Under the plans, arrivals will be detained within the first 28 days without bail or judicial review and the majority would be unable to make claims to stop deportation until they have been returned to the country they came from or a “safe third country such as Rwanda”.
They will also be banned from claiming UK settlement, citizenship or re-entering the UK if they are removed.
The bill has come under severe criticism from opposition MPs and refugee charities, with Amnesty International and the UN Refugee Agency saying the plans would “amount to an asylum ban”.
More from Politics
Labour described the bill as a “con” that was no more likely to be successful than prior Tory efforts to tackle small boat migration across the Channel.
Ms Braverman admitted on Tuesday the government does not know if the plans are entirely within the conventions of international law.
Advertisement
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
0:54
‘Government will act now to stop boats’
But she told Sky News’ Kay Burley at Breakfast on Wednesday: “We’re not breaking the law and no government representative has said we’re breaking the law.
“In fact, we’ve made it very clear that we believe we are in compliance with all of our international obligations, for example, the Refugee Convention, the European Convention on Human Rights, other conventions to which we are subject.
“But what’s important is that we do need to take compassionate but necessary and fair measures.
“Now, because there are people who are dying to try and get here. They are breaking our laws. They are abusing the generosity of the British people.”
Ms Braverman’s insistence comes despite a statement by her on the first page of the published bill, which says: “I am unable to make a statement that, in my view, the provisions of the Illegal Migration Bill are compatible with the Convention rights, but the government nevertheless wishes the House to proceed with the bill.”
And in a letter to Conservative MPs and peers urging them to back the bill, Ms Braverman insisted it “does not mean the provisions in the bill are incompatible” with the Human Rights Act.
“Only that there is a more 50% chance that they may not be,” the letter said.
“We are testing the limits but remain confident that this bill is compatible with international law.”
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
2:32
What is new small boats bill?
Labour: ‘Govt not tackling problem’
The home secretary told Sky News the new plan is the only way to “break the model of the people smuggling gangs” who charge thousands of pounds to transport people across the Channel in small and often overpacked boats.
But Labour’s shadow home secretary Yvette Cooper said the new bill does not tackle the cause of the problem, as she accused the government of failing to tackle the smuggling gangs.
She said there need to be return agreements with other European countries from which the gangs operate.
“They’re not actually tackling the problem,” she told Sky News.
“We think you should get return agreements in place with Europe as part of a wider agreement, particularly with France and Belgium.
“ I think if you did that thenyou wouldn’t need many of the things that the government has talked because that actually would be at the heart of it.”
Image: Migrants are brought into Dover on 6 March
No dates for first removals and more detention centres
Ms Braverman said people will be able to claim asylum in the UK but “they should choose to come here through safe and legal routes” so they are not breaking the law.
“We have a very generous regime of supporting people coming here lawfully for humanitarian protection,” Ms Braverman added.
“What we can’t go on accepting is people breaking our laws.”
Under the new plan, the government has said new detention centres will be opened, including on military bases, however, Ms Braverman said she could not provide dates of when and where they will open as there are “logistical challenges” – but it will be “very soon”.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
1:14
Small boats crackdown ‘necessary and fair’
She also said she could not give a date for when the first failed asylum seekers will be deported to Rwanda and said the government is doubling the number of asylum caseworkers by more than 2,000 to get through the large backlog of cases.
Ms Braverman said it is costing £6 million a day to house asylum claimants in hotels but could not provide details of how much the new plans will save the taxpayer.
Prime Minister Rishi Sunak will face Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer at Prime Minister’s Questions later on Wednesday, where he is certain to challenge him on the new plans.
The Donald Trump peace plan is nothing of the sort. It takes Russian demands and presents them as peace proposals, in what is effectively for Ukraine a surrender ultimatum.
If accepted, it would reward armed aggression. The principle, sacrosanct since the Second World War, for obvious and very good reasons, that even de facto borders cannot be changed by force, will have been trampled on at the behest of the leader of the free world.
The Kremlin will have imposed terms via negotiators on a country it has violated, and whose people its troops have butchered, massacred and raped. It is without doubt the biggest crisis in Trans-Atlantic relations since the war began, if not since the inception of NATO.
The question now is: are Europe’s leaders up to meeting the daunting challenges that will follow. On past form, we cannot be sure.
