Tag: immigration

Analysing the Shift in UK Migration Figures: What It Means


Net migration figures halved

December 2025

In a week where the focus has been on European discussions about the European Convention on Human Rights, actual migration has taken a back seat behind probable ever-tougher measures against those arriving here (the expected next French president Jordan Bardella is talking of letting UK Border Force push small boats back to France). At the same time, the National Audit Office has surveyed the workings of the existing UK asylum processing system and found it failing in a number of areas – not to mention its view that current government proposals will have unintended consequences.

On the legislative front, the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Act has received the Royal Assent. During its passage through Parliament, some changes were made, including a partial lifting of the ban on anyone arriving “illegally” being allowed to stay and some reduction in the power to keep electronic data of applicants.

Net migration figure halved

From a UK point of view the most dramatic news has been the more than halving of the net migration figures year-on-year. This has mostly been achieved by reducing visas for prospective workers, but the ending of help for refugees from Ukraine, Afghanistan and Hong Kong has made a substantial difference. To June 2025, the yearly excess of immigration over emigration was 204,000 (down from 649,000).

The new Home Secretary has declared her policy, including making intending settlers take more stringent tests and wait 20 years to get residency. “Earned settlement” is to be subjected to consultation up until February, with new rules  expected around April. It has been observed that Mahmood’s ideas were tried in Australia in the 90s, with little success ; they were abandoned in 2023.

Some useful reports have come out in the last month. Probably the most interesting is from the Mixed Migration Centre of the Danish Refugee Council on people smugglers. Interviews with migrants and smugglers have revealed that stricter law enforcement has tended to fuel demand and increase fees. Only 6% of interviewed migrants said they had been recruited by smugglers, most taking the decision to move on their own or with family members. Alarmingly, almost half the smugglers admitted being in contact with border officers or police.

The PCS union and Together With Refugees have a new report entitled “Welcoming Growth,” looking at the economic consequences of a possible change to the current system. If the immigration rules were to:

  • Make all asylum claims proceed within 6 months
  • legal assistance at all stages
  • Give English language support from day 1
  • Give employment support from day one.

They calculate that a total contribution from refugees could amount to £260,000 per refugee over 12 ½ years, giving a net benefit to the public purse of £53,000 per person, after costs. 16 MPs have signed a motion welcoming the report.

Other notes:

Following the pause, the UK is now accepting asylum claims from Syrians again.

European organisations (notably Eurodac) are concerned that AI usage is resulting in misreadings of migrants’ personal data.

Thousands of Ukrainians have been ejected from Israel as the offer of asylum has ended. Their future is unclear.

Total number displaced in Sudan is now 13 million.

200,000 have fled homes in Eastern Congo amid ongoing fighting.

Finally, the Refugee Week people are moving ahead. They have updated what they call their Theory of Change (by which they mean their mission statement, essentially), which is a good summary of an arts-led campaign. They are offering to make available the film The Light That Remains (a documentary of life in Gaza under stress).

AH

0

Controversial UK Immigration Policies: Public Reaction


Public reactions to immigration not straighforward

November 2025

The main news topic in the UK this month has been accommodation for asylum seekers, and the public reaction to the Government’s move to place claimants in military establishments following the furore over the use of hotels. Although such sites are expensive to run, the Home Office’s view is that ”quelling public disquiet was worth any extra cost.” Current plans include places for 900 claimants near Inverness, and 600 at Crowborough, East Sussex. Needless to say protests are already taking place. The Home Affairs Select Committee has expressed disapproval of the plans as unsuitable and requiring vast expenditure making the sites liveable. Figures for the numbers in hotel accommodation have fallen from 50,000 in June 20203 to 31,000 in June 2025.

A YouGov poll in 2022 revealed that the British public were split on whether or not immigration was good

for the country 29% for, 29% against. By 2025 the equivalent figures were 20% and 43%, and three quarters of responders thought immigration too high. The change in view has been put down to “imagined immigration”, whereby the population has acquired an incorrect understanding of the reality. For example, 47% of respondents believe that there is more illegal than legal immigration (small boat arrivals are actually 4% of the total).

The Government’s decision to end the family reunion process continues to cause concern. It has been suggested that this was an idea taken up from Denmark’s current hardline policy on immigration, and that the Home Secretary is minded to follow more Danish policies, such as allowing in only claimants who are known targets of their home government. The Home Secretary’s plan for a “major shake-up of the immigration and asylum system later this month” will probably take account of other aspects of the Danish system, possibly including its policy of “parallel societies” (removing people from integrated areas to encourage homogeneous neighbourhoods in a two-tier system: catch Iain Watson’s Radio 4 programme “Immigration: the Danish Way” for the story.) [limited time].

In Parliament, the Border Safety, Asylum and Immigration Bill is still in the Lords, where Lord Dubs has an amendment to counter the removal of family reunion by allowing the entry of children lost on the way to this country. This may pass.

Another controversial area of  policy has been Afghanistan, where people who worked for the previous government are being refused asylum as the Home Office claims they are not vulnerable to the Taliban. The organisation Asylos has a paper that has a different view, based on information from on the ground.

