Editorial: There is a balance to be struck between border control and human rights, and there are too many clauses in this bill that are almost performatively draconian. Never before in Britain has there been such a toxic climate of public opinion towards immigration of any kind – particularly towards the irregular entry of refugees, people who are often dehumanisingly and erroneously labelled “illegals”.

In the week that began with Holocaust Memorial Day, it is only right to stress once again the importance of the language we use around such sensitive matters, and to recall that for as long as the UK remains a member of the European Convention on Human Rights, there is an unqualified right in international law to claim asylum here (though not, of course, to be granted it). It is equally important to note that the Convention does not provide for any national caps on asylum. The quality of mercy, at least according to the Convention, shall not be strained by any minister of the crown.

For a practising democratic politician facing some challenging opinion polls – and the threat of neo-fascist elements growing bolder in their racism than ever – things are not so straightforward, as evinced by the latest legislation proposed by the home secretary, Yvette Cooper. Arguments have to be won – and the confidence of the people carried – if the electorate is not to turn towards the charlatans peddling far more destructive alternatives.

Ms Cooper has made it her job to “smash the criminal gangs” involved in people-trafficking, and she has travelled quite the journey herself on her way to high office. For many years while in opposition, she attacked her Conservative counterparts – and rightly – for their mixture of callousness and incompetence: a combination that left the UK neither in control of its borders nor living up to its moral and legal obligations.

The public were understandably appalled by the costs involved in housing large numbers of refugees in hotels as they languished in legal limbo. The asylum seekers were stranded because the automatic “illegal” designation imposed on them by the government precluded them from being processed. It was an intolerable situation for all concerned. In theory, the refugees – numbering 100,000 – were soon to be dispatched to Rwanda. We know all about what happened to that plan.

Now she is in government, Ms Cooper has swept away the Rwanda plan, which few will mourn. She has launched an intelligence-led war on the criminal gangs, too – but she has also adopted too readily much of the rest of the Conservatives’ approach. This is, in fact, literally the case with the latest Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill, which picks up where James Cleverly and Suella Braverman left off.

Certainly, the emphasis on the contributions that will be made by the Secret Intelligence Service and better policing is welcome, as are the powers to seize marine engines and mobile phones. Yet there are serious and quite basic concerns about the humanitarian effects of the proposed measures. Most distressing is surely the idea of detaining children whose age is disputed by the Home Office, for up to 28 days. As is the case with any bureaucracy under intense public scrutiny, the tendency will be to err on the side of caution, and to refuse to allow young adolescents the benefit of the doubt – to no great purpose, given that they’ll need to be processed in any case.

The weakening of protections that exist under the current law on modern slavery is also disturbing. Obviously, like all of the administrative machinery in this field, the facility to apply to be rescued from modern slavery is open to abuse. But the fact remains that modern slavery is a reality in our towns and cities – and making it easier to perpetrate such crimes is not a price worth paying for a marginal improvement in the immigration figures. There is a balance to be struck between border control and human rights, and there are too many clauses in Ms Cooper’s bill that are almost performatively draconian.

What we hear very little about from Ms Cooper these days, in contrast to her days in the shadow cabinet, is how to secure those “safe and secure routes” to asylum she once championed. It is regrettable – and against the strictures of the Convention – to impose a cap on the number of refugees that can be admitted, though this is something the Conservatives legislated for, and Ms Cooper has not sought to undo that provision. Such a situation is politically inevitable, yet it remains the case that there are many groups of people who are very clearly fleeing torture, or are facing an immediate risk to their lives – and whose case for asylum is undeniable.

Even under the Conservatives, orderly, safe and secure procedures were put in place for those arriving from Hong Kong, Syria, Afghanistan and Ukraine – covering half a million people in all. Flawed as they sometimes were, notably in the case of the Afghans who served with the British armed forces, such schemes actually commanded wide and generous public support, even to the extent that British families offered to accommodate Ukrainians in their own homes.