Public sentiment towards the UK's new asylum policies is overwhelmingly negative, characterized by deep frustration, distrust in government intentions, and skepticism about the effectiveness of proposed reforms. Many commenters believe the measures reflect political rhetoric rather than genuine action, expressing concerns over rising anti-immigrant sentiment and inadequate responses to real immigration issues.

UK Government

Labour Party

Conservative Party

&gt; _final.pdf

like a student finishing his thesis 2 hours before the deadline

Think_Young_5815

There's a mention of legal migrants and our upcoming ILR changes:

&gt;A longer path to settlement. In the future there will be no path to indefinite settled status in the UK on Core Protection, until a refugee has spent 20 years in the country, an increase on the current five years. Settlement requirements will be considered in an upcoming consultation on earned settlement, covering both legal and illegal migrants.

  
So, for those who were wondering, the consultation hasn't started yet.

AfterAll14

[deleted]

Is any of this retroactive? That would be relevant precedent for swv changes

Familiar9709

I am afraid these cruel games will get very very dirty very fast.

Honestly reconsidering my whole relationship with this country.

I am a EU citizen. This “we’ll seize your jewellery” move disgusts me considering what we’ve already seen in this continent, and I need to personally assess my principles and whether I really want to live in a country that sees no issues with this kind of policies.

SevereAstronaut6866

"Our intention is that those arriving on the reformed resettlement routes will be on the ten-year route to settlement. However, this will be subject to wider consultation."

Same consultation or different consultation?

Lost_child_3263

Labour MP using term Boriswave https://x.com/trisosbornemp/status/1990349137091723399?s=46

Murky-Fault9

Thank you for sharing — 20 years for ILR for this cohort is… awful.

yeahsureokaymaybe

Is there any mention on these rules being retrospective?
I couldn't see and understand?

omerbrussels

Ocahne1998

How do these policies compare to previous Telegraph article?

OkValuable1761

My guess is that Labours views on SWV wont be hard enough and Reform will focus on that.

The-Ghost-84

It does mention skilled workers though, in Section 8, in the second subpoint under the third point...

It clearly means that companies will be able to sponsor skilled workers. Not only that, but I read a BBC article that listed the changes and it would appear that companies may even be able to headhunt people still in other countries.

OhShortJohnson

UnlikelySession9538

cyberghost741

One takeaway is they are intending for refugees who are sponsored to study or work to settle after 10 years, this means they are probably unlikely to further restrict the long residence route.

cngzlsh0211

One thing I’m not very clear about and feels relevant to SWV is: they mentioned asylum seekers who come to UK legally and transferred to their work and study route can go on the streamlined 10 year route. I noted this as even if they work (as we do) the maximum reduction they can get is 10 years. This makes me think that from government’s  perspective, work does not mean much contribution and will not give you more benefit on reducing your qualifying period. It’s possible that they design a model which will make majority of SWV holders to fall into 10 year default route. I do not think they’ll sensibly create something that measures contribution fairly.

SuccessfulPatience37

RIGHT WHY THE HELL ARE WE TALKING ABOUT ASYLUM IN THE SKILLED WORKER VISA PLACE

Own-Competition-9807

Any update on exactly when the broader consultation referenced here will begin / end????

Can't believe they are still pushing the digital id thing

Marlobone

20 years or 5 years it does not matter unless they are basically not allowed to apply for a different visa while in Asylum. 

For example what happens if an asylum seeker marries a British born. What if they have children and they are in the UK for 7+ years. Meaning they also become citizen as parent of the child anyway.

The main thing is asylum applications needs to be processed promptly with more resource to make them waste as little public funds as possible. They should be permanently banned from getting citizenship or ILR before 20 years regardless of any other factor. If they go to their home country after becoming citizen their citizenship can and should be revoked. Some sort of rules like this is necessary. Backdate existing ILR holders to check if they have travelled to their home country. Then just revoke and deport! Then ban permanently from asylum or any other route.

