By Dominic Casciani BBC News Online community affairs reporter

David Blunkett: Tightening up the rules

This is the third time that Labour has introduced legislation on asylum since coming to power - and it will prove to be just as divisive as the previous two occasions.

The new legislation, says the government, is about tying up the loose ends in a system which is now faster, firmer and fairer.

Home Secretary David Blunkett's approach to asylum and immigration is very clear. He wants to increase managed economic migration and cut the unmanaged and unpredictable.

He says this means he needs to be firm, and seen to be firm, in dealing with unfounded asylum cases in order to protect the rights of genuine refugees and legal economic migrants.

There are certainly measures which will receive warm support - such as enhanced powers to clamp down on unscrupulous immigration advisers.

But the major planks of the bill will face enormous opposition - and possibly more legal challenges than ever before.

So what fights can Mr Blunkett expect?

Appeals restricted

Firstly, the appeals system. There is more than one way to appeal an asylum decision thanks to the system introduced by Mr Blunkett's predecessor Jack Straw.

KEY PROPOSALS Cutting right to appeal Cutting legal aid Removal of support from rejected families Clampdown on unscrupulous advisers Penalties for destroying ID documents

The new "single tier" of appeal aims to weed out unfounded challenges which the Home Secretary says waste time and taxpayers' money.

The most recent asylum data shows the role the system plays in correcting poor decisions at interview stage - some 21% of appeals are now being won, approximately 1,300 cases a month.

"Fundamentally, the public want a system that helps refugees in fear of their lives and deals effectively with those who have been fairly rejected," says Maeve Sherlock, head of the Refugee Council.

"This has not been achieved despite repeated changes in the law."

Legal aid battle

The second major battle between the home secretary and asylum lobby is over legal aid.

A coalition of campaigners recently sniffed victory in a battle to prevent restrictions on legal aid, something they said would deny justice to all asylum seekers.

But ministers now suggest legal aid is not required at all because the reforms have done their job in creating a fairer system.

Heaven Crawley, migration expert at the Institute of Public Policy Research, questions the government's thinking.

"Restrictions on appeals and legal aid are based on the assumption that all asylum-seekers are abusing the system and decision-making by the Home Office does not require independent judicial oversight," says Dr Crawley.

"These two assumptions are not supported by the evidence.

"The government's continuing assault on the asylum process reinforces negative public attitudes towards immigration and undermines the government's efforts to deliver managed migration."

Furthermore, Keith Best, head of the immigration advisory service, warns restrictions would create a bureaucratic and legal nightmare.

"Any attempt to deny proper legal advice to asylum seekers in the initial stages will backfire," he says.

"Human rights will be breached leading to challenges in the higher courts at great public expense."

This may sound like scaremongering - but hundreds of so-called "Section 55" cases are stacked up in the High Court.

These cases are related to an extremely controversial element of the last asylum act, not yet a year old, which withholds benefits in certain circumstances.

Family support

But undoubtedly the most controversial element is the proposal that families who fail to accept return flights will lose support - and then have their children put into care.

Rather than be separated, some families will seek to survive unsupported - children's health will suffer, and so will their development Alison Harvey, Children's Society

If children are removed from their parents, the government will certainly face accusations of breaching the right to enjoy family life, one of the fundamental elements of the Human Rights Act.

Alison Harvey of the Children's Society predicts it may contradict the powerful 1989 Children Act which requires public bodies to pursue policies promoting the best interests of the child.

"Children have rights and needs," says Ms Harvey.

"They are not tools to be used to coerce their parents into leaving the country.

"Rather than be separated, some families will seek to survive unsupported. Children's health will suffer, and so will their development.

"Social workers will be placed in an impossible ethical position. How can government propose to put these measures through parliament in parallel with legislation to protect children?"

Some MPs have already dubbed this the "starve them out" strategy, though immigration minister Beverley Hughes underlines the support comes in taking the free tickets home.

But another element of this policy will be of huge concern in communities where you can hear the accusation that asylum seekers are a strain on public services.

Councils have spent the best part of a decade arguing with Whitehall over who is responsible for asylum children.

If more children are to be taken into care, who is going to pay for it? Whitehall or the council taxpayer?