Immigration and asylum have been dominant political issues since the general election last year. These issues have been amplified by Reform UK, the Conservatives and right-wing media outlets. However, Labour is in power, not the traditional right, not that you can recognise anything progressive about many of this Labour government’s policies, especially towards immigrants and asylum seekers.
Labour’s current political approach is completely contradictory. You cannot be in favour of economic growth and strong public services on the one hand and anti-immigration on the other hand. Where would our National Health Service, our social care sector, our education system or many of our small businesses be without the invaluable contribution of people from overseas? The answer is that they would be nowhere. They would not be able to function without the work and expertise of immigrants and would surely face collapse without them. Every immigrant that works and pays taxes is actively contributing to this country and making it richer, both economically and culturally. Anti-immigrant politics actively undermines both our economy and our public services.
As bad and counterproductive as Labour’s approach to immigration is, it is its approach to asylum seekers and refugees that is especially disgraceful. The Home Secretary, Shabana Mahmood, has outlined a series of hardline reforms to the asylum system. Amongst these reforms, refugees would have to be resident in the UK for 20 years before they could apply for permanent residence or indefinite leave to remain. During this period, asylum seekers would face continual review of their status every 30 months with the potential of being deported back to their home country at any moment if the government deems that country safe to return to.
It was also reported that asylum seekers could face the grotesque prospect of having their jewellery and other precious valuables taken from them to cover their processing costs. Although, ministers have since clarified that only valuable assets could be taken not personal belongings. A small improvement to a terrible policy.
Internationally, Labour’s reforms to immigration and asylum may have significant diplomatic consequences. As part of these reforms, the government is threatening “Trump-style visa bans” against Angola, Namibia and the Democratic Republic of Congo. A model of visa bans that could be extended to many other countries and thus undermine Britain’s diplomatic standing in the world.
A final aspect that should concern liberals is Labour’s insistence on overhauling Britain’s approach to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Labour plan to change how British judges interpret the ECHR in an attempt to prevent asylum seekers from using the right to a family life to avoid deportation. This would set a very dangerous illiberal precedent. The ECHR does not just protect the political, democratic and legal rights of immigrants and asylum seekers, but the rights of all British citizens. It is a crucial pillar and safeguard of our liberal democracy. It also acts as a common democratic safeguard across the entire European continent, a safeguard that was forged in the aftermath of World War II. If Britain were to leave the ECHR, we would be one of only three European nations to be outside the Convention, the other two being the fascistic regimes of Russia and Belarus.
Britain as a nation is famed for the value of fair play. But there is nothing fair, kind or compassionate about Labour’s reforms to immigration and asylum. Their reforms are unfair, cruel and inhumane. They will do absolutely nothing to assist integration. How could a refugee integrate if they have the sword of possible deportation hanging over them for twenty years before they can get permanent residence? At any moment in that twenty-year period, they could face sudden deportation, if the government deems their home country safe or if the government moves the asylum goalposts in a more draconian direction. Families, livelihoods and communities could be upended in an instant. It is incredibly cruel to leave some of the most vulnerable people imaginable in a generation long legal limbo. This will lead to increased fear, emotional distress and suspicion within communities. All things that will hamper integration and the acceptance of vulnerable refugees by wider society.
The political normalisation of cruelty and inhumanity directed against some is the prelude to draconian authoritarianism directed against all. It is in this political environment that fascism can be enabled to rise. Therefore, liberals must always be on guard against the politics of cruelty. We Liberal Democrats cannot give Labour an inch when it comes to opposing their disgraceful, heartless and inhumane policies towards refugees and asylum seekers.
The Liberal Democrats must oppose the divisiveness and cruelty of Labour, the Tories and Reform. It is becoming increasingly difficult to tell each of those three parties apart on immigration and asylum. On cultural issues, Britain has three right-wing parties. By seeking to enact such inhumane policies, Labour is setting dangerous political precedents that will make a future hard right British government more, not less, likely.