On the small boats front, there were 14 consecutive days in late October/early November when no boats crossed the Channel, since when a 1200 arrivals came in two days with better weather. The “one-in, one-out” arrangement with France continues in existence as a pilot scheme, but no assessment has yet been offered.

An interesting view of the prospects for migration comes from Britain in a Changing Europe’s James Bowes, who thinks that migration levels to the UK will fall dramatically. Most of this will be among legal migrants being denied visas, but lower numbers from Ukraine and Hong Kong will also have an effect; total net migration, he predicts, will fall to 70-170,000 in 2026 (the figure was 431,000 in 2024).

The journal Border Criminologies has noted that European governments have been using migrants’ mobile phone data to criminalise them rather than doing proper assessments. This story may get bigger.

There are numerous ongoing campaigns around. Next year’s Refugee Week (15th – 21st June) has as its theme “Courage”; Safe Passage are running a campaign against the family reunion policy under the title “Together Not Torn” “and Refugee Action are encouraging fundraising activities in the pre-Christmas period. Details can be found at https://www.refugee-action.org.uk/campaigns/

AH

https://salisburyai.com

0

Importance of Human Rights: UK Support for the ECHR


November 2025

Nigel Farage’s proposal for the UK to leave the European Convention on Human Rights was defeated on 29 October by 154 votes to 96, a majority of 58. The vote was largely symbolic: a ten-minute bill without government backing is often used simply to air an issue. The Liberal Democrats led the opposition to the bill, a number of Conservatives joined Reform UK in supporting it and many Labour backbenchers chose not to abstain but voted against it, fearing that were it to pass even symbolically, it would send a negative message to European allies.

The position of the Government remains that while it may pursue some changes to the interpretation of the Convention it would under no circumstances seek to abolish it.

75th  Anniversary 

A statement of support for the ECHR was signed by almost 300 organisations to mark the 75th anniversary of the Convention. Organised by Liberty, the statement highlighted the many ways the Convention has helped ordinary people from victims of sexual violence to LGBT+ service personnel, public interest journalists to mental health patients and victims of grave miscarriages of justice, as with the Hillsborough and Windrush cases.

It calls on the government to make the positive case for the UK’s human rights protections and claims that the way the Convention has been scapegoated in recent years has had devastating real world consequences. 

Meanwhile a survey for Amnesty by the widely respected agency Savanta concluded that more than 8 in 10 UK adults say that human rights protections are as important – or more important – today than when the ECHR was created after the Second World War. When asked which rights matter most to them, UK adults chose: the right to a fair trial (42%); the right to life (41%); the right to privacy, family life and respect for your home (40%).   

Support for staying in the ECHR is almost twice as high as support for leaving.  48% want the UK to remain part of the ECHR.  Only 26% want to leave.  

People believe rights should be universal, permanent, and protected from political interference:   87% agree that rights and laws must apply equally to everyone, 85% agree we need a legal safety net to hold the Government accountable in cases like the infected blood scandal and Grenfell and 78% agree rights should be permanent, not something the Government of the day can reduce. 

Respondents were shown a list of major UK scandals or institutional failings and asked which made them feel the importance of strong legal protections and accountability. The top five were: 

Grenfell Tower – 46%; Hillsborough disaster and cover up – 42%;   Infected blood scandal & the COVID inquiry – 37%; The murder of Sarah Everard – 36%;   Windrush scandal – 29%.   

ECHR and Immigration

In response to critics attributing the real problems of the UK’s immigration system to the ECHR, the Good Law Project set out some basic facts about the Convention, namely that it does not provide a right for people to enter or remain in a country of which they are not a national; that the Court rarely rules against the UK on immigration issues at all  – since 1980 only on 13 of the 29 cases concerning either deportation or extradition. And while the Human Rights Act of 1998 incorporating ECHR rights into UK law makes it unnecessary to go to Strasbourg, successful claims to stay in the UK are rare. Last year out of a total inward immigration of 948,000 only 3,790 cases related to the Human Rights Act were won at immigration tribunals.

Protect the Protest: Palestine Action and Judicial Review

Amnesty and Liberty will be making the case to lift the ban on the proscribed activist group Palestine Action in the Judicial Review scheduled for 25 – 27 November.

Defend Our Juries are urging the police not to bow to pressure from the Government but to allow the

peaceful protests organised throughout November at the continuing crisis in Gaza, the West Bank and Israel. They say that police are struggling to enforce the law in the face of peaceful protesters, many of them elderly. Some police forces are refusing outright to make arrests. International and national human rights groups, politicians and United Nations representatives have condemned both the ban and the subsequent attacks on civil liberties. Unions are declaring that they will not recognise the ban, with over 2,100 now arrested under ‘terror charges’ related to this peaceful sign-holding campaign.

Sacha Deshmukh, Amnesty’s Director, criticised the Home Secretary for statements “that create a chilling effect by dissuading people from exercising their fundamental right to peaceful protest. At any time, any interference with freedom of expression must be strictly necessary, proportionate and in full accordance with the law.” 

