Upon taking office as Prime Minister, one of Sir Keir Starmer’s immediate actions was to scrap the previous administration’s plan to deport asylum seekers to Rwanda. This move was both practical and ethically necessary. The Rwanda initiative was not only costly and ineffective but also violated international treaty obligations, further extending the suffering of refugees.
The Labour Party’s alternative comes in the form of the border security, asylum, and immigration bill, which recently passed its second reading in the House of Commons. This new legislation proposes enhanced police powers to tackle the smuggling of people across the Channel using small boats. It also introduces a new border security command, equipped with capabilities akin to counter-terrorism measures.
Focusing on dismantling the criminal networks behind these perilous Channel crossings makes sense. If paired with the establishment of safe routes for asylum seekers to enter the UK, it could represent a system that is both effective in shutting down dangerous paths and compassionate in offering legal alternatives.
However, the latter part of this ideal solution is noticeably missing. Additionally, the government has quietly kept one particularly harsh element of the now-abandoned Conservative policy. According to Home Office guidelines, those who undertake dangerous journeys to reach the UK are typically denied citizenship. Essentially, entering the country unlawfully is seen as a mark against a person’s “good character,” potentially disqualifying them.
This stance implies that countless individuals, whose asylum claims are acknowledged as legitimate and who might have already made the UK their home, are barred from obtaining citizenship. They find themselves stuck in a bureaucratic limbo. While this isn’t quite as severe as the Conservative law that outright prevented small boat arrivals from claiming asylum—which contradicted UN refugee conventions—it shows less difference between the Labour and Tory strategies than was initially suggested.
The Conservatives defended their plan under the guise of deterrence, claiming that eliminating the possibility of asylum would discourage the dangerous journey. Yet, there was no tangible evidence to support this. In reality, the underlying intention seemed to be saving face with voters shifting allegiance to Nigel Farage’s Reform UK. It appears Labour, now confronting a similar electoral situation, is suffering from the same anxiety.
The Conservatives’ approach not only failed as a policy but also heightened the immigration debate without providing effective solutions. Sir Keir seems to be repeating this error. The mistake could be particularly damaging. Amplifying the topic of illegal migration won’t disarm Reform UK’s narrative and risks alienating Labour supporters. While it might be difficult to devise an asylum system that satisfies everyone, finding a balance between practicality and humanity is crucial. Sir Keir understood this in opposition, and stepping away from that insight in government might be something he’ll come to regret.