Sometimes a government needs to be ruthless to protect their own interest. Most middle eastern country is that ruthless by default and it simply works! Outliers needs to be filtered out quickly with authority and you will see that majority are not in danger and is seeking asylum for economical reasons only.

mrcringelord007

CarProfessional5234

emorgoral

Not really relevant cause those policies definitely need primary legislation, but the ILR thing doesn’t

[LabUK is also on Discord, come say hello!](https://discord.gg/ZXZCdy4Kz4)


*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/LabourUK) if you have any questions or concerns.*

AutoModerator

&gt;green-pen posters left on lamp-posts

Am I allowed to mention that this is oddly specific?

Professional-Sea2875

Happy to respond to this - although your comments on this \*have\*been quite annoying imo because you did basically accused all critics of the government as being pro "open borders". As I'm sure you well know plenty of members of the PLP are appalled by these recent policies, and they aren't for open borders, while I'm happy to engage constructively you should practice what you approach. and also in general while it's good to come with solutions, people are allowed to be critical of policies without having a fully costed white paper at hand - that's democracy.

With that slightly snippy intro aside:

* Would you place restrictions on who can gain refugee status?
   * Yes - I think the current criteria is mostly reasonable, around people fleeing war, serious persecution, the death penalty etc
* Would refugee status be affected by any change in the safety of the country a refugee came from?
   * Not necessarily it would have to be done on a case by case basis - ie a political dissident or an LGBT person might be individually more at risk independent of the overall "safety" of the country
* When would a refugee be able to apply for Indefinite Leave to Remain (ILR)?
   * Yes, it's 5 years now and I think that's reasonable
* Would you place any restrictions other than time on their ability to get ILR?
   * Not committing crimes seems fair
* What would happen to individuals whose asylum claims were turned down?
   * They would be deported
* What would happen to refugees who commit serious crimes?
   * Depends on a case by case basis once again - if they're going to be tortured or executed I don't think they should be returned. I think they should lose the right to gain ILR, and then depending on the circumstances deport them where possible, but not if it's a death sentence.

PuzzledAd4865

Given that the countries problems weren't/aren't caused by a small minority of migrants who have the strongest claim to a right to be here, I'd say the system we had was fine. 

It broadly just needed investment in quicker processing and sustainable accommodation for new asylum seekers then we can sit back as the problems vanish. A really bad idea for labour (and anybody with a shred of humanity) would be to play into right wing narratives and falsehoods that push voters to reform whilst simultaneously making changes that achieve nothing but hurting people. When farage says some bollocks that scapegoats refugees labour could have instead pointed out how he worsens these problems and then pointed to a record of policies that actually address the underlying issue whilst proposing further solutions to continue building on that. In a better world we would have seen that.

I think the actual problem here is that labour are fundamentally incapable of offering a coherent or appealing alternative narrative beyond scapegoating refugees and are frankly incapable of convincing anybody of anything.

Toastie-Postie

&gt;I've moaned a couple of times over the past 24 hours that Labour is singularly terrible at discussing immigration policy


Does this include the home secretary who says illegal immigration is "tearing this country apart" and that illegal immigrants are "getting a golden ticket'? Because that doesn't sound like a productive way of discussing immigration.

kontiki20

Where do you think this rhetoric on "asylum is temporary" goes? The logical endpoint is the deportation of Rita Ora, Nadhim Zahawi, Holocaust refugees who naturalised as British citizens and others. Sure, Mahmood said these new rules will only apply to new asylum applications that are accepted, but you have to be very careful with your language.

Yes, many Holocaust refugees returned, but some stayed and became British citizens.

upthetruth1

**Would you place restrictions on who can gain refugee status?**

There already are restrictions. The basis should be whether they are safe to return or not.

**Would refugee status be affected by any change in the safety of the country a refugee came from?**

Refugees who have settled here are settled here. Refugees who are in the process of settling shouldn't have it cancelled. People who want to return to the country they fled from should of course be allowed too. Different people are at different risks which all need taking into account.