In a further incident of Transnational repression Sheffield Hallam University terminated a staff member’s project about Uyghur forced labour after Chinese security officers interrogated a staff member in Beijing and a Chinese company named in the report filed a defamation lawsuit in the UK. The university retracted the ban but only after  Professor Laura Murphy, specialising in human rights and modern slavery, began legal action against it for violating her academic freedom.

Latest posts:

All our posts are free to use by other Amnesty or human rights sites.

0

Impact of ECHR on Asylum Seekers in 2025


Immigration and asylum seekers still making waves in UK.

October 2025

This month has been dominated by arguments around the European Convention on Human Rights and the rights of protesters to express their views. Neither of these are directly about refugees, but do have a bearing on the treatment of asylum seekers and dealing with the effects of conflicts. Boat crossings and asylum seekers do feature in the desire to leave the ECHR however.

The government has taken two more actions affecting migrants: making the “leave to remain” decision more difficult by extending the time taken to achieve it, adding more requirements, and blocking family reunions which would previously have been regarded as acceptable. Nando Sigona commented that this “allows policymakers to set shifting and arbitrary standards of belonging.”

One of the areas of complaint by the government has been the “last-minute” stay on deportation of unsuccessful claimants. It has now become clear that this is not gaming the system but the result of the short time available for appeals to be made against the Home Office’s “notice of intent” and the lack of emergency legal aid.

Still in the UK, the “one in, one out” agreement with France has started, but obviously the numbers involved are pretty small. Nevertheless, some commentators, such as Sunder Katwala of British Future take a positive view. At present, the scheme aims to return about 50 people a week; were it to be expanded tenfold, it would make returns “more likely than not”, and at 20 times, “it could operationalise a returns guarantee”. This would effectively destroy the business model of small-boats traffickers, says Katwala. “If you got to the point where there was a guarantee that the irregular route, where you paid a trafficker, wasn’t going to work, and there was a legal scheme to apply to as well, then you would see a three-quarters drop [in numbers arriving by boat].” Eventually, “you could actually eliminate it entirely”. British Future’s polling suggests an intake of 50,000 refugees a year would be supported by 48% of Britons, and opposed by just 18%.

Katwala notes that the US did actually get on top of immigration at the Mexican border in the final year of Joe Biden’s presidency, with a similar “routes and returns” approach by closing off illegal routes to immigration and creating legal ones. The numbers crossing the US border were far greater than those crossing the Channel – 2 million a year – and Biden’s approach reduced them by 77% between December 2023 and August 2024, an achievement that was barely reported at the time.

Also domestically, the government is still planning to phase out hotel accommodation for claimants and is

looking at redundant sites (mostly military) away from inhabited areas – the chief problem is that most of these require major repair work before being acceptable. Also noteworthy is the rumour that the imminent budget will take money away from spending in this area to reduce the deficit. Finally, back to the ECHR; the Supreme Court has taken to using the concept of “margin of appreciation” (in the ECHR but not the HRA) which is a bias towards accepting government cases rather than those of the lawyers – this will likely loom large.

Immigrant numbers falling in Europe

In Europe as a whole, the number of migrants has fallen sharply this year, according to Frontex. In 2025 so far, 112,000 have arrived in the continent, 21% down on last year. Similarly, the number of asylum claims is down by 23% to around 400,000 in the first half of the year. One of the main reasons for this is the EU’s policy of paying “transition countries” to cooperate by not allowing potential migrants through. These countries are chiefly Tunisia and Libya. There have been reports of Libyan security staff throwing people off boats into the sea (Libya is, of course, in the midst of civil war so is not likely to be particularly fastidious).

Frontex say that the number of arrivals by the western route through Algeria have, however, gone up. France and Spain have overtaken Germany as the most favoured final destination – the largest group of national arrivals have been from Venezuela, using Spain as a destination for language reasons. Ursula Van der Leyen has noted that only 20% of those with rejected claims have actually left Europe, and this will be on the agenda for the introduction next year of the new migration pact that has been said to “harden border procedures and envisages accelerated deportation.” Talks are continuing especially about the financial aspects. Interestingly, Hungary is being fined 1 million Euros a day for breeching its responsibilities towards asylum seekers – the government is unmoved.

Fergal Keane at the BBC has been touring the border areas and observed that in Greece, Poland and Latvia migrants were being physically pushed back across the border. The hazardous nature of the whole scenario is reflected in the fact that, over the last 10 years 32,000 migrants have died en route.

For the record, the number of arrivals on small boats this year so far is 34,000, up 36% on the same period last year. The weather is probably the main factor.

Compulsory reading!: The truth about the small-boats crisis – New Statesman.

AH

2

Nigel Farage and immigration


The leader of the Reform party sets out his policy for handling immigrants and asylum seekers

August 2025

Nigel Farage made a speech yesterday (26th) setting out his ideas for handling the rising numbers of immigrants and asylum seekers many of whom arrived in boats across the Channel. Often termed ‘illegal’ immigrants although it is not illegal to come via this method if asylum is claimed. The whole issue of asylum seekers, boat crossings and hotels has become headline news in recent months and there have been protests outside some of them most notably in Epping. A case started today (26 August) concerning an Ethiopian man alleged to have sexually assaulted a 14 year old girl and this has added to the widespread sense of outrage.