Image: Vladimir Putin, President of Russia. Pic: Sputnik/Gavriil Grigorov via Reuters
The plan proposes the following:
• Land seized by Vladimir Putin’s unwarranted and unprovoked invasion would be ceded by Kyiv.
• Territory his forces have fought but failed to take with colossal loss of life will be thrown into the bargain for good measure.
• Ukraine will be barred from NATO, from having long-range weapons, from hosting foreign troops, from allowing foreign diplomatic planes to land, and its military neutered, reduced in size by more than half.
Image: Donald Trump meeting Vladimir Putin in Alaska in August, File pic: Reuters
And most worryingly for Western leaders, the plan proposes NATO and Russia negotiate with America acting as mediator.
Lest we forget, America is meant to be the strongest partner in NATO, not an outside arbitrator. In one clause, Mr Trump’s lack of commitment to the Western alliance is laid bare in chilling clarity.
And even for all that, the plan will not bring peace. Mr Putin has made it abundantly clear he wants all of Ukraine.
He has a proven track record of retiring, rallying his forces, then returning for more. Reward a bully as they say, and he will only come back for more. Why wouldn’t he, if he is handed the fortress cities of Donetsk and a clear run over open tank country to Kyiv in a few years?
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
2:29
US draft Russia peace plan
Since the beginning of Trump’s presidency, Europe has tried to keep the maverick president onside when his true sympathies have repeatedly reverted to Moscow.
It has been a demeaning and sycophantic spectacle, NATO’s secretary general stooping even to calling the US president ‘Daddy’. And it hasn’t worked. It may have made matters worse.
Image: A choir sing in front of an apartment building destroyed in a Russian missile strike in Ternopil, Ukraine. Pic: Reuters
The parade of world leaders trooping through Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt, lavishing praise on his Gaza ceasefire plan, only encouraged him to believe he is capable of solving the world’s most complex conflicts with the minimum of effort.
The Gaza plan is mired in deepening difficulty, and it never came near addressing the underlying causes of the war.
Most importantly, principles the West has held inviolable for eight decades cannot be torn up for the sake of a quick and uncertain peace.
With a partner as unreliable, the challenge to Europe cannot be clearer.
In the words of one former Baltic foreign minister: “There is a glaringly obvious message for Europe in the 28-point plan: This is the end of the end.
“We have been told repeatedly and unambiguously that Ukraine’s security, and therefore Europe’s security, will be Europe’s responsibility. And now it is. Entirely.”
If Europe does not step up to the plate and guarantee Ukraine’s security in the face of this American betrayal, we could all pay the consequences.
“Terrible”, “weird”, “peculiar” and “baffling” – some of the adjectives being levelled by observers at the Donald Trump administration’s peace plan for Ukraine.
The 28-point proposal was cooked up between Trump negotiator Steve Witkoff and Kremlin official Kirill Dmitriev without European and Ukrainian involvement.
It effectively dresses up Russian demands as a peace proposal. Demands first made by Russia at the high watermark of its invasion in 2022, before defeats forced it to retreat from much of Ukraine.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
2:38
Ukrainian support for peace plan ‘very much in doubt’
The suspicion is Mr Witkoff and Mr Dmitriev conspired together to choose this moment to put even more pressure on the Ukrainian president.
Perversely, though, it may help him.
There has been universal condemnation and outrage in Kyiv at the Witkoff-Dmitriev plan. Rivals have little choice but to rally around the wartime Ukrainian leader as he faces such unreasonable demands.
The genesis of this plan is unclear.
Was it born from Donald Trump’s overinflated belief in his peacemaking abilities? His overrated Gaza ceasefire plan attracted lavish praise from world leaders, but now seems mired in deepening difficulty.
The fear is Mr Trump’s team are finding ways to allow him to walk away from this conflict altogether, blaming Ukrainian intransigence for the failure of his diplomacy.
Mr Trump has already ended financial support for Ukraine, acting as an arms dealer instead, selling weapons to Europe to pass on to the invaded democracy.
If he were to take away military intelligence support too, Ukraine would be blind to the kind of attacks that in recent days have killed scores of civilians.
Europe and Ukraine cannot reject the plan entirely and risk alienating Mr Trump.
They will play for time and hope against all the evidence he can still be persuaded to desert the Kremlin and put pressure on Vladimir Putin to end the war, rather than force Ukraine to surrender instead.