**When would a refugee be able to apply for Indefinite Leave to Remain (ILR)?**

After 5 years currently isn't it? Seems fine. To be clear as I understand it ILR = settled = right to live, study, work. So after 5 years getting ILR doesn't mean indefinitely in limbo, they can fully live and function here. 

**Would you place any restrictions other than time on their ability to get ILR?**

They should speed up processing so people who are going to be able to live and work here in 12-24 months anyway can do it sooner instead of being in limbo for ages.

**What would happen to individuals whose asylum claims were turned down?**

What is justified here depends on what basis the claims are assessed on. Sending refugees back to places they are at serious risk is not acceptable. 

**What would happen to refugees who commit serious crimes?**

If they are at serious risk of death or mistreatment in their country of origin as a pre-condition to making a succesful aslyum claim then they should be put into British prisons. Especially if they are settled here. 

More broadly I think even if you want to 'triangulate' using anti-immigration sentiment in a 'damage control' way doing it over refugees takes everything bad about more general anti-immigrant stances and concentrates it into attacking the most vulnerable but also most sympathetic sub-section of immigrants. Without just doing full far-right you aren't going to make things more white and you aren't going to magically transform public services either, so neither are going to really deliver the two main things people demanding action on immigration want anyway. So I think even ignoring all moral considerations, dismissing all the economic reasons, and just playing politics with these people's lives it's still a shitty things for the governmetn to focus on. If they insist on taking up a rightwing populist stance on immigration it should be on immigration in general, not attacking refugees. 

**Can I request that if your contribution to this discussion is what you believe to be a witty remark or a pithy comparison of Labour to an authoritarian government from the 1930s, that you treat the followers of your Substack/Twitter account/green-pen posters left on lamp-posts instead?**

Mate they are talking about taking jewellery from people. Rather like Starmer's "island of strangers" comments you can get as upset as you want about people being mean or unfair but you know as well as anyone Starmer is doing it to himself. Sure he's not Enoch Powell even if you think his policies are bad or he's a bit racist, but how can you blame people who don't like Starmer for this? Isn't the person letting you down here Starmer and his team for making what even you are forced to admit are at best stupid comms blunders that make it easy for people, in your view, to misreprseent and mock his policies?

MMSTINGRAY

I see its time for the regularly scheduled rant about left wing people. this time its "why don't left wing people like it when the government proposes stealing jewellery from people fleeing war".

&gt; or a pithy comparison of Labour to an authoritarian government from the 1930s

You mean the Nazi's who confiscated valuables from people before putting them in the gas chambers? The genocide where our refusal to take in refugees lead to modern laws on refugees? That authoritarian government?

&gt; Would you place restrictions on who can gain refugee status?

There are already restrictions.

&gt; Would refugee status be affected by any change in the safety of the country a refugee came from?

Fun fact. The government, after spending several years arguing Syria was totally safe when it tried to reject asylum seekers from Syria has now turned around and said it wasn't safe but it now is safe now that Assad is gone!

Anyway the obvious answer is yes, things change.

&gt; When would a refugee be able to apply for Indefinite Leave to Remain (ILR)?

5 years.

&gt; Would you place any restrictions other than time on their ability to get ILR?

No

&gt; What would happen to individuals whose asylum claims were turned down?

Deported

&gt; What would happen to refugees who commit serious crimes?

The same thing that happens to any citizens or people with ILR

&gt; If this sub had a 'serious' flair I'd use it.

No you wouldn't. It would get in the way of your ability to complain.

AnotherSlowMoon

I know this isn't really relevant, but I live in a small town (10,000ish), and everyone here is obsessed with immigration. There are 19 Muslims here. 0.2% and they're freaking out them ruining the town. Ridiculous.

Metempsychosify

ILR - can't anyone apply? Why should refugees not be allowed to? If they've been living here for a decade I don't see why we shouldn't give them more opportunities to integrate and be part of the community.

Also ILR cost thousands to apply for, and you need to pass culture and language tests, and prove that you've been here continuously for a decade, it's not some easy automatic right that's granted to just anyone. 

