What is immigration? Immigration into the UK falls broadly into three categories; legal (authorised), humanitarian and illegal (irregular).
Legal immigration is supported by many well-known routes such as work, student and family visas, business investment schemes and special temporary schemes such as the Ukraine scheme.
Humanitarian immigration follows a long history of welcoming people fleeing persecution and conflict, into this country. Proud to help those who need it find sanctuary here while also honouring obligations under international law.
Support for humanitarian immigration aligns closely with our own LibDem beliefs in compassion, internationalism and the rule of law. We also believe Britain is stronger and richer when it is open to the talents and creativity of people from other countries.
Indeed, many Conservatives and, dare I say, some Reform supporters, welcome people arriving in this country on legal or humanitarian routes.
Where we differ sharply however, is in our public messaging and policy position surrounding the third category; irregular immigration.
There are many examples where right-wing populists in Reform lazily conflate all types on immigration in their rhetoric, using terms such as “mass immigration”, “millions coming into Britain” and “invasion”. To do so suits their divisive narrative, as it did throughout the Brexit campaign.
In addition, I believe that there are those on the political left, and possibly in our party, who conversely promote the belief that all who come to our shores, legally or otherwise, should be accepted and treated the same.
Both conflations are wrong.
Reform will never change their narrative; they rely too much on divisive and broad-brush anti-immigration rhetoric to feed followers with the bile and sense of grievance that is so prevalent in their messaging.
What Vote Leave did, and what Reform have mimicked to such effect, is to pervade public discourse with the fear of the ‘other’, the ‘threat’, the ‘invader’.
However, according to recent government statistics for 2024, detected irregular immigration into this county was only around 5% of total immigration. Yet Reform continues to magnify its impact and indulge in scaremongering to the extent that irregular immigration remains the salient political topic for many today.
I’m sure a significant portion of the electorate who are in and around the centre-ground, and share liberal values, have had their views on immigration influenced by the rhetoric on this subject from both the Conservatives and Reform UK.
The Conservatives under Boris Johnson recognised that such a demographic exists and also that they have a voice – and want to be listened to. This explains why they embarked on the ridiculous Rwanda Scheme; not because it was ever going to be effective or properly enacted, but because it was the Conservatives saying, “we hear you!”. Labour, soon after they came to power under Keir Starmer, worked with France to set up a new returns agreement, and strengthened law enforcement to tackle smuggling gangs…again essentially saying “we hear you!” to the same demographic.
We, as a party, have not yet articulated a message of our own, and I fear the same electorate may ignore us if this continues. We do not need a gimmick idea like the Rwanda scheme, instead let’s develop a well-thought through set of policies to manage and control illegal immigration.
Significantly, Sir Ed Davey reminded us in his autumn conference speech last year that it was the Conservatives who campaigned to rip up twenty-seven return agreements we had with EU member states to return people who had no right to be here. A position endorsed by Nigel Farage.
This is true, however that is all that was said on subject; it was brief, and it was a look back to the past. What we need now is a message for the future, to reclaim the topic of illegal immigration from the distorted rhetoric of other parties and say to the electorate “We have a plan and this is what it is…”.
We can look to recent reforms in the EU where they have begun implementing a range of measures aimed at strengthening border controls with more resources, consistent use of new biometric technologies and setting up return agreements with third countries.
Collectively these measures are aimed at instilling discipline, clarity and consistency across all its member states; an approach to managing irregular migration that this country would do well to learn from, and which we as a party can facilitate.
As well as improving legal and humanitarian pathways we also need to articulate when and under what circumstances irregular migrants would not be allowed to stay in the UK, and how it would be enforced.
The public deserve to hear when we would say “No!”
Too often in the immigration debate, our opponents present a false choice between compassion and control. Liberal Democrats should reject that choice. We should champion both.
The public wants honesty. They want a government that responds to current concerns and does not ignore them. They want a party that believes Britain can be welcoming without being naïve, humane without being ineffective, and liberal without being silent.
If we fail to articulate this, voters will assume we have no answer at all.
So let us say “we hear you!” with confidence. Because when the Liberal Democrats combine compassion with credibility, we do not just strengthen our message—we strengthen our country.
* Oliver Jacques is a a Town Councillor in Warwick.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Jeffrey Archer's 'First Among Equals', with Shane Whaley (part 1)
A train ride to Newport to visit St Woolos' Cathedral
Getting people off the streets is the easy bit, keeping them in their accommodation is much harder
Tory fantasy on net zero
Jana
Peter Davies
David Raw
Peter Martin
28 Comments
Thanks Oliver for this article on an important topic.
