Immigration and asylum

Key priorities for the new government The new Labour government has a huge opportunity but also a daunting task to fix our immigration system. Keir Starmer has declared his intention to lead a mission-driven government, but restoring public faith in a well-managed immigration system may be the unwritten mission that ultimately defines his success or failure in the next general election. Our immigration and asylum systems are fundamentally broken, and public trust in them is at an all-time low, with increasingly extreme narratives of exclusion gaining in appeal. Incremental change and tinkering around the edges will not do. "Incremental change and tinkering around the edges will not do" Labour must show bravery and ambition to overhaul failed systems for good, moving from a labyrinthine approach designed primarily for hostility, to streamlined processes grounded in the evidence of what works. The government has already taken swift and decisive action to overturn unworkable gimmicks and legislative vandalism perpetrated by its predecessors. By scrapping the failed Rwanda plan, and repealing Suella Braverman's legislation that prevented the processing of asylum claims, Labour has restored the bare bones of an asylum system, which is a huge step forward. These measures were immediately necessary and have rightly been carried out without delay. Tough approaches to smugglers have formed a key flank in the government's response to irregular migration so far. These may have some modest impact over the longer term, if they are intelligence led and subject to safeguards to avoid migrants themselves being wrongfully charged as smugglers.1 But if Labour continues with the failed enforcement-led approach of previous governments and does not address the root causes that drive smuggling by offering real solutions for asylum seekers, it will fall into the same trap of raised expectations and inevitable disappointment. The longer-term work of addressing the backlog of claims and moving to a more humane and efficient asylum system is still to be done. The system must be built on an approach that recognises the fact that most asylum seekers will be recognised as refugees with the right to stay.2 The hostility that runs through the asylum system – intended as a failed deterrence measure – must therefore be scrapped. Since most people claiming asylum will eventually rebuild their lives in this country for the long term, it is sensible to support their integration and independence as quickly as possible. A prolonged ordeal in a hostile asylum system hampers long-term wellbeing and refugees' ability to support themselves, benefitting no one.3 "The hostility that runs through the asylum system – intended as a failed deterrence measure – must therefore be scrapped" Accommodation in the asylum system should be removed from the purview of private contractors and instead delivered through planned cooperation between the Home Office and local authorities. Asylum seekers should not be isolated far away from communities that might support them, languishing in institutional accommodation. Nor should they be denied the right to work if the decision on their claim takes longer than a few months.4 The ban on asylum seekers working has a detrimental long-term impact on their wellbeing, and it has been estimated that lifting the ban and allowing them to work, as other European countries do, could represent a net gain to government finances of nearly £100 million a year.5 Institutional accommodation in ex-military barracks has become a site of national shame. Poor living conditions, a lack of privacy, distressing treatment and isolation from access to services have created and exacerbated mental health crises among residents.6 Even without counting the long-term costs associated with the health impacts of this policy, the barracks do not represent value for money, costing £46 million more to run per year even than hotel accommodation.7 Arguably the most important thing the government can do regarding asylum in general and the 'small boats' in particular is to keep the matter in perspective. At their peak, small boats crossings have accounted for 38,000 people – just 5.5% of overall immigration numbers, which were 685,000 net in 2023.8 While it is vital to address the chaos that results from people having no safe and orderly way to access the UK for the purpose of seeking asylum, the government must avoid the mistake of defining itself by this issue. Preventing irregular migration will likely never be achieved in full, but a cool-headed and evidence-based approach could significantly reduce it. Such an approach must prioritise international cooperation to share responsibility, rather than shirk it. It must also focus on providing asylum seekers with safe, regulated means to travel, in order to prevent the huge loss of life in our seas. "a cool-headed and evidence-based approach could significantly reduce irregular migration" Far more numerous than asylum seekers are migrants coming to the UK under the (so-called) points-based system introduced after Brexit. Among the options considered when designing the post-Brexit system was a 'true' points-based system like the one that is operated in Australia. In this system, anyone who accrues a certain number of points for their skills, qualifications, English language proficiency and connections to the country can apply.9 However, this option was rejected because it was thought it would likely result in high