Mr Farage in his speech promised to fix the problem in quick order if he became prime minister. His speech has made headlines because of his poll lead which if maintained, could conceivably mean he will be a prime minister after the next election. Some polls show a 15 point lead over Labour. He promised to launch ‘Operation Restoring Justice‘ which would involve leaving the European Convention on Human Rights (joining Russia and Belarus), repealing the Human Rights Act and disapplying the Refugee Convention. This is to enable the UK to detain every migrant arriving illegally. Countries will be persuaded by a mixture of ‘carrot and stick’ to take them back. These will include countries with poor human rights records such as Iran, Afghanistan and Sudan where the risk of torture or death is extremely likely. The detentions will include women and children he made clear. They ‘will never be allowed to stay’ he said.

Critical issues arose in the press conference and included the cost and where they will be housed while deportations are arranged. He was not able to answer these questions. By amending or abolishing the legislations and coming out of the ECHR etc, it will frustrate the ability of lawyers to prevent deportations largely because the majority do have asylum claims which are legitimate. Over the coming days, other criticisms will appear. For example, existing English law, upon which the ECHR was largely founded after the war, provides protections despite membership of the Convention. Will foreign countries be willing to accept the large numbers involved?

Human rights

The concern here though is the desire to rid us of the ECHR and to repeal the Human Rights Act. This has popped up as a policy in several Conservative manifestos but has never actually come to pass. Local MP Danny Kruger is an advocate of this policy. Mr Farage’s ideas gained favourable coverage in some of the newspapers with the Daily Mail saying in a headline ‘Finally a politician who gets it’ [26 August, accessed 27 August]. His indifference to those he proposes returning to countries where torture is routine was particularly noteworthy. It is interesting however, looking at the comments from readers many of which were not supportive of his comments despite the uncritical nature of the article. The extent to which Mr Farage and Reform are making the waves was clear from the responses from the two main parties. Kemi Badenoch complaining that Reform had stolen their policies and a No 10 statement merely saying that Labour could not rule out leaving the ECHR. There was strong condemnation from the Liberal Democrats.

Mr Farage couched his speech in terms of a public mood of ‘total despair and rising anger’. It is disappointing to note the feeble and pusillanimous nature of the responses in particular from No 10. Britain was in the lead in promoting a new world order after the war following the Atlantic Conference. The ECHR was based a lot on British principles of justice. We would join only Russia and Belarus if we left – neither country a ringing endorsement of rights and human dignity. It is also disappointing to see newspapers like the Daily Mail, the Daily Express and the Daily Telegraph (How Farage would kick 600,000 migrants out of Britain) seemingly to endorse Mr Farage with little sign of critical analysis. The Telegraph even had a story headed ‘We’re ready to work with Farage on migration says Taliban‘. The human rights situation in Afghanistan is abysmal.

How have we come to a situation where prejudice and a lack of critical reporting about the almost unworkable and hugely expensive proposals put forward by Reform are treated in this way? Instead of a robust response and clear statements of how to tackle problems, the two main parties seem to be falling over themselves to ape Reform policies. Partly it is because they confuse some newspaper reporting as reflective of the wider public’s feelings about immigration which are a lot less black and white. It may also be a reflection of years of negative articles by some newspapers about human rights – and by extension the Human Rights Act – claiming it is a criminal’s charter. It is perhaps not surprising that part of Mr Farage’s speech was about the HRA and he spoke of ‘removing the tools from our judiciary’ to prevent successful asylum claims.

A point he referred to several times was around ‘whose side are you on?’ This was in answer to a question from the BBC concerning the risk of returnees being tortured. His answer was ‘are you on the side of the safety of our women and children on our streets, or on the side of outdated treaties backed up by dubious courts’. Another quote was defending our borders and keeping our people safe. There is no evidence of women and children rendered unsafe on our streets disproportionately by immigrants (illegal or otherwise). The torture question was asked more than once.

The tone of the presentation was that immigrants are a threat to our society. That women and girls are unsafe despite the fact that many asylum seekers and others are in secured accommodation. By extension, many of our problems would be removed in short order if he became prime minister. The HRA and other laws and treaties are part of the problem he claims.

Reflections

Mr Farage, despite being a member of a party with only 4 MPs, is able to command a big audience from a speech and to be the lead item on many news channels.

He enjoys wide and largely uncritical support in chunks of the media.

Mr Farage himself (!) noted an interesting point, namely most of the press questions were about process. There was little of a moral or principled point of view.

A large part of his speech was based on dubious claims and unsubstantiated facts. There are problems surrounding immigration and he is correct that both parties have been ham-fisted in trying to deal with them and failing. But solutions are complex and the nation cannot simply step away from international treaties and agreements.

He does not discuss the reactions from other nations from his set of unilateral proposals to deport all illegal migrants. The question is – what if all countries decided to do the same? He spoke of return agreements and an expert from the Migration Observatory said in an interview that such agreements had a mixed history.