Like imagine you fled a warzone a decade ago, and you've spent that time living here. You've built yourself up from literally nothing, and now have to spend your life savings just for the right for you and your children to stay here. Isn't that difficult enough?

On that last one, why should it be anything other than the usual punishment? Are you suggesting that the punishment for a crime should change depending on who commits it? As if a refugee deserves some greater action against them. 

I get that you're trying to suggest to "send them back" or whatever, I just don't think that's very fair.

And by "people just instinctively think ew icky" you mean yourself right? And your innate instinct to approve of all anti immigration lest we have the big scary open borders (which is not even slightly true)? 

- What should be the criteria? 

The ones we have now are reasonable enough and in line with other countries. I grant you though, if we must restrict access for refugees, this is the only bit I think it makes sense to change. I wouldn't actually advocate for changes though so I'll just leave it at that. 

- Would refugee status change depending on the country's situation? 

Honestly this just like isn't a real problem I have to say. Most people seeking refuge do want to return, usually unless they've settled here in the meantime. Realistically the countries we have refugees from are in much more complex situations than will allow for when it "becomes safe". 

We saw lots of people try to return when the situation changed in Syria. But to answer the question more directly, I think yes, but like, only in contexts where it's massively changed. Say Ukraine is obvious example, should Putin fall and the invasion just suddenly end, I think sure (and iirc we actually HAVE to do this because Ukraine insisted on it), but I don't think we should be playing at "well technically the situation has improved somewhat". 

- When should they be allowed to claim ILR? 

Same as anyone else. I've got to say it's one of the biggest grievances I have with refugee policy is the perception that it's somehow innately bad to seek refuge, and you should be punished for it. There's no coherent reason why it should be different than anyone else coming for work or study or anything. Frankly I'd be inclined to be more welcoming not less.

- What would happen to people who's claims have been rejected? 

I'm not even sure what you mean by this. If they're rejected they won't get asylum. Are you just trying to see if I'll endorse deportations? Okay sure they can be deported. However this would be less of an issue if we didn't insist people had to be here to have their asylum claims heard. 

- What happens if they commit serious crimes? 

Similarly to ILR, why would it be different? Seeking refuge isn't a crime that constitutes a prior conviction.

Sophie_Blitz_123

&gt; Would you place restrictions on who can gain refugee status?

Yup: only those fleeing war/persecution.

&gt; Would refugee status be affected by any change in the safety of the country a refugee came from?

Yes, but I would include some kind of cut-off so that people who are established in the UK can continue to live here.

&gt; When would a refugee be able to apply for Indefinite Leave to Remain (ILR)?

5 years

&gt; Would you place any restrictions other than time on their ability to get ILR?

Nope.

&gt; What would happen to individuals whose asylum claims were turned down?

They are deported to their country of origin. If the number who cannot becomes too great, we should look into signing deals across Europe to manage the excess.

&gt; What would happen to refugees who commit serious crimes?

The same that happens to anyone else.

SmokyMcBongPot

You're asking the wrong questions. What Labour should be doing is hammering home the distinction between refugees and immigrants for one thing. Those words are used interchangeably and the only reason is to obfuscate matters

Another thing they should be doing is highlighting why immigration isn't the major problem it is being made out to be by the right, and highlighting what the real issues actually are. People are angry about the cost of living, how hard it is to get by and how the disparity between the rich and poor is getting bigger. They are being shown the convenient scapegoat of immigration because it seems like something that is "fixable" without changing too much, but in reality if it was tightened up to the levels Reform and co. wanted those problems would still remain. 

Instead of playing into Reform's hands and having the debate on their ground, which alienates the left and does nothing to convince the right to vote for them, they should be reframing the narrative to showing what the actual causes of people's problems are and putting concrete policies in place to deal with them

They won't of course because that requires both skilled political leadership and acumen (which none of them possess) and to actual want to make things better (which they don't really seem to be interested in)

rconnell1975

Well that’s a heck of a loaded series of things to consider that’s clearly inspired by a desire to turn this land into a far-right hell-hole. 