However the inevitable outcome of recent Government policies is that humanitarian and illegal/irregular immigration are now merged. With some minor exceptions, any refugee fleeing a war-torn country and hoping to claim asylum in the UK has no choice but to travel by an irregular route.
They can only claim asylum in the UK once they are already *in* the UK, can’t travel here legally without a visa, and can’t apply for a visa for the purpose of claiming asylum, leaving a ‘Catch 22’ situation where they are forced to pay people-smugglers instead of British Airways for their journey.
This is deliberate, since it restricts the number of asylum claims submitted, as the majority of asylum claims are subsequently approved. Any poor souls who drown in the channel along the way are accepted as collateral damage.
This is a choice by our Government who really could destroy the business model of the people-smuggling gangs by simply allowing asylum claims to be submitted at Embassies and Consulates abroad. But this would increase the number of refugees coming here legally.
Of course, many are perfectly happy with this state of affairs.
‘Conservatives who campaigned to rip up twenty-seven return agreements we had with EU member states to return people who had no right to be here. A position endorsed by Nigel Farage’
The Dublin agreement never worked, and we were a net recipient during our membership.
Look at Ireland’s returns under the agreement absolutely woeful.
Good article – as far as it goes. Yes, many people (by no means only the racists) are angry about irregular immigration (“small boats”). Yes, the Tories and Starmer’s Labour both found ways of saying “we hear you” to appease public wrath – although none of their remedies really worked. And yes, parties like the Lib Dems whose message seems to be “no, we don’t hear you”, are thereby liable to throw away votes.
What the article doesn’t really say is how this might actually be put right! It calls for “a well-thought through set of policies to manage and control illegal immigration”. Past experience clearly shows that there are no easy options.
Nick Baird suggests allowing asylum claims from abroad, but admits that that would probably increase immigration. Further, it wouldn’t stop those whose claims were rejected from going back to the small boats option.
What about:
(1) a demand to renegotiate the Refugee Convention
(2) allowing asylum claims from abroad – but subject to an annual cap, so that if the 2026 entry quota is filled by February, no more claims to be processed before 2027
(3) given that concession, all small boat arrivals to be sent straight back
Unless The new Government makes substantial changes we will be facing Negative Net Immigration before the next Election, that would also imply a small fall in Population.
As is usual the public debate is several Years behind the the situation on the ground.
Good to see this difficult topic being debated.
Despite how this discussion normally goes, I do think there is a sensible middle ground in this country crying out for a voice on this topic. Happy to offer humanitarian assistance but not wanting to be taken for chumps. Embracing diversity but not wanting to be replaced. And expecting, quite reasonably, any recipients of our assistance to respect us, our laws and our values. (Why on earth did you choose to come here of all places if you don’t?)
The challenge is embodying these simple principles into policies that apply to some fiendishly complex legal and moral problems, with unintended consequences around every corner.
Paul is right. A flexible cap on the immigration quota would truly allow Government to “take back control”. Given the recent high levels of immigration, a tight cap would initially be popular, perhaps rightly so. But the cap could be relaxed to meet economic etc. needs.
We have no more chance of stopping the flow of irregular immigration than King Cnut (Canute, Knut) had of turning back the tide, and if the planet continues to burn and the sea levels to rise it will get bigger. Rejoice that we can provide a safer haven, for the time being at any rate. Agreed it is a difficult message to get across, but we should try. Pope Leo does it quite well.(though he doesn’t have to get re-elected.)
We can look to recent reforms in the EU where they have begun implementing a range of measures aimed at strengthening border controls with more resources, consistent use of new biometric technologies and setting up return agreements with third countries.
Rather unlucky to have this published on the day that Spain’s migrant amnesty policy has caused Italy to suspend the Schengen agreement — a move with more rhetorical force than practical effect, given the geographic relationship between Italy and Spain, but hardly one which suggests a coherent and successful approach to the problem within the EU.
Current projections suggest that Immigration will be “Over by Xmas”, with more people leaving than arriving . The Party that talks about this before it happens will get some Kudos with the Voters who often, unreasonably expect their Politicians to know more about what’s going on than them.
That Party Could be Us but I expect it will be The Greens, if anyone.