He speaks as though the UK is uniquely affected by these problems. The reality is that the scale of displaced people around the world is massive. There are 36.8m refugees worldwide and 123m displaced people according to UNHCR. The UK’s problems in comparison are miniscule. We are also a rich country better able than most to tackle the problem with capable leadership. Many of the millions are in, or adjacent to, countries which are among the world’s poorest. No part of his speech discussed what could be done to tackle the worldwide problem.

So whose side are we on to pose Mr Farage’s question? Not his.

0

Tensions around asylum and immigration


The events around the hotel in Epping show deep tensions around asylum

August 2025

It is tempting to say that, in respect of immigration and asylum, little has changed over the past century or so. The arrival of thousands of Polish and Russian Jews fleeing from the pogroms at the end of the 19th Century, was the start of protests and antipathy towards what were then called ‘aliens’. The Aliens Act was passed in 1905 as a response to growing concerns. In subsequent eras there have been other outbreaks particularly with the arrival of Commonwealth citizens in the ’60s as Britain gave up its empire.

The current anger centred on the Bell Hotel in Epping which is one of many hotels used by the Home Office to house the immigrants awaiting assessment as to whether their asylum claims are valid or not. Recent tensions have been heightened by the increasing numbers of people arriving by boat over the English Channel. Large, angry crowds have assembled outside the hotel stimulated by claims that one of the inhabitants had molested a 14 year old British girl, an allegation he denies. In common with other disturbances – the Southport riots for example – social media has had a role to play in circulating rumours and speculation. The tensions have been an opportunity for politicians of various ilks to promote their views. Nigel Farage of Reform has made statements and Robert Jenrick of the Conservatives has also been voluble. He claimed in an article in the Daily Mail that he feared for the safety of his 3 daughters because of the ‘medieval attitude to women’ of men arriving by boat. The article refers to a ‘spate’ of crimes [alleged] to be committed by asylum seekers.

History

Historically, the fears follow a similar pattern. There is the fear of a loss of jobs by immigrants undercutting local labour. This is not altogether logical since those in these hotels are prohibited from working. Safety fears often surface such as those voiced by Jenrick. Taking up housing is another common reason and it will be galling for people spending years on a waiting list seeing immigrants being housed although the standard of accommodation is not always of the highest. In any event, this is about a hotel being used not houses occupied. A threat to our culture and our way of life is frequently expressed. We can see some of these themes in the Britain First website (described as a far right and fascist organisation by some). The pages contain words such as Britain being ‘overrun’ with mass immigration; the danger of ‘losing our country’ for ever; of our culture and heritage being ‘diluted’ and the risk of ‘erasing our identity’. Words like ‘hoards’ and ‘invasion’ often appear.

“We are not happy with these men in this hotel [Epping] because we fear for our children” A woman interviewed by the BBC

Common to the previous and historical outbreaks of this kind of angst concerning immigrants is a country experiencing stress. Added to that is the great mass of the population who do not feel they are being listened to and certainly not by politicians. Politicians have sometimes praised the contribution that immigrants have brought to our society – and rightly so – since large parts of our economy would grind to a halt without their input. But, they have not given that much attention to the social impacts and providing the resources to integrate people into society.

The problem is that people wishing to seek asylum in this country from places like Afghanistan, Sudan, Eritrea or Iran for example, have almost no legal means to do so. As routes have been closed off and entering on lorries now almost impossible, crossing the Channel is about the only means left. Once here, matters have been made worse by an inept Home Office. Considering how long this issue of immigration and asylum has been a political hot potato, it is astonishing that systems have not been geared up sufficiently to tackle it. Painfully slow assessments and inadequate accommodation have provided fuel to the fire of anger, hostility and a golden opportunity for populist politicians to jump in.

In a statement, Amnesty has said: Thousands of refugees are being refused asylum under flawed criteria that were introduced but not applied by the previous government – criteria this administration has irresponsibly chosen to maintain and enforce. This is a shocking abandonment of people fleeing war, torture and persecution and simply pushes backlogs and costs elsewhere – including into the appeals system.

In interviews, various politicians and others have argued that we should leave the European Convention to enable harsher measures to be introduced. We seem to have arrived at a place where fear and prejudice are defining forces, where media and social media amplify those prejudices, where politicians are too fearful to stand up against them and other politicians see them as an opportunity. Moral and humanitarian arguments are only occasionally heard. It is a great pity that the passions on show outside hotels and mosques could not be directed at some of the causes of the problem. Where is the anger at arms companies who profit and help foment the civil wars? Where are the protests outside City firms who handle the vast fortunes from those arms deals? Instead, anger is directed towards those who fled this unrest to seek sanctuary here.

Previous posts:

Have you thought of becoming a subscriber?

0

UK Refugee Crisis: Strategies to Address Small Boat Arrivals


Refugees and boat crossings still making political waves

July 2025

With the state visit of President Macron this week, the small boats are back in the headlines. As Macron and Starmer try to thrash out a deal to reduce the numbers arriving in the UK, the UK has been pressuring the French police to use new tactics against the irregular immigrants, allowing them to stop boats from up to 300 meters from the shoreline rather than only dealing with them on land. Presently they can only intervene if there is danger to life. The police are, in any event accused of puncturing inflatable boats as well as more heinously using tear gas and pepper spray on children.