Why would there be restrictions on permanent settled status? You have to live here 5 years presently, after that you get to regularise, what’s wrong with this? 

As for changing safety in home country impacting ability to stay, riddle me this, is Syria safe to live in right now? What if you are a religious minority there? What about Gaza? Or Sudan between rhe period post South Sudan split and the OG genocide there and the current genocide there. These are impossible questions to answer and destined to end up tied in courts for years working these awful questions out and for what? 

When would a refugee be able to apply for settled status? It’s already 5 years after asylum has been granted, what’s wrong with that again?

Like honestly these are just loaded bullshit questions that are only popular with folks without enough to do in life and without enough of their own concerns. 

The right likes to talk about luxury beliefs, well these are luxury hates, when you don’t have any issues in your own life so you fixate on news stores of migrants doing something bad until you are frothing at the mouth. May I suggest anyone suffering from this takes an online course to up their computer skills, or maybe tries out immersive learning techniques for picking up a foreign language. Fuck it, just wank and eat KFC all day for all I care, but just chill about migration and the skin colour or the people living here, it’s just not something anyone should be fretting about when there’s real problems that need solving.

Blue_winged_yoshi

* Would you place restrictions on who can gain refugee status?

Yes. Someone who, owing to well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is out-side the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country.

* Would refugee status be affected by any change in the safety of the country a refugee came from?

Not in a blanket manner. Sometimes there might be changes such that it is safe for specific groups to return but not others - e.g. persecution of homosexuality might cease or diminish, but brutal treatment of political dissidents remain. Each refugee would need to be considered on a case-by-case basis. Realistically, one rather suspects that having regular reviews for all refugees would be a waste of money as most of the countries from which we regularly receive asylum applications have been the same countries for decades - genuine liberalization is sadly rare. It would probably only be proportionate to conduct reviews following certain trigger events by the specific refugee in question - e.g. if they committed a criminal offence.

* When would a refugee be able to apply for Indefinite Leave to Remain (ILR)?

5 years, the same as the time to apply for ILR for anyone else.

* Would you place any restrictions other than time on their ability to get ILR?

Absence of a serious criminal record.

* What would happen to individuals whose asylum claims were turned down?

They would be deported to their country of origin.

* What would happen to refugees who commit serious crimes?

The same sentencing regime that faces a British citizen who commits a serious crime. The fact they've committed a serious crime doesn't legitimize sending them back to a country where they might be killed or tortured.

englishjacko

This wasn't one of your questions, but I would like to see the UK expand the safe path by working with UNHCR to take people who circumstances have been verified from a variety of conflicts. There is this path but it is very small.

As it stands, those were the most means willing to take the biggest risks are the ones that get here and get protection. Overwhelmingly young men. This just isn't fair. 

Temporary humanitarian protection isn't in compatible with the purpose of the refugee system. That is the USAs approach. I agree with you that 10 years is about right.

I don't think that any attempt to reduce the protection on offer is trying to create a "right wing hellscape"in the words of another commenter. We are currently the most attractive destination in Europe, and probably the world for refugee flows and it is politically sensible to do something about that.

Big_Issue_6495

1. I'm kinda against "asylum shopping" because it just doesn't sound so desperate anymore when people are crossing multiple countries and taking a dangerous boat journey just to come here. So I'd probably be restrictive on granting refugee status based on that, yes.
2. I think it's reasonable to support the return of refugees once their homelands become safer or safe. But I wouldn't force this across the board - if a refugee is eligible for ILR for example, they should be able to apply for it.

I'd heavily caution against designating a country "safe" just for vibes. For example Gaza isn't really safe, even if the worst of their war has stopped. Any Government redefinition of a "safe country" needs to be evidence-based and transparent.

However, I support the principle of returning more refugees as I don't want to assist in brain drain of their countries. For their home country to rebuild they really need their lost population. Take Ukraine for example - they lost 7-8 million people since the war started. That cannot be good for Ukraine, it's a massive demographic collapse.

