LABOUR MPs opposed to the government’s changes to the indefinite leave to remain scheme (ILR) are threatening a symbolic vote against the measures in hopes ministers will reverse course.

Campaigners welcomed the move today to challenge Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood’s plans to double the required length of stay in Britain for migrants to obtain permanent residency.

For most cases, it will bring the minimum period of time needed from five to 10 years, and certain groups such as care workers and refugees would be forced to wait longer.

Some Labour MPs are now considering forcing a non-binding vote to highlight dissenting views on the matter within the party.

This was in response to the Home Office previously claiming that ILR changes do not need to be put to a vote as they will not require new legislation.

The Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants (JCWI) said the move from Labour MPs was long overdue but called on them to move past “symbolic” votes and use their leverage in Parliament to reverse discriminatory policies.

JCWI spokeswoman Seema Syeda told the Morning Star: “It’s about time Labour MPs showed some backbone to take a stand against this government’s racist and classist attacks on migrants.

“A symbolic vote is not enough. MPs need to use whatever power they have to stop and reverse these policies — especially the decision to stop permanent status for refugees.”

She added: “They also need to make a moral and principled argument for migration rather than the dangerous and dehumanising rhetoric of economic contribution.

“Migrants are human beings, not commodities to be exploited.”

The Home Office based several reforms to the system on existing policies in Denmark.

Folkestone and Hythe MP Tony Vaughan responded with a letter signed by 100 other MPs demanding the government drop the reforms.

Downing Street sources this week said it would introduce “transitional arrangements” to reduce the 10-year wait time for some migrants already in the country.

Mr Vaughan hit back saying that these arrangements would only be a “sticking plaster on a scheme that was flawed from the beginning,” the BBC reported.

Other MPs commented anonymously on the matter, claiming retroactive changes to the system amounted to the government “reneging on promises.”

Another critic said it was preferable to “cringe and do a U-turn than do the wrong thing.”