An agreement between the UK and France on a “one in one out” basis, so that any arrival can be sent

back to France if replaced by a candidate deemed more worthy by dint of family connection, has been mooted, but the press conference will be on Thursday afternoon, so we will not know just yet. At all events, other EU nations are complaining about a possible deal which will make it more likely that arrivals in Europe will end up on their shores.

‘we have to make migration boring again’

Meanwhile, Amy Pope, the CEO of the (UN’s) International Organisation for Migration, has suggested any proposed changes will be unlikely to work, bearing in mind the level of commitment the migrants have already put in before reaching the English Channel. She is also in favour of de-politicising the debate. Her comment “We have to make migration boring again” is clearly  the most valuable contribution from anyone so far.

Arrivals

As noted last month, the number of arrivals in the UK on small boats continues to break records (20,000 by the end of June). This has been put down to good weather, smugglers’ new techniques and increasing conflicts around the world (the largest number of hopeful asylum seekers in Calais are from Sudan).

The Government is hoping to save up to £1 billion by speeding up backlog processing. However, the backlog is now 90,000 rather than 50,000 in 2024. In 2024, there were84,000 asylum claims – In the EU as a whole there were nearly a million – 997,000.

With much discussion on what legal routes immigrants can take, here is a summary of the current situation in the UK: there are presently 7 options.

  1. UNHCR can select people it thinks appropriate to send (the places cannot be applied for, and amount to only 1% of all refugees).
  2. UK Resettlement Scheme. The status of this is unclear; it includes community sponsorship and accounts for about 700 arrivals last year.
  3. Mandate Scheme. This is for people with relatives in the UK. 23 cases were reported in 2024.
  4. Family Reunions. Applies after refugee status has been agreed by the UK.

Mostly Syrians , Iranians and Eritreans. 5000 in quarter 1 2025.

  • Hong Kong. Numbers low now as most cases already settled.
  • Afghanistan. ACRS and ARAOP have now been closed, with virtually no explanation. “Further measures…[will be] announced later this year.” More Afghans have been arriving by boats than under these arrangements anyway.
  • Ukraine. Numbers also down now to about 4000 a month. Only 1698 asylum claims since 2022.

The Refugee Council have a new report New Roots, New Futures, arguing for a national integration strategy for refugees in the UK. They are particularly exercised by the need for new arrivals to have access to help in obtaining work and housing once they have been given right to remain.

The Green Party have put forward a plan for the Home Office to be split, with various options for the immigration departments.

By way of context, it should be noted that 73% of the world’s refugees are in Low/Middle Income countries, 67% of them are in countries neighbouring the one they are fleeing. Per head of population the countries with the highest number of refugees are Lebanon (1 in 8 of the population), Aruba and Chad.

The European Convention on Human Rights has become an issue again with questionable claims being made about possible unfair exploitation of loopholes. It should be stated that the Convention does not affect individual countries’ immigration policy, and that it is rare for claimants to a right of “family life” and such to win their case. The ECHR has ruled against the UK twice in the last two years, in neither case about immigration/deportation issues. They have generally prevented removals from the UK about once every 4.5 years since 1980. Leaving the Convention over this issue would seem rather unnecessary.

Andrew Hemming

Recent posts:

0

Why Labour Leaders Are Pushing for ECHR Revisions: A Political Analysis


Alarming stories that Labour leaders are wanting to reform the European Convention

June 2025

Alarming reports have emerged over the past few days that the current government is considering some kind of revision to the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR). Figures such as the prime minister Sir Keir Starmer, the Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood and the Attorney General Lord Hermer have made speeches suggesting disquiet concerning aspects of the Convention. In particular it is article 3: No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment and article 8: Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.

This story has history and the statements by politicians are more than usually disingenuous. To understand the story and the reasons for this recent slew of statements it is necessary to look at causes and why there is a clamour among politicians, some of the public and the media for change.

Stage 1 – the media

Much of the pressure has come from sections of the media so it is necessary to look at what is going on there. Newspaper readership has declined precipitately. Between 2000 and 2010, the decline was 65% and in the following decade up to 2020 a further 55%. Add in rising costs and declining advertising, and there is something of a crisis in the newsrooms. In this climate, it is cheaper to break into the emails, phones, bank accounts and even houses of the rich and famous, politicians and footballers to achieve a juicy front page, than to carry on the normal business of journalism.

Then came the hacking exposures and the Leveson enquiry which exposed the depth and extent of the hacking and criminal activity. It included senior police officers in the Metropolitan police in particular who sold information to the newspapers. This changed the dynamic of the industry and the notion of privacy was an anathema to their business models.

