legal frameworks governing how public institutions—including schools and law-enforcement agencies—interact with children, and said similar standards would apply in the immigration context.
In a speech outlining the government’s proposed immigration reforms, the home secretary said families whose asylum applications are denied would be offered financial incentives to leave the country voluntarily. Under the plan, individuals could receive £10,000 each—up to a maximum of £40,000 per family—to depart the UK.
If families decline the offer and do not leave voluntarily, the government intends to proceed with deportation measures. Mahmood said a comparable approach implemented in Denmark had produced positive results and suggested that adopting a similar policy could reduce the cost of accommodating asylum seekers in hotels.
She also argued that inconsistent enforcement in the past had created incentives for some families to attempt dangerous crossings of the English Channel in small boats, believing that removal would be unlikely if their claims were unsuccessful.