Current projections suggest that Immigration will be “Over by Xmas”, with more people leaving than arriving
That would only make the issue ‘over’ if you regard the people arriving and the people leaving as wholly interchangeable… which I suspect most wouldn’t.
Peter Wrigley 31st Jul ’26 – 6:21pm:
Pope Leo does it quite well.(though he doesn’t have to get re-elected.)
An example to follow by those who do have to get elected?…
What is the penalty for illegally entering the Vatican State?:
https://gemini.google.com/app/
@Jeff: I thought that might be the case. which is why I added the rider. But we do have a duty to try and change the tone of the debate, with much more emphasis on the positive aspects o migration, and with clear proposals to tackle peoples “legitimate concerns” rather than throwing them in as an afterthought to ease bigots’ conscineces.
Good article.
We should be clear that we will always offer safety to people seeking to escape from a genuine threat to their lives. We should equally be clear that anyone seeking to leave France to claim asylum in the UK is not fleeing a genuine threat to their lives…they are just choosing which safe country they prefer to live in.
If this interpretation requires a change to the international refugee convention, or even us leaving it, so be it.
Peter, we’ve heard a lot about the positive aspects of immigration in regards to economic benefits. We’ve had year on year record net migration and many people will be forgiven for wandering where are those economic benefits.
Myself included, my home town and so many like it has seen unprecedented demographic changes, and absolutely zero economic benefit that has come with that. You can mirror that across so many towns. Thankfully, I moved out decades ago . It’s an awful place now.
@Jana
“We should equally be clear that anyone seeking to leave France to claim asylum in the UK is not fleeing a genuine threat to their lives…they are just choosing which safe country they prefer to live in.”
Suppose such a person was originally from a French colony and is now facing a genuine threat from someone who is now in France but originally also from the same French colony?
Nonconform. How did they get to France in the first place ? They’ve past numerous free countries, & if I was in genuine fear of my life I’d be happy to reach the first one. A hotel room in the UK with three meals a day , a cash allowance, all medical and religious needs met is a big attraction when your in a tented city in Calais. It’s far more than a homeless British national gets.
The sooner we can see this as an issue to respond to as Europe and, if possible, the world the better. Climate change, depleting resources and resulting growing instability means more and more people fleeing to better lives. They will deserve better than a UK wanting to take advantage of it’s island status and being reliant on Turkish, French, Spanish, Greek etc. officials acting as gatekeepers when there is little enticement for them to do that.
Hopefully we can recognise that there are areas who desperately need a population boost, especially if it can mean doctors or dentists, and areas who do not have the resources to offer a welcome. There are immigrants who deserve so much more in terms of legal, safe routes, quick but accurate decisions and a proper commitment to helping them integrate rather than treating them as strangers, and there are immigrants who are fraudulently using the lack of resources put behind the humanitarian routes or come here while being committed to criminal activities.
I fear that it’s only going to become a bigger issue and it’s an issue we work best on if working together rather than against each other.
@ Chloe. I’m sorry you haven’t noted any benefits from migration in your area. Be contrast, in my area, the old Heavy Woollen District of Yorkshire, immigrants,or these days the children and even the grandchildren of immigrants, deliver my morning paper, clean my car, dispense my medical prescriptions, provide about two thirds of my treatment on the NHS, my favourite restaurant, most of the choir I sing in and until t recently the vicar of the church I attend, my walking companion and probably lots more besides. They even provided my with a little part-time job which enhanced my retirement until the government clamped down on overseas students. My life and lifestyle are greatly enriched by them.
@Chloe
“How did they get to France in the first place? They’ve past numerous free countries, & if I was in genuine fear of my life I’d be happy to reach the first one”
They might have originally been from one of France’s African colonies – say in NW Africa where the nearest countries in Europe are Portugal, Spain and France.
Suppose they left their original home country in Africa, emigrated legitimately to France and then become aware of the presence in France of a person who had been a threat to them in their original country.
“A hotel room in the UK with three meals a day……………”
Criminal networks – people being conned into believing they can walk into a well-paid job in UK.
https://www.nationalcrimeagency.gov.uk/what-we-do/crime-threats/organised-immigration-crime
And when they get to UK they find life isn’t so sweet as was made out..
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ced6wjy5qqjo
And they’ve paid quite large sums of money to the criminal gangs.