3. I'd probably put ILR eligibility at 7 years. Sounds arbitrary but yeah it's a bit longer than 5 years while not being as long as 10.

4. No, I'd keep the existing system (demonstrate English skills, pass a Life in the UK test, no crimes, pay the fee).

5. They leave the country.

6. They leave the country.

coffeewalnut08

Snapshot of _UK Asylum Approvals by Country (2001–2025)_ submitted by True_Ad793:

An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&amp;url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AihSdx3ZWfs)  or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&amp;url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AihSdx3ZWfs)         


*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*

How are we getting so many refugees from Iran? Are these all Muslim women fleeing persecution for failing to adhere to strict religious controls?

Iran itself hosts one of the largest refugee populations on the planet and is also not a particularly poor country.

Why are these people better off / safer in the UK?

Fearless-Director210

This is cool.  Could you do a version that "fixes" the axis, as I lost track of relative changes.

doitnowinaminute

&gt; It’s not political or pushing anything , it’s literally just the official data animated year by year so you can see the trends instead of staring at a spreadsheet.


Why the background music, and the opening quote?

Due_Ad_3200

Interesting that there's zero mention of Ukraine in this data

Clbull

all dangerous countries where it is not unreasonable that people might flee in fear of their lives if they fall out with the local warlords or repressive governments. Contrary to what the far right would like us to believe.

Foxrockmafia

&gt;It’s not political or pushing anything

  
Interesting yet you seemed to have posted previously: [https://www.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/comments/1n1cqff/grants\_of\_asylum\_in\_the\_uk\_by\_country\_20012025/](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/comments/1n1cqff/grants_of_asylum_in_the_uk_by_country_20012025/)

using your now banned account: [https://www.reddit.com/user/drunkstoned94/](https://www.reddit.com/user/drunkstoned94/)

Never did clarify why you posted your own data table to r/dataisugly then either.

Ralliboy

We're becoming an Island of Strangers over 40/50k refugees per year. 

Embarrassing.

bidahtibull

I couldnt really see the end because of all the popups... why did Iran explode after the taliban took back Afghanistan?

Jeffuk88

There's a very big reason why asylum apps from Paksitan increased so much in the last 3 years. Imran Khan was ousted in 2022 and the current regime is a fascist Dictatorship approved by the USA. Trump loves the Field Marshal Asim Munir.

Darksy121

Class. Reduce pull factors just like [Denmark](https://youtu.be/W2b5z1FJTs8?si=kv2JGu0RMbUnMgHx) has, and watch the numbers drop like a stone. Prioritise genuine asylum seekers and not economic migrants coming here under false pretences from safe countries and clogging up the system with appeals.

smallirishwolfhound

The UK is really going to start locking down hard here on a number of fronts, in particular with asylum seekers. Given the Common Travel Area exists between Ireland the UK, we probably need to be aligned in many respects.

ulankford

Of course they will. It's a direct consequence of living on an island with 2 jurisdiction that allow common travel.

It shows partition for the absurdity that it is.

DeargDoom79

Government : Should we reflect on why we took an absolute beating from a progressive alliance in the presidential election?

Jim: "Absolutely not"

OrneryCows

Just heard on the news. Basically we're not doing anything. We're going to wait to see what the impact of the UK changes has before looking at it!

A joke. So reactive.

John_OSheas_Willy

The vast majority of asylum seekers are economic migrants. The asylum system is totally abused. Wilfully Ignoring this fact undermines the asylum system and simply fuels the far right. Large numbers of unskilled economic migrants negatively impact working class people the most. This is something the left wing governments of the uk and Denmark have recognised. While the country needs some economic migrants it does not need large numbers of unskilled young males. The whole process needs reform and it is long overdue.

fuzzfrog

Ok-Call-4805

The UK government has unveiled major changes to its asylum policy, introducing stricter regulations that will significantly prolong the wait for refugees seeking residency.

UK Asylum Policy Changes

Why This Matters

Public Sentiment Summary

Highlighted Comments

Parties Involved

What the people want