Migration is not a threat – it is the very foundation of London life. From the Romans and Anglo-Saxons to the Windrush generation and Ukrainians fleeing war today, migrants have always shaped this city into a dynamic, diverse capital. That should be a source of collective pride, not a target for political attack.
Yet when the Prime Minister dismisses immigration as a “squalid chapter” or warns of an “island of strangers” and “incalculable damage,” more than disappointing, it is downright dangerous.
Such rhetoric dehumanises communities and deepens division. In a climate of rising hate crime and attacks on asylum seekers – including the horrifying attempt last year to burn down a hotel with people still inside – the Prime Minister’s words are worse than insensitive: they are recklessly incendiary.
Words have power. They shape opinion, policy, and lives. In moments like this, we need leaders who speak with care, clarity, and courage – who choose unity over fear, and hope over hate.
Instead, the language from Number 10 echoes the darkest chapters of our political past, more suited to Enoch Powell than a modern leader. And while Sadiq Khan has said these are not words he would use, that’s not good enough from London’s Mayor.
When I pressed him directly today at Mayor’s Question Time about whether he considered the Prime Minister’s language dangerous, he refused to answer, instead deflecting repeatedly. Our diverse capital demands more than quiet disapproval and political evasion. London needs bold leadership willing to vocally reject divisive rhetoric – even when it comes from a Labour government – and to defend a simple truth: migration is not a crisis to contain, but a core part of who we are.
Institutions like the Migration Museum work tirelessly to reframe that narrative. Through storytelling, comedy, and shared experience, they remind us that migration is not something to fear, but something to understand – and celebrate.
My own family’s journey reflects that truth. From Bukhara to Delhi, through the trauma of Partition, they came to Britain determined not just to survive, but to contribute. My father became the UK’s first Muslim headteacher. I now serve as the first ethnic minority woman to lead a group in the London Assembly. Like so many others, our story is one of rebuilding, resilience, and belonging.
But belonging must be backed by action – by policies that protect dignity, rights, and opportunity for all who call this city home.
That’s why the Liberal Democrats have called, in our London manifesto, for the capital to become a City of Sanctuary – building on the inspiring work of Boroughs of Sanctuary like Richmond, and showing what real leadership on compassion and inclusion looks like.
We have also been campaigning to lift the inhumane, counterproductive ban on asylum seekers working – a policy that forces families to survive on a pittance. Preventing people from earning and contributing while our city faces labour shortages is not just unjust – it’s economically absurd.
The Mayor has a choice now: to continue deflecting and offering quiet disapproval, or to actively repair the damage by championing policies that reflect London’s values and clearly condemning dangerous rhetoric.
Words alone are not enough – they must be matched by leadership and action. Today showed that when tested, our Mayor failed to provide either.
The real “squalid chapter” isn’t immigration. It’s the dehumanisation we’ve tolerated for too long, and the political cowardice that enables it. London deserves better from its Mayor with a leader who is unafraid to call out divisive language and make clear that this city is, and always will be, a place where everyone belongs.
* Hina Bokhari is the Liberal Democrat Leader on the London Assembly and the most prominent elected Muslim within the Liberal Democrats.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Labour councillor missing in action
New NHS cash will be wasted if social care is left untouched
Prince William's billionaire pal dies after swallowing bee while playing polo
Transition Dundee Ceilidh #dundeewestend
The Trinity made comprehensible.
A remarkable woman and a park
Lib Dems in the King's birthday honours 2025
Andy Daer
Simon R
John Waller
Geoffrey Payne
11 Comments
Homeless in London is something around 200,000 people, with most of these living in temporary B&B accommodation paid for by their local Council and around 12,000 sleeping rough.
How many immigrants – whether legal/illegal/asylum seekers – do you believe that London can accommodate?
Yes, words certainly do matter!
They manage everyone’s feelings, attitudes, emotions, thoughts, relationships and communications etc.
Might it be smarter to frame immigration as a range of vitally important questions which need honest and deep reflection and discussions rather than as a “Headline Problem”?
Below are some such questions. What might you add?
1] How do we achieve an effective age balance in our population which is essential for its needed sustainability?
https://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2025/05/19/why-arent-we-having-children/
2] Why do we have such high numbers of individual people who are homeless and who are hungry/starving and so rely on food banks to survive?
3] Might our wealth distribution set ups be harming our society’s overall effectiveness?
4] Might the multi-party policy of “Austerity” have contributed to/caused our problems?