net migration. Instead, the chosen alternative was a system of employer sponsorship, where points are essentially irrelevant since a confirmed job offer from a sponsoring employer is required. The salary threshold for jobs qualifying for sponsor visas was set high enough to exclude so-called 'low-skilled' work such as care, farming and construction. To address the restrictiveness of its own immigration system, the last government introduced a series of exceptions and bespoke schemes. The 'shortage occupation list' exempted jobs with labour shortages from minimum salary requirements, and schemes were introduced for farm workers, social care workers and others. As a result, the system, designed for rigidity to limit numbers, failed to do so. However, migrants coming through this system still face complexity and restrictions intended to limit immigration. These restrictions – on changing employer, short periods of leave, high visa processing fees and the 'no recourse to public funds' condition – combine to create a massive power imbalance between migrant workers and their employers, fuelling systemic vulnerability to exploitation and abuse. The results of these systemic drivers of exploitation have been particularly well documented among migrant care workers,10 domestic workers11 and farm workers,12 but the risk of exploitation pervades the entire work-sponsorship system as the same restrictions are baked in throughout.13 We should not rely on 'bespoke' and ad-hoc visa schemes for different groups of workers. This chaotic approach must be streamlined to ensure the rights of all workers are aligned. "This chaotic approach must be streamlined to ensure the rights of all workers are aligned" The new government has made promoting workers' rights a priority with its 'new deal for workers', and migrant workers must be included in this positive agenda. Initial encouraging steps include simplifying the labour standards enforcement system by introducing a single enforcement body to regulate labour standards and practices. This is welcome but must be designed in line with expert advice to ensure it allows all workers to bring complaints and seek redress from exploitation.14 Crucially, this body must be decoupled from immigration enforcement, ending data sharing with the Home Office. What is required, though, is a complete overhaul of the points-based system with a focus on workers' rights to ensure a fair and level playing field for all workers in the UK. British communities are divided and tense. Race relations feel at their lowest and weakest point in a decade following racist riots and disturbances on our streets in August. The normalisation of far-right narratives of hatred towards migrants, particularly those of Muslim faith, is evident with the entry of Nigel Farage and other Reform politicians into the House of Commons. There is an urgent need to address how systemic failings in our immigration system have contributed to this lack of community cohesion and integration. "British communities are divided and tense" Since the 2010s, the immigration system has operated under the logic that reducing the rights of immigrants, not only in the workplace, but also in terms of settlement and access to services, would encourage them to leave, thereby reducing overall immigration numbers. This is the fundamental logic of Theresa May's infamous 'hostile environment' policy, aimed at lowering immigration figures down to the tens of thousands, but which instead resulted in the Windrush scandal. Despite this scandal and clear evidence that these policies exacerbate racial discrimination, none of the hostile environment measures have been repealed.15 The hostile approach has failed. While there are ways for the new government to reduce immigration numbers, this should not be achieved through relentlessly stripping migrants of their rights. Regardless of how many people are allowed to enter the country, those who are here should be treated with decency and equality. The legacy of May's hostile policies has resulted not in lowering net immigration to the UK, but in high numbers of immigrants with very limited rights. This has led to widespread mistreatment, exploitation and increased poverty16 and has fuelled discrimination and racism in the UK.17 Long-term 'temporary' status creates precarity in our communities, preventing effective integration and limiting access to citizenship and inclusion, especially for minority ethnic groups. "The hostile approach has failed" To reform the points-based immigration system, Labour must scrap differing lengths of leave for various categories of worker, and end the use of the prolonged 10-year route to settlement that adversely affects poorer and racialised migrants the most.18 Simplifying and reducing the cost, complexity and delays of pathways to settlement would help prevent people from losing their status and becoming undocumented.19 It would also reduce the instability affecting migrants forced to maintain a 'temporary' status, which excludes them from accessing state support and from planning their future. This precarity can lead to lost work and development opportunities, and have a negative impact on mental health.20 A standard five-year route to permanent settlement for all migrants would be a sensible, streamlined approach that enjoys strong support from the public.21 Finally, immigration policy must be family friendly and promote citizenship. According to the Migrant Integration Policy Index, the UK currently