Far right activist, grifter, felon and self-styled “ citizen journalist” Tommy Robinson, real name Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, in a response to a post on X that predicted the Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood would announce that refugees will be granted only a temporary stay in the UK and deported if their home countries are later deemed safe, posted: “The Overton window has been obliterated, well done patriots”[1].
This post went out on the weekend that the Home Secretary published her proposals to reform the UK’s admittedly dysfunctional asylum and immigration system. When the proposals modelled on the model implemented in Denmark by Labour’s sister Social Democratic government were brought to the House of Commons on Monday last, Ms Mahmood in response to a question that referenced Yaxley-Lennon’s congratulatory post, said that his name will not be mentioned in the House. In her introduction of the proposals, she stressed how toxic and divisive the asylum and immigration debate had become; that there was a moral imperative to sort out the chaos and unfairness in the system and described the racist abuse she, as a woman of South Asian heritage has been subjected to. Still, one can only imagine the frisson of horror felt by many Labour MPs as well as many refugee advocacy organisations at such support coming from a figure many of whose followers would deem her eligible for deportation because of her skin pigmentation and the faith she professes.
Before entering into a discussion of the merits and demerits of the 33-page document released by Ms Mahmood entitled Restoring Order and Control, it is necessary to give a precis of the core proposals. The Home Secretary hopes that the following policies will curb bogus asylum seekers and cut the numbers of people attempting to cross the English Channel in vessels that have entered the lexicon of national threat, namely “small boats.” The document proposes:
The end of permanent protection or refugees. Currently refugees in the UK receive a five-year initial period of leave. It is proposed to make refugee status temporary and to review it.
To escalate the removal of families including children whose asylum claims have been refused.
To axe legal requirement to support destitute asylum seekers. This will be replaced by a discretionary power to offer support, as previously provided under UK law. Support will be denied to those who have the right to work, a category which entrants on work or student visas before claiming asylum. Those working illegally, who commit crimes and who do not comply with deportation, will likewise no longer receive support.
Plan to introduce a new definition of “family” to curb claims from extended families. On Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, the UK government is promising to legislate to make sure the right to family life only applies to immediate family.[2].
These proposals have this week been supplemented by proposals out to consultation by Shabana Mahmood on the eligibility of migrants for the receipt of welfare benefits. Under these, people who migrate to the UK will be eligible for benefits and social housing only when they become British citizens rather than being granted settlement on arrival in the UK as is currently the case. Those [3]who arrive by small boat could have to wait up to 30 years for residency.
The plan for “earned” settlement and doubling the wait time before eligibility for long-term status was announced in the Government’s White Paper on immigration. Arrivals will now be able to remain in the UK. Residents may qualify for resettlement through the much faster lane of a new contribution-based model, such as volunteering in the local community, having A-Level standard English and not being on benefits.[4]
More than 600,000 people and family members who arrived on health and care worker visas will be eligible for settlement after 15 years, under the new plans. If anyone on these visas, or their dependents, have claimed benefits for a year and more, thus would increase to 25 years. Visa overstayers and those arriving in small boats or lorries would have to wait for up to 30 years to settle. Doctors and nurses working in the NHS can settle after five years while high earners and entrepreneurs will be able to settle for three years.[5]
The context of this earning level and residential settlement model is the “Boriswave” of over than 1.6 million people who came to the UK after the post-Brexit wave of relaxation of visa rules. It is of course of no small irony that the man whose endorsement of Vote Leave was crucial to the Brexit vote in the 2016 referendum; whose sabotage of Theresa May’s EU Withdrawal Agreement caused such turmoil in British politics and whose negotiation of a Hard Brexit as PM has led to a fourfold drop in GDP; stands accused of facilitating “an open borders experiment” as current PM Keir Starmer has with sone degree of disingenuity put it. Was Brexit supposed to “secure our borders” though the ending of free movement of people from the EU? Did Vote Leave not promise to “take back control” of immigration policy? For the Boris visa scheme was a stark example of the deception at the heart of Brexit: the dishonest conflation of asylum, immigration and internal EU freedom of movement of labour by the charlatans the biggest act of economic and reputational damage to the UK since, in the opinion of Professor AC Grayling, 1914.
