Left-wing lawyers will launch a “barrage” of human rights claims against Labour’s new immigration rules, critics warned.

The Home Office issued new guidance this week suggesting migrants will “normally” be refused the right to remain if they entered the UK illegally.

It followed criticism that the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill “created a path to citizenship” for small boat arrivals because it repealed key pieces of legislation that prevented Channel migrants from “settling here or becoming British citizens”.

But the move was branded a “smokescreen” that will make it easier “for those who ignored our laws to challenge this position”.

Shadow Home Secretary Chris Philp said: “Labour’s proposed ‘changes’ to the border are not worth the paper they’re written on if they press ahead with their scheme to repeal the Illegal Migration Act.

“Doing so will leave them wide open to legal challenges, by lefty activist lawyers – many of whom are friends of Keir Starmer, and one of whom he made his Attorney General.

“That’s why our proposed legislative changes are so important. It’s about re-wiring the system completely, not window dressing a bad system, which is all Labours changes do.”

Robert Bates, Research Director at the Centre for Migration Control said: “British citizenship is a privilege not a right.

“Without a clear policy that says illegal migrants can never become British citizens we will inevitably see human rights lawyers launching a barrage of challenges to these rules.

“The answer is straightforwardly that anyone who enters the country without permission is removed.

“Left wing staff in the Home Office are also likely to take advantage of this loose guidance to make it meet their own open-borders agenda.

“Far too much discretion remains in the hands of civil servants who seem to act without a hint of accountability.”

Former Immigration Minister Kevin Foster told the Daily Express: “The change in guidance is nothing more than a smokescreen for the Government repealing the provisions of the Illegal Migration Act 2023 aimed at preventing those who entered our country from settling here or becoming British citizens.

“Switching this provision to guidance will make it easier for those who ignored our laws to challenge this position to become British citizens and likely Labour voters.”

The Tories are understood to be planning a series of amendments to ban Channel migrants from ever being able to claim citizenship.

But a spokeswoman for the Home Secretary said: “This is complete nonsense. There are longstanding rules that mean those that arrive illegally can’t be granted citizenship. This government is strengthening those rules so that no one making dangerous journeys on small boats can get citizenship.

“The Tories Illegal Migration Act was totally unworkable, which is why so much of it, including the provisions on citizenship, were not enacted or operationalised.

“Returning to the same failed ideas shows the Tories learnt nothing from their catastrophic defeat in July.”

They fear relying on changes to immigration rules will expose the Home Office to even more human rights claims.

The good character guidance states that an applicant will “normally” be refused citizenship if they entered the UK illegally – no matter how long they have lived in the UK.

It makes particular reference to those who arrived “having made a dangerous journey”, including those “travelling by small boat or concealed in a vehicle”.

However, Tony Smith, the former Director General of Border Force said ministers must bar migrants from being able to remain in the UK.

He told the Daily Express: “They don’t need British citizenship to get to stay here. Their ambition is simply to get into British waters, whereupon our current legal framework requires us to bring them ashore to allow them to lodge claims for asylum, human rights, modern slavery and so on.

“Until or unless we are able to pass workable laws to deny them access to this process and to send them back quickly, then there is very little likelihood that many of them will ever be removed – and ultimately they will get to stay regardless of their nationality, citizenship or good conduct.”

The immigration rule changes triggered a bizarre row within Labour, with senior MP Stella Creasy claiming it would prevent Paddington Bear from settling in the UK.

Ms Creasy told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme on Wednesday: “This is not about whether we offer these people refuge, these people are people who can stay here already.

“This is about people who are here, who are part of our communities.

“I was incredibly proud over the last couple of months to work with one of my neighbours, who is a young man who fled Syria, who is now making a life here, has just got his degree, is contributing to our society, and has now got British citizenship. This process would deny that.

“Essentially it would deny, well, frankly, Paddington. Paddington did the same thing. He came by an irregular route, but we gave him sanctuary but wouldn’t give him a passport.”

In response to criticism of her comments, Ms Creasy subsequently posted on the X, formerly Twitter, social media site, writing: “We did indeed give Paddington a passport.

“We also gave Sir Mo Farah a knighthood and cheered him at the Olympics.”

And former Labour Home Secretary David Blunkett also attacked the plans, claiming the revised immigration rules threaten community cohesion and statelessness.

Raising his concerns about the recent revision, Lord Blunkett added: “Will the minister ask the Home secretary to reflect on the societal and cohesion aspects of this policy, the impact on children and their right to UK citizenship and the statelessness which would arise for individuals if their birth country refused to renew or retain their nationality

“Surely this Parliament should have a say in such a big change.”

Responding, Home Office minister Lord Hanson of Flint said: “He will know that the proposals today are about illegal entry to the United Kingdom and do not affect rightful citizenship applications for people who are entering the UK legally.

“In terms of those who are stateless and at risk of losing citizenship, for people who do qualify there is a stateless leave provision and they can apply for that. And children again will be considered sympathetically under existing legislation.”