I do wonder if things might be better if asylum-seekers could apply to UK for asylum at a UK consulate or embassy abroad – but that isn’t the situation – they have to come to UK to apply. And the UK seems to have allowed a large backlog of applications to build up over years – which could be an inducement to people to use the people smugglers.
Looking at the bigger picture Peter. The public have been repeatedly told about the economic benefits of immigration. Year on year record inward immigration has got us to the point where we are borrowing money to pay the interest our debts. My home town already in decline has now become unrecognisable with the demographic changes.
Council tax record rises year on year , rents soaring, housing waiting list ballooning , town centre delapidated boarded up – almost deserted precinct, industries long gone, fly tipping a nightmare , crime asb rife, HMO’s blighting streets and there’s been a disproportionate dispersal of asylum seekers that’s compounded every issue those towns face …That’s the reality of many working class post industrial towns across the midlands and north. Thankfully, I’m long gone ..
I think this is an important article, the key point being the kind of message we give people about immigration. Too many people think mistakenly our policy is to let them all in. Restrictions on who and how many, control and help to fit in with the British way of life are essential not only for our own people but for the immigrants. Whatever the practicalities we need to let people know this is what the majority of Lib Dems want so that everyone benefits. Likewise across Europe we want cooperation to keep things under control. The media is unhelpful in this messaging. For example, although a few reports have very briefly mentioned that half of those who entered Spain this week have gone back, this point was not given the publicity it needed to calm down people’s feelings.
This article is to be welcomed. A fair and honest policy on immigration regular or otherwise needs to start with some honesty. Reform/Restore and some parts of the Conservative Party simply see advantage in demonising Black and Brown Britons and we should be honest about that.
We should acknowledge that our history when it comes to refugees is selective.From the Kindertransport accepting children not their parents to Ugandan Asians who weren’t refugees but British passport holders. The hypocrisy of a welcome matt for Ukrainians and silence for the citizens of the former British protectorate who’s national language is english, Sudan is telling.
The Home Office isn’t fit for purpose, doesn’t know who is British as the Windrush victims will tell you and should be broken up. Speedier processing of applications for irregular entry is essential. Acknowlegement that Foreign Office cuts means acquiring a UK visa is more difficult should also be explained. The problem is compounded by German, US and UK cuts to aid, trade barriers and the lack of debt relief and our failure in government to transform Libya after destroying the Gaddafi regime.
As the child of refugees it is pretty clear that the populist right and their media allies don’t want an honest debate. As Liberal Democrats we should start one.
@Chloe
“How did they get to France in the first place ? They’ve past numerous free countries”
What do you mean by a ‘free country’ please? There seem to be plenty of regimes in northern Africa which it seems to me might not qualify as ‘free’. How do you know where the person came from?
Nonconform; Are you saying they flew direct to France from Africa with a passport and visa – with the destination being a country that they wouldn’t feel safe in ..
@Chloe
I am only speculating – I am not writing about an actual experience.
They might have travelled across the Med from north Africa on a boat….
And this imaginary person might have legal access to France and while in France became aware that a person who had been a serious threat to them in Africa was now in France and possibly aware of their target being in France.
https://tinyurl.com/5xk8wkrw on France’s colonial history in Africa might be relevant
@Nick Baird
“This is deliberate, since it restricts the number of asylum claims submitted, as the majority of asylum claims are subsequently approved. Any poor souls who drown in the channel along the way are accepted as collateral damage.
This is a choice by our Government who really could destroy the business model of the people-smuggling gangs by simply allowing asylum claims to be submitted at Embassies and Consulates abroad. But this would increase the number of refugees coming here legally.”
Exactly.
The LibDem position should be to pre-screen people in France and open safe routes so women and children don’t have to die in the Channel to request asylum.
Allow asylum seekers to work, pending a decision.
Treat immigrants fairly, a) because it’s the right thing to do and, b) because without them we’re screwed.
Until this is done, every death in the Channel will be blood on the hands of the government in power.
We may wish to have a clear and distinctive policy on the subject. But we shouldn’t proactively be talking about it. For the same reason as we were wrong to get drawn into a debate about £350 million on the side of a bus. If you talk about it AT ALL you are reminding voters that it is an issue – and they won’t trust us on it.
The distinction between humanitarian and illegal migration is clear. For it to operate however there must be free, fair and easy mechanisms for those fleeing persecution to become citizens of a foreign country. Once this is actioned then those arriving illegally can be treated as criminals and treated accordingly.