The Danish Model
Before the announcement of the Home Secretary’s immigration proposals, the imprint of the model adopted by Denmark to deal with its migration divisions was widely trailed. When Mette Frederiksen, the Social Democratic Prime Minister came to power in 2019, she announced her intention to cut the number of asylum seekers to zero. Of all the measures introduced to deter would be asylum seekers over the past decade, the impermanence of refugees’ status is often held up as the most effective. Before 2015, refugees were initially given residency permits for between five and seven years after which they automatically become permanent. But then after the deluge of a million refugees arriving in Europe fleeing war and persecution mostly from Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Eritrea the Danish government implemented stringent changes to this relaxed migration regime.[6]
Since then, temporary residence permits have only been granted for one to two years at a time. To gain permanent status refugees have to be fluent in Danish and must have been have had a full-tine-job for several years.[7]
Most controversial is the so-called law “against ghettoes” (now known as “parallel societies”) which allows the state to demolish apartment blocks in areas where at least half of the residents have a “non-western” background. In February, a senior adviser to the European Court of Justice found the law constituted direct discrimination on the basis of ethnic origin.[8] At least critics of Shabana Mahmood’s proposals can console themselves that they include no such provisions.
In terms of efficacy, the measures appear to have met their objectives. In 2014 a total of 14,792 asylum seekers arrived in Denmark, with the largest numbers of coming from Syria and Eritrea. By 2021 that figure had dropped to 2,099 and in 2024 it was 2,333. Of nearly 100,000 residence permits granted in Denmark last year just 1% were recorded as having gone to refugees. The 99% included 9,623 refugees from Ukraine who are categorised separately, migrants from other parts of the European Economic Area, family reunification and people on study permits.[9]
The political debate in Denmark over these measures have similar contours to that in Britain. Critics can point to the increase in support for the far-right DPP which advocates remigration – the mass deportation of people with immigrant backgrounds as evidence that, rather than spiking the guns of the far right, the measures have helped shift the agenda further onto the ground of the nativist nationalists. Mirroring the sentiments of her UK counterparts, Eva Singer, the director of asylum and refugee rights of the Refugee Council, said it was politicians, not the public, driving anti0-immigrant sentiment:
Before entering into a discussion of the merits and demerits of the 33-page document released by Ms Mahmood entitled Restoring Order and Control, it is necessary to give a precis of the core proposals. The Home Secretary hopes that the following policies will curb bogus asylum seekers and cut the numbers of people attempting to cross the English Channel in vessels that have entered the lexicon of national threat, namely “small boats.” The document proposes:
The end of permanent protection or refugees. Currently refugees in the UK receive a five-year initial period of leave. It is proposed to make refugee status temporary and to review it.
To escalate the removal of families including children whose asylum claims have been refused.
To axe legal requirement to support destitute asylum seekers. This will be replaced by a discretionary power to offer support, as previously provided under UK law. Support will be denied to those who have the right to work, a category which entrants on work or student visas before claiming asylum. Those working illegally, who commit crimes and who do not comply with deportation, will likewise no longer receive support.
Plan to introduce a new definition of “family” to curb claims from extended families. On Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, the UK government is promising to legislate to make sure the right to family life only applies to immediate family.[2].
These proposals have this week been supplemented by proposals out to consultation by Shabana Mahmood on the eligibility of migrants for the receipt of welfare benefits. Under these, people who migrate to the UK will be eligible for benefits and social housing only when they become British citizens rather than being granted settlement on arrival in the UK as is currently the case. Those [3]who arrive by small boat could have to wait up to 30 years for residency.