Liberal democracy can only thrive in a political environment of hope, common humanity and mutual sympathy between individuals and communities. However, illiberalism and authoritarianism can only thrive in a political environment of fear, inhumanity and dehumanisation. Immigrants and asylum seekers are people with lives, rights, hopes and dreams just like the rest of us. We lose sight of that at our peril.
* Paul Hindley is a Liberal Democrat activist and a supporter of the Radical Association from Blackpool. He is the co-editor of When We Speak of Freedom: Radical Liberalism in an Age of Crisis, which was published earlier this year.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Doing my bit at Whickham Church Green
Thinking of standing for election or re-election next year? Helpful questions to consider
The Joy of Six 1528
Endometriosis and acetylation
How Chancellor Reeves torpedoed the economy
Kira Collins
Ian Patterson
Daniel Walker
Richard Flowers
17 Comments
Brilliant Paul, entirely brilliant. If we give even an inch to this xenophobic hatefulness, we may as well shut up shop.
Thank you, Paul. With three friends across the country in end-of-life care and a granddaughter working in a care home for 20–30-year-olds, I don’t think Labour understands the danger of their policy to the care sector. I founded HELP, Help for the Elderly Liberally Provided in Richmond. Could we campaign on TIC-TOC, Thank Immigrant Carers, Thank Older Carers? Let’s survey our community care facilities and define the problems and solutions.
This is a political, social and moral issue. Unfortunately there are times when the pressures on a government are so great that the moral aspect comes third. This seems to be one of those occasions.
What I ask would we do in this situation if we were the Government?
I do not know and neither do I have the ideal answer, in truth I do not have one, but even as a Liberal for over 60 years I have to recognise that something has to happen. As a teenager I well recall the hostility shown towards my parents by our white neighbours when they were the first people in the street to sell a house to a West Indian family.
We are generally speaking nice people and we ask nice polite questions but that does us very few favours if we are to expand our southern base. A stronger more vigorous approach is maybe needed and this issue is probably one of them.
Yes if we were in Europe we could resolve or reduce the issue with the Dublin Accord but we are not and as a Government would have to respond to the issue in the reality of the current situation. Doing nothing is not an answer. Sometimes in Politics we need to be doing something, are we, except to ask nice questions?
Polanski says all refugees are welcome, really, all whatever and whoever they are. Are we highlighting this or standing back and letting all the other parties, especially the Greens pass us by.
I don’t think it is unreasonable that people who flee here to escape war etc should be entitled to remain here for as long as necessary but with a view to returning them home as soon circumstances change and their own country becomes safe enough for their return.
@Jenny Smith
“but with a view to returning them home as soon circumstances change and their own country becomes safe enough for their return.”
If such a person marries and/or has children with someone who is a British citizen or does have a right to remain here are you suggesting that their partner and/or children should be expected to move to a country which they may never have visited, where the main language(s) and customs are significantly different?
@Jenny Smith
I disagree on principle that people should be made to put their lives on hold in that way, unless that is what they want, but even if I didn’t disagree with the principle, I would not trust this or any government to determine what is ‘safe’, because they will do so with no reference to evidence.
Is it inhumane to tackle illegal migration and deter it?
I think that in some cases Refugees should give up their jewellery if they get payments from the government.
I am lucky enough to own a Rolex and Omega watch. Together they are worth about £20,000. If I lost my job, lost my home etc etc, and if all I had left were my watches. I would be ineligible for benefits and would have to sell my watches.
If a refugee comes over with the same watches, why should the British Taxpayer pay for their room and board and upkeep whilst they have £20,000 on their wrists?
Thankyou for this article which sets out the problems with the Home Secretary’s proposals so well. The Home Secretary claimed this morning on the Today Programme that people must be allowed to discuss immigration but the news is dominated by this and right wing politicians talk of little else. We all know why the age-old scape-goating to distract from their failure to provide good governance and decent conditions for the people of this country.