Over the last two decades there have been hundreds of stories alleging that criminals were not getting their just deserts because of their human rights either because of the ECHR or the domestic Human Rights Act. It was a ‘criminal’s charter’ they alleged. Photos of wanted criminals could not be circulated because of their human rights (they can), police could not evict an armed man until they provided him with a McDonalds hamburger because of his human rights (they could but it was normal practice to accede to requests to cool the situation). Abu Qatada was seriously misreported in the tussle over his deportation to Jordan.

Sadly, positive stories about the acts were almost entirely missing. The Daily Mail used the act to defend its journalist’s rights to protects their sources but strangely forgot to mention this to its readers.

Stage 2 – the politicians

Then the politicians began to join in perhaps sensing from the newspaper coverage that they were onto a popular winner. After all, if the voters were reading a never ending litany of stories about the evils of the human rights laws and Europe meddling in our affairs, it was a gift. It soon became part of the Conservative manifestos to abolish the act or later reform it. It became tangled up with the Brexit crusade and it is possible that many thought that coming out of Europe would mean that the ECHR would also be history. There was the famous cat story by Theresa May which was almost complete nonsense.

There was meant to be a Leveson part II to look at the unlawful conduct between the media and police but there were allegations that in return for a softer ride from the press, Keir Starmer agreed not to set it up. These allegations are denied. There are no plans for a part II.

Stage 3 – the boat people

As the means to arrive into the UK as a refugee or an asylum seeker diminished so the numbers who took to the boats to cross the Channel rose. This became a matter of massive political importance and the Reform party made huge progress with its promises to stop it. Media stories of asylum seekers being installed in hotels are constant. Despite boat crossings being only a small part of those coming to the UK, they loom large in the public imagination and politicians on the right have taken note of this.

The problem is that the government has obligations under the ECHR and other agreements, to treat asylum seekers in a proper way. Demands to simply ‘send them back’ are difficult to do particularly as ‘back’ can mean a county riven by war or where they can face dire consequences. But in simplistic terms human rights are standing in the way, as Mahmood says: ‘voters say international law stop them achieving the changes they want to see.‘

Stage 4 – the Reform party

Along came Reform and quickly began to made inroads into the political landscape. The overturning of a massive Labour majority of 14,700 in Runcorn and Helsby by Reform has shaken them badly. Reform has simple answers to matters like immigration which appeal to many and which has defeated both the Conservatives and now Labour. They would pick up boats in the Channel and return them to France. Asylum seekers would be processed off shore. These and other policies quick fix policies appeal to many and saying that they are difficult or impossible to do because of our international obligations carry little weight with many voters. They are even inflammatory particularly with those who have a deep distaste for anything European.

Stage 5 – today

So the Labour government is feeling under pressure. It has not ‘solved’ the Channel crossings problem. It has lost popularity for a variety of reasons quite apart from the discussion here. Reform is making great strides and even ahead in some polls with suggestions that Nigel Farage becoming a future prime minister was not the joke it might once have been. The Home Office remains dysfunctional and would take years to reform even under competent leadership. The party is becoming desperate to be able to counter the tide of dissatisfaction present in large parts of the kingdom particularly in the red wall seats.

So this brings into where we started and speeches about trying to reform elements of ECHR. The sadness is that they cannot. It would take years to carry through any reform in Strasbourg with little likelihood of success. If the government were to resile from either or both articles 3 and 8 would it solve its problems? Again sadly, no. The opposition to human rights laws and agreements have little to do with the people at the bottom of society so to speak. Almost no part of their speeches are about the victims of injustice which human rights are about.

As we have argued, it is sections of the media who have over decades created myths and disinformation about the workings of the laws. It is their business models which are under threat not the fate of asylum seekers. Why else would the Murdoch press spend over £1 billion in keeping the facts of its intrusion and criminality out of the courts? It is an irony – almost a supreme irony – that the much prized sovereignty that people apparently so desperately want is not in fact available to them. The Judiciary are all too happy to allow these hugely expensive legal actions to go ahead and thus subvert justice and free speech. There is no justice in any meaningful sense of the word. The rich and powerful can ‘buy’ silence by paying large sums into court that no one can afford to match.

These speeches appear to be preparing the ground at present in an attempt to match the rhetoric of Reform politicians. Instead of a proper concern for justice, establishing a Leveson II enquiry into the criminality of some of the media and their friends in the police, or tackling the rampant injustice of the defamation laws which serve to protect the rich from proper enquiry, our politicians seek to curry favour and favourable headlines in those very media outlets which have distorted the public’s attitudes to the laws which in truth protect them. The sadness is that the three politicians saying this stuff are experienced human rights lawyers who know it to be a distortion of the truth. A truly bizarre state of affairs.

1

Political Waves: The Crisis of Refugee Boat Crossings in 2025


Refugees and the boat crossings still making political waves

June 2025

This month we are back to the small boats.  So far in 2025 some 15,000 arrivals have been recorded (1,100 on one day).  The Home Office say this is due to better weather and more people crammed in to boats.  In quarter 1 numbers were up by 20% on last year – mainly from the usual places – Eritrea, Afghanistan, Sudan.