The plan for “earned” settlement and doubling the wait time before eligibility for long-term status was announced in the Government’s White Paper on immigration. Arrivals will now be able to remain in the UK. Residents may qualify for resettlement through the much faster lane of a new contribution-based model, such as volunteering in the local community, having A-Level standard English and not being on benefits.[4]
More than 600,000 people and family members who arrived on health and care worker visas will be eligible for settlement after 15 years, under the new plans. If anyone on these visas, or their dependents, have claimed benefits for a year and more, thus would increase to 25 years. Visa overstayers and those arriving in small boats or lorries would have to wait for up to 30 years to settle. Doctors and nurses working in the NHS can settle after five years while high earners and entrepreneurs will be able to settle for three years.[5]
The context of this earning level and residential settlement model is the “Boriswave” of over than 1.6 million people who came to the UK after the post-Brexit wave of relaxation of visa rules. It is of course of no small irony that the man whose endorsement of Vote Leave was crucial to the Brexit vote in the 2016 referendum; whose sabotage of Theresa May’s EU Withdrawal Agreement caused such turmoil in British politics and whose negotiation of a Hard Brexit as PM has led to a fourfold drop in GDP; stands accused of facilitating “an open borders experiment” as current PM Keir Starmer has with sone degree of disingenuity put it. Was Brexit supposed to “secure our borders” though the ending of free movement of people from the EU? Did Vote Leave not promise to “take back control” of immigration policy? For the Boris visa scheme was a stark example of the deception at the heart of Brexit: the dishonest conflation of asylum, immigration and internal EU freedom of movement of labour by the charlatans the biggest act of economic and reputational damage to the UK since, in the opinion of Professor AC Grayling, 1914.
The Danish Model
Before the announcement of the Home Secretary’s immigration proposals, the imprint of the model adopted by Denmark to deal with its migration divisions was widely trailed. When Mette Frederiksen, the Social Democratic Prime Minister came to power in 2019, she announced her intention to cut the number of asylum seekers to zero. Of all the measures introduced to deter would be asylum seekers over the past decade, the impermanence of refugees’ status is often held up as the most effective. Before 2015, refugees were initially given residency permits for between five and seven years after which they automatically become permanent. But then after the deluge of a million refugees arriving in Europe fleeing war and persecution mostly from Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Eritrea the Danish government implemented stringent changes to this relaxed migration regime.[6]
Since then, temporary residence permits have only been granted for one to two years at a time. To gain permanent status refugees have to be fluent in Danish and must have been have had a full-tine-job for several years.[7]
Most controversial is the so-called law “against ghettoes” (now known as “parallel societies”) which allows the state to demolish apartment blocks in areas where at least half of the residents have a “non-western” background. In February, a senior adviser to the European Court of Justice found the law constituted direct discrimination on the basis of ethnic origin.[8] At least critics of Shabana Mahmood’s proposals can console themselves that they include no such provisions.
In terms of efficacy, the measures appear to have met their objectives. In 2014 a total of 14,792 asylum seekers arrived in Denmark, with the largest numbers of coming from Syria and Eritrea. By 2021 that figure had dropped to 2,099 and in 2024 it was 2,333. Of nearly 100,000 residence permits granted in Denmark last year just 1% were recorded as having gone to refugees. The 99% included 9,623 refugees from Ukraine who are categorised separately, migrants from other parts of the European Economic Area, family reunification and people on study permits.[9]
The political debate in Denmark over these measures have similar contours to that in Britain. Critics can point to the increase in support for the far-right DPP which advocates remigration – the mass deportation of people with immigrant backgrounds as evidence that, rather than spiking the guns of the far right, the measures have helped shift the agenda further onto the ground of the nativist nationalists. Mirroring the sentiments of her UK counterparts, Eva Singer, the director of asylum and refugee rights of the Refugee Council, said it was politicians, not the public, driving anti0-immigrant sentiment:
The politicians say they follow the popular mood, but maybe the popular mood is coming from what the politicians are saying which is not based on fact.
Michala Clante Bendixen, who runs Refugees Welcome Denmark and the country coordinator for the European Commission’s migrant integration hub, claims that the temporary nature of refugee status is “poison for integration” because it did not give people to establish their lives in a new country.”[10]
Love's Labour Lost (Again)
Most fundamentally, Danish critics say that the adoption of such populist right-wing ideas as zero asylum admissions into nominally centre-left; politics has corroded some of the ideals that Denmark (and indeed all Scandinavian nations) are renowned for: progressive internationalism, welcoming of outsiders and a liberal social dispensation. Much of the angst felt by potential Labour opponents of the Home Secretary’s proposals is of a similar character; that they are not “who we are” and that Labour has camping out on Reform UK ideological territory in the hope of recovering defecting Labour voters to Reform who are not going to return. Instead, the asylum proposals will alienate Labour from what has become his liberal middle-class, professional base.