Theakes hits the nail on the head in asking ‘what would we do? ‘ Without a plan of our own we have a problem. Illegal immigration has to be stopped for all concerned and legal channels made accessible, speedy and fair. Easily said more difficult to deliver.
@DavidGarlic. Actually, it’s not difficult. If people could apply for the necessary permissions at the British Embassy in their own country, then, provided such applications were dealt with speedily, they would know whether they could legally come to the UK or not. From a UK point of view, we would know who was coming to the UK legally . Once there were legal routes to come to the UK, there would be no excuse for trying to come illegally via traffickers and small boats. Most people who wanted to come to the UK but were rejected would look elsewhere. There would no doubt still be some who would follow the illegal route, but I suspect that number would be significantly smaller than at present.
Secondly, to avoid the huge costs of housing asylum seekers, the government should instead issue temporary work permits so that they could work and support themselves until such time as their application was determined.
None of this happens because our despicable Labour government prefers to demonize and ‘other’ all migrants by aping reform and the Tory party.
As the son of an asylum seeker who came here in the 30s, I find the spectacle of Labour becoming ever more repressive and plain nasty on migration sickening. I had hoped that Labour would be different, even better, than the Tories. I should have known better. My 61 years as a Liberal has shown me why Labour can never be trusted on this issue.
@ Mick Taylor,
“My 61 years as a Liberal has shown me why Labour can never be trusted on this issue.”
You’re painting with a very broad brush!
There’s a big difference between the vast majority of decent Labour Party members and the right wing clique who took over the Labour Party by deception with the election of Starmer in 2020.
Knowing that Morgan McSweeney was running Starmer’s campaign it wasn’t difficult to know what was going on. I did my best to warn everyone, including here on LDV, but the focus was on Johnson’s lies at the time. Starmer wasn’t held to account, as he should have been, and the consequence is what we see now.
I wonder if the proposal to steal jewellery from migrants was a deliberate Labour ploy to divert their opponents into irrelevance. “Let’s get the lefties to rant about trivia, while we win the main argument about tackling migration!”
Comments ask what we do. FOCUS on the effects on the NHS and get out and campaign in every community in the country. My TicToc suggestion is one idea. Please can we have more.
Please note the Guardian article: ‘Up to 50,000 nurses could quit UK over immigration plans, survey suggests. Exclusive: union leaders say proposed changes are immoral and could threaten patient safety if there is staff exodus’.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2025/nov/20/up-to-50000-nurses-could-quit-uk-over-immigration-plans-survey-suggests
@Slamdac
Your ridiculously expensive watches do not make you ineligible for benefits.
I’m curious, do you think we should have applied the same policy to Jews fleeing Germany in the thirties? Perhaps we should have extracted their gold teeth?
In the nearly 10 years since Denmark introduced a similar law there have been 29 cases where valuables were seized. It has yielded an average annual revenue of less than half the price of one of your watches.
This is not serious policy. It is performative cruelty. It is the government trying to convince Reform minded voters that Labour hate foreigners just as much as they do.
There should be more ‘safe and legal routes’ for people needing asylum to come here, and as Mick Taylor suggests, a chance for people to apply via British embassies in their own countries – or, if not safe to do so, in other countries on their flight. Meantime it is understandable for the government to work to try to undermine migrants’ apparent assumptions that Britain is a soft touch where, once across the Channel, you can get bed and board and a chance to work illegally under cover. But I trust our parliamentarians will work with the Labour left-wingers to ensure the harsher conditions proposed by the Home Secretary never become law, and that the many thousands of welcome immigrants doing vital work here, especially in the NHS and care services, are assured of their secure futures. It would be good to see affirmative press and media statements from our party to that effect.
Illegal migration is wrong on so many grounds. Setting foot in a new country illegally gives the migrant hope and makes the process harder. Far better as others have stated to create safe and legal routes that offer fairness and a realistic idea of how likely they are to be accepted. If migrants want to remain in the UK then landing on our shores should make it likely that they will.