Toxic migration debate veers into attack on Pakistan

A routine immigration debate on British television turned incendiary when a Reform UK politician demanded to know why Pakistan was not on the Home Office’s new visa-penalty list.

Laila Cunningham then escalated the exchange with a series of remarks invoking “Pakistani rape gangs” and suggesting that Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood would not “dare disturb” what she called Mahmood’s “political base.”

The exchange took place on BBC Newsnight last Monday (yesterday), during a discussion of the government’s proposal to pressure certain countries to accept the return of their citizens who arrive illegally on small boats. Mahmood had identified three states — Angola, Namibia and the Democratic Republic of the Congo — that could face restrictions if they refuse to cooperate on migrant returns. The aim is to force these countries to accept deported nationals more rapidly.

Cunningham, a Westminster City councillor and former Crown Prosecution Service lawyer, challenged that approach in the sharp, confrontational style Reform UK has made its hallmark. Her initial question — why Pakistan was not among the targeted countries — might have been fair enough on its own terms. Pakistan is regularly mentioned in discussions about irregular migration to Britain, and any plan for returns must take account of Islamabad’s position, though precise numbers vary year by year. But Cunningham did not leave it there.

Her words on the broadcast were explicit:

“Why is she not including Pakistan? I’d like to see return agreements for the Pakistani rape gangs. But of course that’s her political base. Would she dare disturb it?”

She continued:

“We have rapists walking the streets — convicted rapists — and we have a community that protected them, and Pakistan doesn’t want to take them back.”

These comments changed the tenor of the discussion immediately. The grooming-gang scandals in northern England involved appalling crimes committed by British citizens of Pakistani heritage. To cite those cases as a reason to penalise Pakistan as a state, or to imply that Mahmood is shielding an entire nationality because of those crimes, merges criminality, ethnicity and political loyalty in one explosive charge.

Her line — “that’s her political base” — made the insinuation unmistakable: that Mahmood’s Pakistani heritage influences her decisions in office. Instead of debating the diplomatic or administrative complexities of returns agreements, Cunningham reframed the matter as a question of ethnic allegiance.

It is also worth noting who was making the accusation. Cunningham was born to Egyptian parents who fled their country in the 1960s and has spoken publicly about her family’s immigrant background. Her own heritage has no bearing on her politics — nor should it — but it underlines the contradiction in her claim. Mahmood, for her part, has approached the returns issue in a notably sober and administrative manner, emphasising the need for workable agreements rather than rhetorical point-scoring.

This is where the exchange crossed a boundary. Robust scrutiny of government policy is essential. But questioning a minister’s motives on the basis of ancestry, rather than evidence, undermines a core principle of public life: that officials act according to national interest, legal advice and the responsibilities of their office, not the origins of their parents.

There were many legitimate policy questions available. Mahmood could be pressed on why Angola, Namibia and the DRC were chosen first, or what data underpin the proposed visa restrictions. She could be asked whether the approach would deter people traffickers, or how returns agreements will be enforced. None of those avenues requires — or justifies — references to “rape gangs” or suggestions about her “political base.”

The moment was striking not just for its content but for the platform. Newsnight has long been a sober fixture in British public debate. That remarks of this nature passed with only modest challenge reflects a wider shift in the tone of national discussion.

For readers outside the UK, Reform UK is a party that grew out of Nigel Farage’s Brexit movement and now campaigns for drastic cuts to immigration, tougher borders and an ideological reset on law and order. It is polling strongly enough to unsettle the Conservative Party and is causing quiet concern within Labour as well, particularly in working-class areas of the Midlands and the North that backed Brexit in 2016, where Reform’s hard-line message resonates. The party hopes to position itself as Britain’s principal force on the hard right.

Against that backdrop, Cunningham’s remarks sit within a broader trend. As Britain becomes more diverse, debates about immigration increasingly spill into debates about identity: who belongs, who is “really” British, and whose judgement can be trusted. When those insinuations appear on national television, they influence the climate far beyond the studio.

Shabana Mahmood will be judged on the success or failure of her immigration policies. She has already proposed significant changes that have drawn criticism from both left and right. But implying that she shields Pakistan because her family is of Pakistani origin is not policy analysis. It is an attempt to frame public service through the lens of ethnic loyalty.

Britain faces real challenges in managing migration, negotiating returns agreements and tackling dangerous Channel crossings. But if public debate slips into questioning ministers’ motives based on their heritage, it risks eroding the fairness and trust that democratic scrutiny depends on. Monday night’s exchange on Newsnight was a reminder of how quickly that slide can begin and why it must be resisted.