By contrast, in her combative address to the Commons Shabana Mahmood defended them as being rooted in Labour values of fairness and contribution. For her it is “a moral mission” for “a country without secure borders is a less safe country for those who look like me” and to take the UK back from the “dark forces stirring up anger in this country, and seeking to turn that anger into hate.”[11]
At the moment two dozen Labour MPs have raised concerns about families being forcibly removed from the UK if they refuse cash incentives to return to their countries. Wes Streeting, the Health Secretary, has admitted to not being “comfortable” with forcible deportations while agreeing that “it is the right thing to do for the country.” When Mahmood in her address to the Commons Monday before last, cited “around 700 Albanian families living in taxpayer-funded accommodation having failed their asylum claims – despite an existing returns agreement, and Albania being a signatory to the European Convention on Human Rights” she drew the accusations of “demagoguery” and of a poor echo of the “rhetoric of the populist far right” by Albania’s prime minister, Edi Rama.[12]
The suggestion that, because of its presence in the Danish model, that in some cases asylum seekers surrender jewellery or other valuables to cover costs prompted accusations of economic and political illiteracy by one Labour MP. Others said that “the policy of chasing Reform will not build confidence but fear” and that any Labour MP facing the probable danger of losing their seats to the Liberal Democrats or Greens would in all probability say no to the proposals.[13] However it should be emphasised that confiscation of jewellery and other personal effects do not form part of the Home Secretary’s current proposals.
The wider context of Labour discontent at the asylum proposals is the current dysfunction at the top of the Labour government. Along with the anonymous briefings against alleged leadership coup plotter Wes Streeting and the mixed messages being conveyed about this week’s Autumn budget, this latest hard-line immigration crackdown is a totemic illustration of the accurate perception of an out-of-control and chaotic No.10 under the unpopular chief of staff Morgan McSweeney.[14] (Winning campaigner of legend he is; people manager he certainly is not.)
Mahmood’s plan seems to illustrate the crisis at the heart of Labour. As a result of the toxic staffing relationships within 10 Downing Street that is the legacy of the dismissal of Sue Gray as Chief of Staff due to hostile briefing, the people inside No.10 do not trust the cabinet, Labour backbenchers, or even one another. They have alienated almost every base of power upon which a government relies. Much of their media briefing seems designed to alienate the liberal urban voters who are Labour’s core vote in the 21st century.[15] If not on the scale of the chaos and malevolent incompetence of the Boris Johnson administration laid bare in the Hallett Report on the decision taking during and management of the Covid pandemic, then the state of No 10 appears to be past the point of return with a leadership challenge to Keir Starmer appearing to be a matter of “when” rather than “if”.
In this maelstrom of Labour Party politics with prominent figures such as Andy Burnham and Wes Streeting on barely disguised manoeuvres, Shabana Mahmood’s immigration plans are likely her pitch for the top job given her well attested ambition and her oft told backstory of growing up as a woman of Pakistani Muslim heritage in Birmingham where a baseball bat had to kept on the premises of the family business as a deterrent to criminals and where she experienced racism. While there were “no dissenting voices” in the Cabinet meeting of 18th November when she restated the case for the biggest changes to the asylum system since the Second World War, Mahmood may also have recognised that some Labour politicians privately worried with the plans were in attendance and that, should the plans unravel, cabinet colleagues will turn on them in order to stake out positions in any future leadership contest.[16]
For it is no secret that Mahmood was Morgan McSweeney’s pick for Home Secretary and that the main aim of the Cabinet reshuffle in September in which she was appointed was to get in someone prepared to do “whatever it takes” to reduce small-boat crossings. The primary and all-consuming motivation behind the asylum proposals for No.10 is to ensure that immigration is not top of the agenda at the next general election. The trouble for the Labour high command is that, as hinted by Wes Streeting’s “discomfort” with the proposals, is that they risk the exposure of a split between two figures within the Labour “Right” : Streeting from the Blairite, pro-business, socially liberal traditions of the Progress think-tank and McSweeney of the Blue Labour, Labour First tradition that combines state interventionism with social conservatism. Mahmood would appear to lean towards the latter ideological orientation. The new asylum and immigration policy represents an internal victory for the McSweeney brand of politics[17] – his valorisation of the “hero voters” of the “Red Well” and all that but at what cost; the alienation of scores of Labour backbenchers in marginal seats and members and the possible loss of millions of Labour voters to the Liberal Democrats, Greens or even the Dave Sparts of Your Party if it can decide between its People’s Liberation Front of Judea or Judean People’s Liberation Front version. All of which could come to pass even if immigration is the salient issue at the next General Election.
