Children born in Britain to refugee parents will face being deported under plans by the Home Secretary to overhaul the asylum process.
Under Shabana Mahmood’s plan to restrict the rights of those allowed to stay here, refugee status will become temporary and face a review every 30 months.
Those wishing to settle permanently will have to wait for 20 years, and anyone fleeing unrest will be ordered to return home when their country becomes safe again.
Refugees will lose the automatic right to bring their spouses and children to join them in the UK, while those still having their claims processed will no longer receive financial support unless they need it.
Judges meanwhile will be told not to let illegal migrants and foreign criminals dodge deportation by using Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), which guarantees the right to a family life.
The restrictions are also said to extend to children born to refugees in the UK, unless they have obtained British citizenship.
This means children born in the UK to refugees and those who have no right to stay would face deportation – because Britain does not recognise birthright citizenship.
Only children born to at least one parent who is a British citizen or has settled status can become a citizen at birth, according to the British Nationality Act.
However a child born in the UK who lives in Britain continuously for 10 years can acquire citizenship.
The Home Office said it would set out the plans relating to the settled status of children ‘in due course’, The Times reported.
A document entitled ‘restoring order and control’, which sets out the Government’s stance on asylum seekers, details in relation to children: ‘We are carefully considering the appropriate pathways for unaccompanied asylum-seeking children, asylum-seeking families with children, and other vulnerable asylum seekers.
‘We will take account of their specific needs and vulnerabilities.’
Defending the proposals, Steve Reed, the housing and communities secretary, said the overhaul would rebalance the system and stop unjust ‘incentives’.
He told Times Radio: ‘We know that we need more safe and legal routes so that families who have the right to come here and seek asylum can get into the country, but we can’t continue to allow incentives to exist that result in children drowning in the Channel.’
But the proposals, many of which are based on Danish policies, have drawn criticism from across the political spectrum.
Lord Alf Dubs, who arrived in Britain as a child refugee on the Kindertransport to escape Nazi persecution in 1939, castigated Mahmood for using ‘children as a weapon’ to dissuade refugees from arriving in Britain.
The Labour politician, who is against the proposals, told the BBC’s Today programme: ‘What we need is a bit of compassion in our politics and I think that some of the measures were going in the wrong direction, they won’t help.’
Other critics have pointed out that Ms Mahmood’s proposals could face immediate challenges in the courts unless the UK quits the ECHR and scraps the Human Rights Act (HRA).
Refugees told to return home when their homelands become safe will claim that their right to a family life in the UK is being breached, and anyone whose claim is rejected by domestic courts will be able to take it to judges in Strasbourg.
Migrant charities and pressure groups could ask the European Court of Human Rights to declare the entire scheme unlawful and order the Government to rewrite it.
Labour MPs and peers could also pressure ministers to dilute their plans. Attorney-General Lord Hermer has vowed the UK will not quit the ECHR.
In addition, there are doubts that the prospect of a less generous asylum system will deter illegal migrants, record numbers of whom have crossed the Channel in dinghies this year. Another 217 arrived in three boats on Friday, taking the total for the year to 39,292.
Shadow Home Secretary Chris Philp said last week: ‘The Government are pretending to be tough, but while inside the ECHR they will get stopped in their tracks by Left-wing lawyers and judges – probably including their own Attorney-General.
‘The only way to control our borders is to leave the ECHR and deport every single illegal immigrant upon arrival, with no court hearings.
‘But Labour is too weak to do that – and their plans are doomed to failure as a result of their ECHR obsession. Labour has lost control of our border and their plans won’t make any real difference.’
Reform UK leader Nigel Farage said: ‘The Home Secretary sounds like a Reform supporter. Sadly, with the Human Rights Act and ECHR the changes won’t survive the courts – or probably even her own backbenchers.’
Tory peer Baroness Maclean added: ‘If she was serious she would bring back the Rwanda plan, leave the ECHR and HRA, scrap the Modern Slavery Act, and deport foreign criminals. But she won’t because Keir Starmer believes that ‘all immigration law is racist’ and most of her party believe in open borders and ‘welcoming refugees’.’
There has also been a backlash to restrictions on refugee status from human rights charities, which called the plans costly, impractical and inhumane.
Steve Valdez-Symonds, of Amnesty International, said: ‘Bad asylum policies can expect to be challenged in the courts when they do harm to people.’
The Refugee Council estimated it would cost £872million a decade to review refugees’ status every 30 months.
Sir Keir Starmer said the plan will stop ‘endless appeals, stop last-minute claims and scale up removals of those with no right to be here’.
Ms Mahmood said: ‘The public rightly expect that we can determine who enters this country, and who must leave. To maintain the generosity that allows us to provide sanctuary, we must restore order and control.’
In another attempt to boost deportations, the UK has threatened US-style visa sanctions on Angola, Namibia and the Democratic Republic of Congo, blocking people from coming to Britain unless their governments improve co-operation on removals.