5] Might [some] politicians and main stream media channels be using the matter of immigration for political/power/financial advantage rather than addressing it for the benefits of our society?
6] Might framing immigration hard-negatively as a “problem” cause us to feel and think in an obstructive binary fashion?
7] Might the layout and behaviours of the House of Commons set a less then helpful example of political binarism?
8] Why does our [per]version of democracy not really represent the needs and views
of all our people [and their children]?
9] Why does our [per]version of democracy present us with a pretty rapid series of possibly rather less than ept prime ministers?
10] Has our Royal Family benefited for the considered welcoming of immigrants?
Mike Peters – It is a gross and totally wrong mistake to group all 3 categories together.
Hat Tip to a Claire on Facebook and to Toni and Liz:
‘The reason you can’t afford a house, see your doctor, get access to an NHS dentist, have less money in your pocket, fewer job prospects and are paying more tax are all down to political decisions that have ZERO to do with immigrants and asylum seeks.
But hey, it’s easier to blame a minority who might look and sound a bit different to you. Politicians have been pulling this bollocks for generations.”
And that £49 has to pay everything – laundry, phone credit (to be able to receive calls about asylum claims or to contact family), basic toiletries, provisions for babies/children, sanitary products. transport to asylum interviews,…
Asylum seekers cannot get council houses, claim benefits or even work. It drives me crazy that the far right spout so much bollocks about this. See less
@BigTallJim
Yes I agree – except when we are considering availability of housing. In this case all types of immigration add to the numbers competing for available housing, and there is already a significant homelessness issue in London
@ Steve Trevethan, you ask : “Has our Royal Family benefited for the considered welcoming of immigrants ?”
To be perfectly honest, Steve, as a radical Liberal I don’t find the hereditary system (whether royal or aristocratic) the least bit convincing or justifiable, although I do understand why the vast majority of politicians steer clear of any controversy about it.
And don’t forget the addition of Democrat to the current party’s moniker.
@Bigtalltim: Net migration has added around 4 million to the UK population in the last 10 years alone. Every one of those people needs somewhere to live. It is not plausible to deny that must have had a huge impact on the UK’s housing shortage, or on house prices and rent levels. Every one of those people also needs a GP and a dentist, so again it’s not plausible to deny that will have had an impact on demand for health services (although mitigated by that many migrants work in the health services).
Pointing that out is NOT an attempt to blame ‘a minority who might look and sound a bit different to you’, and I don’t think trying to pin that kind of motive on people is a constructive way to debate. Personally I totally agree that, in principle, we should welcome migrants as much as we can. But we also cannot ignore the reality of the situation and the pressure on our infrastructure that population growth causes.
BTT. In answer to ‘Claire’…
No asylum seekers in Calais is being persecuted. France is a democratic free country with an established asylum system. Every single asylum seeker arriving in Dover is an economic migrant wanting preferential treatment to what they receive in France.
A hotel room and three meals a day + a weekly allowance is far more gracious than a tented city. If you was a British male presenting yourself as homeless to a local authority – you get nothing , it’s jog on & a cardboard box for them.
@Greg Hyde
“France is a democratic free country with an established asylum system. Every single asylum seeker arriving in Dover is an economic migrant wanting preferential treatment to what they receive in France.”
What about situations where someone fleeing persecution from somewhere overseas already has connections in UK but not in France? It seems to me perfectly reasonable for them to seek asylum in UK.
@Greg Hyde 24th May ’25 – 7:18am……..A hotel room and three meals a day + a weekly allowance is far more gracious than a tented city. If you was a British male presenting yourself as homeless to a local authority – you get nothing , it’s jog on & a cardboard box for them………..
Conditions for those claiming Refugee status in the UK are laid down in the UN Refugee Agency (UNHCR) and which the UK, as a signatory and founding member, are bound to follow.. How the UK chooses to treat its own citizens is a completely separate matter..
For years I was a volunteer helping rough sleepers/homeless and I found the provisions woefully inadequate; however, the two are completely different and it is not, nor should it be, a case of either/or..
How come France doesn’t adhere to the UNHCR ? …A tented city in Calais as opposed to a hotel in the UK. As for British homeless it’s a political choice – governments choose to prioritise those that arrive in Dover over UK citizens who become homeless. Working class towns have suffered disproportionately from hotels / Hmo’s full of asylum seekers – if labour doesn’t act by the next election – thankfully they can look at the potential loss of a large number of seats. People can hardly recognise their towns anymore such has been the change & not for the better.