There is consensus that the UK immigration system (indeed that of any nation) needs to be controlled and that borders need to be secure. However, as the Labour MP Sarah Owen, says, “a strong immigration system doesn’t need to be a cruel one.” Instead of enforcing these new policies, the UK should work with other European countries and bodies such as the UN High Commissioner for Refugees to ensure asylum seekers are fairly distributed between safe countries, and that the right to seek sanctuary for those fleeing persecution is not eroded beyond recognition.[18]
The headline aspects of Labour’s asylum removals do not add up to really successive outcomes on their own merits. Removals have increased, with 11,231 asylum-related returns in the year to November 2025. But many of these removals were to countries regarded as safe, like Brazil and India, which have historically low asylum grant rates. Mahmood’s plan to get tough on Angola, Namibia and the Democratic Republic of Congo by refusing to grant visas to their nationals if they don’t take back foreign national offenders will have a pin-prick impact on overall immigration figures despite the huge difference made to the lives of those involved since only a few thousand visas were granted to migrants from all three countries combined, according to Home Office data.[19]
Meanwhile, migrants and refugees who currently work in the UK; have families and are progressively integrating into British society face the possibility of enforced return to their countries of origin if deemed “safe” should they lose Right to Remain status; regardless of the actually existing conditions on the ground.
Migration As A Barometer For Breakdown Of Societal Trust
And yet there are legitimate grounds for dissatisfaction and anger with the current asylum and immigration system. The use of hotel accommodation to house asylum seekers which has generated such ire is the result of the build-up of asylum claims which the previous government virtually ceased tackling and of its profitability for the private companies entrusted with housing migrants. That latter factor explains why so many asylum seekers are placed in some of the poorest areas of the country and in houses of multiple occupation (HMO).[20] Poor communication from and inefficient working practice within the Home Office continues to bedevil policy and implantation as much as it did when New Labour Home Secretary John Reid in the 2000s declared it “not fit for purpose”.
However, what shapes hostility towards migrants is not the presence of migrants but perception of trust and cohesion. In this regard, Kenan Malik cites the work of sociologists Vera Massing and Bence Sagvari who have been tracking long-term trends in public attitudes in immigration using the European Social Survey (ESS), a biannual study conducted since 2002.This tool allows for comparison between migration policies and different attitudes to social institutions.[21]
They find that:
Love's Labour Lost (Again)
Most fundamentally, Danish critics say that the adoption of such populist right-wing ideas as zero asylum admissions into nominally centre-left; politics has corroded some of the ideals that Denmark (and indeed all Scandinavian nations) are renowned for: progressive internationalism, welcoming of outsiders and a liberal social dispensation. Much of the angst felt by potential Labour opponents of the Home Secretary’s proposals is of a similar character; that they are not “who we are” and that Labour has camping out on Reform UK ideological territory in the hope of recovering defecting Labour voters to Reform who are not going to return. Instead, the asylum proposals will alienate Labour from what has become his liberal middle-class, professional base.
