Readers respond to news articles and analysis on Shabana Mahmood’s proposals to change the asylum system

The government’s asylum proposals, rendering subsistence support discretionary and compelling refugees to return once their countries are deemed “safe”, represent a profound departure from both legal obligations and moral responsibility. These are not minor administrative adjustments; they are structural erosions of rights that strike at the heart of Britain’s commitment to fairness and justice.

The United Kingdom remains bound by the 1951 refugee convention and the Human Rights Act 1998. These instruments enshrine non‑discretionary duties, including the provision of subsistence and protection against refoulement. To reframe such duties as optional is to mischaracterise international law and invite judicial challenge. More importantly, it undermines the principle that rights are universal and inalienable, not favours dispensed at political whim.

This post was originally published on Human rights | The Guardian.