ranks second to last for the family-friendliness of its immigration policy.22 Barriers keeping families apart include extortionate visa fees, unreasonable minimum income requirements for spouse and family visas, and an almost total ban on adult-dependent relative pathways, meaning it is impossible even for long-term settled migrants who would be able to financially support their families to bring elderly relatives to join them in the UK. Other major factors hampering integration are prohibitively complex systems and high fees for registering children as British citizens. This impacts heavily on families whose children are born or have lived most of their lives in the UK, especially as they age out of the school system and wish to pursue further qualifications.23 The public already believe that anybody born in the UK who has never lived elsewhere is automatically entitled to British citizenship,24 but this has not been the case since the 1980s. The new government can immediately support the aspirations of many young people who are British in all but paperwork by reintroducing the right to birthright citizenship. This would signal a powerful message of inclusion and celebrate the fact that when people come to build their lives in this country, they put down roots and become full members of our communities. It would be a powerful statement against the growing narrative of othering that portrays even the children of migrants as foreigners in their own homes. The conversation in the UK about immigration has become toxic. The previous government not only failed to address this, but – in many cases – actively fanned the flames of division, intra-community hatred and the demonisation of people on the move. The results of this disastrous normalisation of extreme anti-migrant rhetoric have been seen in a number of recent disturbances and the growth in power and influence of far-right street movements. Labour must recognise that anti-migrant narratives cannot be controlled. It is not possible to limit hostility towards foreigners and ethnic and religious minorities to a 'sensible' level. When mainstream politicians legitimise the idea that migration is bad or must be reduced at all costs, they cede the discussion to the far right.25 "The conversation in the UK about immigration has become toxic" Better management of immigration through the policy changes outlined above, not least a proportionate and humane approach to small-boats arrivals, will go some way to improving public confidence in our systems. However, if Labour fails to change the narrative on immigration to one that is more positive, it will not be enough to stem the growth of far-right anti-migrant politics over the course of this parliament. The next general election may well see Reform UK, a more radicalised anti-migrant Conservative party, or a combination of both, make significant gains if Labour offers only a moderated version of the same message instead of building real alternatives to the narrative. Labour has already faltered to some extent. By accepting that immigration simply must be reduced without clearly defending its benefits during the election campaign, it has already legitimised anti-migrant narratives and built expectations for action against migrants and minorities. However, net immigration is forecast to fall steeply in the next annual statistics,26 providing a window in which the government can claim this as a victory and pivot directly to a more positive new narrative. "Labour has already faltered to some extent" One major issue driving popular opposition to immigration is the perception that numbers are ever increasing while public services and infrastructure lag behind. Nigel Farage has adopted as his most potent argument that the UK is experiencing a "population explosion",27 which bleeds into more dangerous extreme right-wing narratives of a "great replacement" of the native population by "foreign invaders".28 Labour must counter this storyline quickly. To do so, it must be more ambitious than its current plan for a new body, Skills England, intended to review training and immigration needs. Instead, a true, long-term population strategy is needed, which looks at our demographic needs as a country with a low birth rate and rapidly ageing population.29 Our skills, infrastructure, investment and immigration needs can then be evaluated within a comprehensive population strategy. Immigration statistics should be presented within this context, clarifying why an increasing population – especially of young people able to work – is beneficial for the UK. This must go hand in hand with ending all dehumanising language about immigrants, particularly asylum seekers. Providing more opportunities for people who have experienced these journeys to speak publicly and to MPs will remind decision-makers that they are dealing with human lives, and that the consequences of maligning those are unacceptable. Zoe Gardner is an independent researcher, campaigner and commentator on immigration and asylum policy. She has worked in policy, advocacy and communications for a number of organisations in the UK and Europe, including the European Network on Statelessness, the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants, Asylum Aid, the Race Equality Foundation and the European Council on Refugees and Exiles. She campaigns for better, evidence-based and humane immigration policies to protect the human rights of all people on the move and in the best interests of British society.