By contrast, in her combative address to the Commons Shabana Mahmood defended them as being rooted in Labour values of fairness and contribution. For her it is “a moral mission” for “a country without secure borders is a less safe country for those who look like me” and to take the UK back from the “dark forces stirring up anger in this country, and seeking to turn that anger into hate.”[11]
At the moment two dozen Labour MPs have raised concerns about families being forcibly removed from the UK if they refuse cash incentives to return to their countries. Wes Streeting, the Health Secretary, has admitted to not being “comfortable” with forcible deportations while agreeing that “it is the right thing to do for the country.” When Mahmood in her address to the Commons Monday before last, cited “around 700 Albanian families living in taxpayer-funded accommodation having failed their asylum claims – despite an existing returns agreement, and Albania being a signatory to the European Convention on Human Rights” she drew the accusations of “demagoguery” and of a poor echo of the “rhetoric of the populist far right” by Albania’s prime minister, Edi Rama.[12]
The suggestion that, because of its presence in the Danish model, that in some cases asylum seekers surrender jewellery or other valuables to cover costs prompted accusations of economic and political illiteracy by one Labour MP. Others said that “the policy of chasing Reform will not build confidence but fear” and that any Labour MP facing the probable danger of losing their seats to the Liberal Democrats or Greens would in all probability say no to the proposals.[13] However it should be emphasised that confiscation of jewellery and other personal effects do not form part of the Home Secretary’s current proposals.
The wider context of Labour discontent at the asylum proposals is the current dysfunction at the top of the Labour government. Along with the anonymous briefings against alleged leadership coup plotter Wes Streeting and the mixed messages being conveyed about this week’s Autumn budget, this latest hard-line immigration crackdown is a totemic illustration of the accurate perception of an out-of-control and chaotic No.10 under the unpopular chief of staff Morgan McSweeney.[14] (Winning campaigner of legend he is; people manager he certainly is not.)
Mahmood’s plan seems to illustrate the crisis at the heart of Labour. As a result of the toxic staffing relationships within 10 Downing Street that is the legacy of the dismissal of Sue Gray as Chief of Staff due to hostile briefing, the people inside No.10 do not trust the cabinet, Labour backbenchers, or even one another. They have alienated almost every base of power upon which a government relies. Much of their media briefing seems designed to alienate the liberal urban voters who are Labour’s core vote in the 21st century.[15] If not on the scale of the chaos and malevolent incompetence of the Boris Johnson administration laid bare in the Hallett Report on the decision taking during and management of the Covid pandemic, then the state of No 10 appears to be past the point of return with a leadership challenge to Keir Starmer appearing to be a matter of “when” rather than “if”.
In this maelstrom of Labour Party politics with prominent figures such as Andy Burnham and Wes Streeting on barely disguised manoeuvres, Shabana Mahmood’s immigration plans are likely her pitch for the top job given her well attested ambition and her oft told backstory of growing up as a woman of Pakistani Muslim heritage in Birmingham where a baseball bat had to kept on the premises of the family business as a deterrent to criminals and where she experienced racism. While there were “no dissenting voices” in the Cabinet meeting of 18th November when she restated the case for the biggest changes to the asylum system since the Second World War, Mahmood may also have recognised that some Labour politicians privately worried with the plans were in attendance and that, should the plans unravel, cabinet colleagues will turn on them in order to stake out positions in any future leadership contest.[16]
For it is no secret that Mahmood was Morgan McSweeney’s pick for Home Secretary and that the main aim of the Cabinet reshuffle in September in which she was appointed was to get in someone prepared to do “whatever it takes” to reduce small-boat crossings. The primary and all-consuming motivation behind the asylum proposals for No.10 is to ensure that immigration is not top of the agenda at the next general election. The trouble for the Labour high command is that, as hinted by Wes Streeting’s “discomfort” with the proposals, is that they risk the exposure of a split between two figures within the Labour “Right” : Streeting from the Blairite, pro-business, socially liberal traditions of the Progress think-tank and McSweeney of the Blue Labour, Labour First tradition that combines state interventionism with social conservatism. Mahmood would appear to lean towards the latter ideological orientation. The new asylum and immigration policy represents an internal victory for the McSweeney brand of politics[17] – his valorisation of the “hero voters” of the “Red Well” and all that but at what cost; the alienation of scores of Labour backbenchers in marginal seats and members and the possible loss of millions of Labour voters to the Liberal Democrats, Greens or even the Dave Sparts of Your Party if it can decide between its People’s Liberation Front of Judea or Judean People’s Liberation Front version. All of which could come to pass even if immigration is the salient issue at the next General Election.
