One of Sir Keir Starmer’s first significant actions upon assuming office as Prime Minister was to scrap the previous government’s controversial asylum seeker deportation scheme to Rwanda. It was a decision that aligned with both practical and ethical considerations. The Rwanda plan was not only costly but also led the UK to breach its international treaty obligations. Furthermore, it promised to extend the trauma endured by refugees rather than offering them a genuine route to safety and stability.
However, Labour’s alternative asylum policy, as presented in the Border Security, Asylum, and Immigration Bill, which passed its second reading in Parliament recently, suggests a shift towards a more restrictive approach. The bill introduces new police powers aimed at disrupting the trafficking of migrants across the English Channel. These powers would be on par with those used in counter-terrorism operations.
While it is valid to focus policy efforts on the criminal gangs that operate these illegal boat crossings and endanger countless lives in the process, the second part of the policy – the creation of legal, safe routes for asylum seekers – is notably absent. This omission significantly weakens the proposed plan. Worse still, Labour has quietly adopted one of the most problematic aspects of the former Conservative government’s policy. In its guidance for assessing naturalisation claims, the Home Office has stipulated that asylum applicants who have “made a dangerous journey” will typically be refused citizenship. In effect, this penalises individuals who have already been granted asylum and established a life in the UK, by denying them the chance to become citizens based solely on their method of arrival.
This new stance leaves thousands of people who have legitimate asylum claims effectively trapped in an administrative limbo, unable to fully integrate into society. While this is not as extreme as the former Conservative government’s policy that blocked small boat passengers from even applying for asylum in the UK – a move that breached international conventions – it signals a worrying convergence between Labour’s approach and that of the Tories on this issue.
The Conservatives justified their strict policies with the argument of deterrence. They believed that depriving people of the chance to seek asylum would discourage dangerous boat crossings, though there was no evidence to support such claims. The deeper political motivation was likely the desire to present a tough stance on immigration to appeal to voters who were shifting towards Nigel Farage’s Reform UK party. It seems Labour, now facing similar electoral pressures, has fallen into the same trap.
The Tory government’s policies failed to solve the problem while stoking public fear and resentment about illegal migration. Yet, Sir Keir Starmer appears to be replicating this flawed approach, with potentially costly consequences. Simply amplifying the rhetoric of deterrence will not neutralise the issues posed by illegal immigration, and many within Labour’s own ranks are bound to be disappointed by this shift. A humane and pragmatic asylum system may not satisfy everyone, but it would certainly attract more support than one that sacrifices decency in favour of political posturing.
In opposition, Sir Keir understood the need for an asylum system that balanced practical solutions with compassion. It is a vision he may regret abandoning now that he is in government.
Stay tuned to London Pulse News for further updates on Labour’s evolving asylum policy and its impact on the UK’s immigration landscape.