The asylum backlog is down to 78,000, but with a lower grant rate (49% over the last year) the improvement may not be maintained.  The number of claimants jailed for “illegal arrival” has doubled in the last year.  Between 2022 and 2024, 556 arrivals were prosecuted under the Illegal Migration Act and 455 convicted (half of them were said to be piloting the boats, willingly or otherwise, and were therefore “facilitators”). In the latter half of last year, 53 people were arrested for people smuggling including many who happened to be steering the boats and many of them children.

Plans for removing arrivals to third countries for processing have made little progress ; Albania said no, North Macedonia & Kosovo have not been asked  but say they are open to discussion.

3,800 Afghans are currently awaiting homes (who came under the ARS scheme and were left unsupported). Also it has been claimed that an unnamed Special Forces officer blocked the entry of 1585 Afghans (it has been suggested this might be related to potential war crimes revelations).

Mary Bosworth (Oxford Professor of Criminology) has an interesting piece on the outsourced immigration detainee escorting system Mary Bosworth (@mfbosworth.bsky.social) — Bluesky

7000 Syrians are still in limbo awaiting a UK decision on processing their claims after a pause (the new regime is still being monitored, though presumably it will eventually be possible for many to return there).

The US has taken on “refugees” from South Africa, white residents supposedly under threat.  So far there have been 50,000 enquiries and 68 actual moves.

The Home Secretary has said she is working on a “fast-tracking” removal system for migrants from “safe” countries; these have not yet been named.

Of the 108,000 claimants for asylum status in the last year 16,000 were from holders of student visas. The government is likely to address this question soon.

Immigrant-focused group British Future have polled the public on attitudes to the word “immigrant”.  For 70% of respondents this conjured up people on small boats, while 46% thought of imported workers.  Of those who wanted to see a reduction in immigration, 49% prioritised the boats, very few mentioning worker or student arrivals.  The research also finds that 59% of the public, and 64% of 2024 Labour voters, agree that migrants living in the UK and paying taxes should be eligible to apply for citizenship after five years or less.

Polling organisation More in Common found that 51% thought a fall in immigration a good thing, 57% opining that the level was still too high.

One of the more interesting ideas for Refugee Week is that of Lancaster, where an exhibition, Escape to Safety, will give visitors an interactive view of the refugee experience.  More on that here

Finally, the Government’s Spending Review this week had a couple of points on the immigration/asylum seekers question.  Chancellor Rachel Reeves says the new Border Security Command will receive up to £280m more a year by the end of the spending-review period.  She also promises that all spending on hotels for asylum seekers waiting for their cases to be heard will stop by the end of this parliament.

Andrew Hemming

0

Refugee report


Monthly report on this politically toxic topic

April 2025

The Government’s Border Security Asylum and Immigration Bill has now completed its report stage and will next go to the Lords.  While this is going on, an update on the numbers shows that the number of small boat arrivals this year so far has exceeded 6000, the highest yet.  Meanwhile the backlog of pending asylum cases has increased to 41,000 in December.

The PM has drawn together 40 nations for his Organised Immigration Crime summit last week.  A press release went without much comment, containing the usual statements about agreeing to enhance border security and dismantle the criminal networks.  One item which did emerge was an agreement with Serbia to exchange intelligence about what is now known as the Western Balkans route into Europe.

Following this event, some 136 organisations under the umbrella of Together with Refugees wrote to the Government, unhappy about the language used by the Prime Minister, which they described as “demonising.”  The PM had claimed: “There is little that strikes working people as more unfair than watching illegal migration drive down their wages, their terms and their conditions through illegal work in their community.”

New research from the European University has suggested that attitudes in Europe to irregular migration are more nuanced and varied than previously supposed.  This was from a survey which covered 20,000 people across Austria, Italy, Poland, Sweden, and the UK designed to understand their preferences on policies regarding access to healthcare, social welfare and labour protections, as well as the obtainment of regular legal status or “regularisation” for irregular migrants. The results challenge the idea that public attitudes toward irregular migrants’ rights are simply “for” or “against”.  Instead, they found that variations in policy design matter – and when policies include both migration controls and protections for migrants, public support often increases.

Unusually, there is some emphasis this month about campaigning.  Refugee Week (third week in June) is this year under the theme of Community as a Superpower with its customary emphasis on small actions. The group might consider an action (s) which might include:

Following our action against denying asylum seekers the right to work pushing for a change in the law. Refugee Action have a petition to sign here and, for more information, you can Read the coalition’s report here. We could arrange our own petition using the Lift the Ban coalition’s resources.

  • Pressing for Salisbury to be a City of Sanctuary (Winchester and Swindon are)
  • A letter writing workshop for supporting asylum seekers (maybe using the Salisbury Ecohub)
  • A vigil for small boat arrivals (as we did a few years ago)
  • Safe Passage want us to write to our MPs about government  policy and the new bill

(They have a standard email, but this could be enhanced).

Also Refugee Action are offering speakers for local groups – they admit they would mostly be online, but they can make visits.

Finally, a recommended read is Labour’s Immigration Policy by Daniel Trilling (who many will remember gave a talk to us some years ago) in the London Review of Books for March.

Andrew Hemming

0

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