There is consensus that the UK immigration system (indeed that of any nation) needs to be controlled and that borders need to be secure. However, as the Labour MP Sarah Owen, says, “a strong immigration system doesn’t need to be a cruel one.” Instead of enforcing these new policies, the UK should work with other European countries and bodies such as the UN High Commissioner for Refugees to ensure asylum seekers are fairly distributed between safe countries, and that the right to seek sanctuary for those fleeing persecution is not eroded beyond recognition.[18]
The headline aspects of Labour’s asylum removals do not add up to really successive outcomes on their own merits. Removals have increased, with 11,231 asylum-related returns in the year to November 2025. But many of these removals were to countries regarded as safe, like Brazil and India, which have historically low asylum grant rates. Mahmood’s plan to get tough on Angola, Namibia and the Democratic Republic of Congo by refusing to grant visas to their nationals if they don’t take back foreign national offenders will have a pin-prick impact on overall immigration figures despite the huge difference made to the lives of those involved since only a few thousand visas were granted to migrants from all three countries combined, according to Home Office data.[19]
Meanwhile, migrants and refugees who currently work in the UK; have families and are progressively integrating into British society face the possibility of enforced return to their countries of origin if deemed “safe” should they lose Right to Remain status; regardless of the actually existing conditions on the ground.
Migration As A Barometer For Breakdown Of Societal Trust
And yet there are legitimate grounds for dissatisfaction and anger with the current asylum and immigration system. The use of hotel accommodation to house asylum seekers which has generated such ire is the result of the build-up of asylum claims which the previous government virtually ceased tackling and of its profitability for the private companies entrusted with housing migrants. That latter factor explains why so many asylum seekers are placed in some of the poorest areas of the country and in houses of multiple occupation (HMO).[20] Poor communication from and inefficient working practice within the Home Office continues to bedevil policy and implantation as much as it did when New Labour Home Secretary John Reid in the 2000s declared it “not fit for purpose”.
However, what shapes hostility towards migrants is not the presence of migrants but perception of trust and cohesion. In this regard, Kenan Malik cites the work of sociologists Vera Massing and Bence Sagvari who have been tracking long-term trends in public attitudes in immigration using the European Social Survey (ESS), a biannual study conducted since 2002.This tool allows for comparison between migration policies and different attitudes to social institutions.[21]
They find that:
People in countries … with a high level of general and institutional trust, low level of corruption, a stable, well-performing economy and high level of social cohesion and inclusion … fear migration the least.
They note, whereas:
people are fearful in countries where the basic tissue of society is damaged , where people don’t trust each other or the state’s institutions, and where social cohesion and solidarity are weak.
Since “countries with a negligible share of migrants are the most hostile” then Messing and Sagvari conclude are an “expression of people ‘s lack of safety and security, and a symptom of deep-rooted problems in the society.” [22]
Thus, immigration has become symbolic of a seemingly insecure, precarious and out of control world. It has become a lightening rod for the discontents of globalisation, social atomisation, uncertainty in the worlds of work and business, the degradation of public services and loss (or perceived loss) of identity at the level of the personal, social and national. The list can go on. Migration anxieties can speak to one of the most elemental fears; that of change. In the UK, they reflect a plethora of indicators of lack of trust and belief in the capacity of the state to deliver social and economic change and in politics to address people’s grievances. Shabana Mahmood’s asylum proposals will not ameliorate such popular discontent. For those of us alarmed by the draconian tenor of the core proposals it is to be hoped that they will at least be modified in the course of their parliamentary passage if not withdrawn altogether as a consequence of a change at the top.
Thus, immigration has become symbolic of a seemingly insecure, precarious and out of control world. It has become a lightening rod for the discontents of globalisation, social atomisation, uncertainty in the worlds of work and business, the degradation of public services and loss (or perceived loss) of identity at the level of the personal, social and national. The list can go on. Migration anxieties can speak to one of the most elemental fears; that of change. In the UK, they reflect a plethora of indicators of lack of trust and belief in the capacity of the state to deliver social and economic change and in politics to address people’s grievances. Shabana Mahmood’s asylum proposals will not ameliorate such popular discontent. For those of us alarmed by the draconian tenor of the core proposals it is to be hoped that they will at least be modified in the course of their parliamentary passage if not withdrawn altogether as a consequence of a change at the top.
References
[1] Diane Taylor Labour’s asylum plans are cruel, clumsy, and unachievable. The Guardian Journal. 18th November 2025 pp.1-2
[2] Guardian, 18th November 2025
[3] Rajeev Syal Migrants must be UK citizens before getting benefits, says Mahmood. The Guardian, 20th November 2025 p.16
[4] Ibid
[5] Ibid
[6] Miranda Bryant, The Danish system. What are the policies the UK is hoping to emulate? The Guardian. 16 November 2025 p.9l
[7]Ibid
[8] Ibid
[9] Ibid
[10] Ibid
[11] Shabana Mahmood Dark forces are stirring up anger in the UK. My asylum reforms are our chance to stop them The Observer 16th November 2025.
[12] Rajeev Syal and Rowenna Mason Migration. Streeting says he is not ‘comfortable’ on removals The Guadian 20th November 2025.
[13] Peter Walker and Jamie Grierson Immigration and asylum. Mahmood’s proposals branded ‘illiterate’ by backbenchers The Guardian 15th November 2025.
[14] James Ball Inside Starmer’s Shambles The New World Issue 460 20th November 2025 pp.14-15
[15] Ibid
[16] Ailbhe Rera, Morgan McSweeney is pinning everything on Shabana Mahmood’s immigration plan. The New Statesman 21-27 November 2025 p.11
[17] Ibid
[18] Taylor, op cit.
[19] Ibid
[20] Kenan Malik, The real crisis Britain faces isn’t immigration but a profound breakdown in trust. The Observer 23 November 2025
[21] Ibid
[22] Ibid
[1] Diane Taylor Labour’s asylum plans are cruel, clumsy, and unachievable. The Guardian Journal. 18th November 2025 pp.1-2
[2] Guardian, 18th November 2025
[3] Rajeev Syal Migrants must be UK citizens before getting benefits, says Mahmood. The Guardian, 20th November 2025 p.16
[4] Ibid
[5] Ibid
[6] Miranda Bryant, The Danish system. What are the policies the UK is hoping to emulate? The Guardian. 16 November 2025 p.9l
[7]Ibid
[8] Ibid
[9] Ibid
[10] Ibid
[11] Shabana Mahmood Dark forces are stirring up anger in the UK. My asylum reforms are our chance to stop them The Observer 16th November 2025.
[12] Rajeev Syal and Rowenna Mason Migration. Streeting says he is not ‘comfortable’ on removals The Guadian 20th November 2025.
[13] Peter Walker and Jamie Grierson Immigration and asylum. Mahmood’s proposals branded ‘illiterate’ by backbenchers The Guardian 15th November 2025.
[14] James Ball Inside Starmer’s Shambles The New World Issue 460 20th November 2025 pp.14-15
[15] Ibid
[16] Ailbhe Rera, Morgan McSweeney is pinning everything on Shabana Mahmood’s immigration plan. The New Statesman 21-27 November 2025 p.11
[17] Ibid
[18] Taylor, op cit.
[19] Ibid
[20] Kenan Malik, The real crisis Britain faces isn’t immigration but a profound breakdown in trust. The Observer 23 November 2025
[21] Ibid
[22] Ibid
⏩Barry Gilheany is a freelance writer, qualified counsellor and aspirant artist resident in Colchester where he took his PhD at the University of Essex. He is also a lifelong Leeds United supporter.
A typical deep dive piece into a very topical matter.
ReplyDeleteImmigration is deeply divisive but because something is divisive is not a reason for not pursuing it. The rights of women was a divisive issue yet the referendum secured abortion rights for them. Should it not have been pursued given its divisive nature? That would mean the conservative lobby would halt any change by making something divisive.
the asylum proposals will alienate Labour from what has become his liberal middle-class, professional base.
But is this not what is wrong with Labour? Starmer is at heart a Tory who relies on the professional class to push through a Tory agenda.
Is Labour helping to create the Gramscian common sense or is it following that common sense?
The resurgence of far right sentiment is fuelled by immigration and the right's exploitation of it. The Left rather than combat it seem immersed in woke virtue signalling.