Some Thoughts On The New Asylum And Returns Policy

On 21 November 2025 the government published a new policy paper, Restoring Order and Control: A Statement on the government's asylum and returns policy, described as "perhaps the most substantial reform to the UK's asylum system in a generation".

In the Foreword to the Statement, the Prime Minister goes out of his way to proclaim his (Labour's) unwavering commitment to fairness, compassion and humanity in the treatment of refugees: "The principle that people genuinely fleeing danger and persecution should be welcomed is one this government will always defend – an expression of the UK's values in action. But that principle depends upon social confidence that our asylum system is fair, effective and humane. This statement shows how a reformed asylum system, that deters arrivals and speeds up the removals of those with no legal right to be here, can deliver that confidence in a dangerous world."

By a coincidence, or a subconscious nudge, I happened to wash the Statement down with Casablanca, a 1942 film by Michael Curtiz, set in Vichy controlled Casablanca in 1942. It sends shivers down the spine to think that most of the actors in this film were refugees from the Nazis. It's a perfect foil to the current crisis, and it helps to take the Statement with a pinch of salt. After all, it is all sound a fury but, unlike Casablanca, played out by second-rate thespians.

The Statement has three action points:

1. Reducing arrivals
2. Increasing removals
3. New rules to make the system (un)fairer for refugees and (less) manageable for authorities

Reducing arrivals

This part of the Statement must refer to small boat arrivals, not arrivals by plane or Eurostar. Since it has long been impossible to travel to the UK lawfully with a view to claiming asylum, arrivals can mean only one thing – boat arrivals.

The bad news is that there is not a single word in the Statement as to how to reduce boat arrivals. Promises of destitution, ill treatment, marginalisation, no recognition of human rights, quick refusal of applications, reduced rights of appeal, denial of accommodation and subsistence, all sound like thunder and fury, but unlikely to deter anyone fleeing a war or seeking adventure.

The scary part of the Statement is, of course, that ill treatment, destitution and marginalisation will become an official endorsed and authorised part of the society. The hungry, homeless, destitute and marginalised arrivals will be funnelled into shadow economy and/or ...

Here we come to the second action point.

Increasing removals

Not that before the Statement was published the official policy was to reduce removals. Not at all. If someone's visa had expired and their rights of appeal were exhausted, they have always been expected to leave. For those who could not afford a plane ticket the government has been offering assisted return. Those who absconded and went to ground have long been liable to removal without consent.

The problem is not that the laws are lax, but that for some reason enforcement action is often delayed for years and years.

Until 2012, 14 years' delay on the part of the authorities resulted in acceptance of the individual as a lawful and permanent resident. Since 2012, this rule changed and it has been 20 years' delay on the part of the authorities that resulted in recognition of an individual's claim to regularise their immigration status, with a further 10 years of lawful residence required to become permanently settled.

By taking away this highly remote possibility of being accepted within the legal system, the government doesn't support the declared commitment to increase removals. On the contrary, the marginalised and destitute will remain so forever, or at least until the authorities finally decide to remove them, be it after 20, 30, 40 or 60 years. Moreover, their children and possibly grandchildren will be in the same boat, so to speak.

We can pause for a moment when it comes to children. The Statement contains some chilling remarks to the effect that parents exploit the fact that they have children who came with them on a dangerous trip, to thwart removal from the UK. The missing part to this, is that the child is only considered to have put down roots in the UK if they have lived in the UK for 7 years and it is not reasonable to expect them to leave!

There is still a rule allowing registration of children born in the UK as British citizens (provided their parents don't forget to do so before the child turns 18!). There are also rules allowing regularisation of status of young adults (under 25) who have spent more than half of their life in the UK. (Young adults have to think about it before they turn 25!)

We don't yet know whether children and young adults will be left with some options, or these options will also be taken away to deter the parents from hoping for a brighter future for the kids. The logic and fierce zeal of the Statement suggests that sooner or later the children will also go to the infernal nooks of the shadow economy.

And now the final action point...

A new asylum system – fair or manageable?

• Instead of grant of asylum for 5 years with a review at the end of the 5-year period and subsequent grant of permanent right of residence, refugees will have to repeatedly claim asylum every 2.5 years for a 20-year period, before they can qualify for permanent status.
• No right to family reunion – meaning a refugee who has made it to the UK and has been recognised as a person in need of protection will not be allowed to invite spouse and children to join them.
• No legal obligation to provide support for destitute asylum seekers
• Expropriation of assets with the exception of wedding rings
• No financial support for those who have the right to work. You will see the irony of this proposition if you realise that right to work is only granted to those whose claim has not been decided for 12 months and only in extremely limited occupations listed in the Immigration Salary List. Examples include: social and humanities scientist, biological or chemical scientists, graphic designers, classical ballet dancers and choreographers, orchestral musicians who are leaders, principals or numbered string positions in internationally recognised UK orchestras. Further options include racing grooms and stallion handlers, nursing auxiliaries and assistants, as well as carpenters, roofers and bricklayers. You can almost hear the piteous personal entreaty. If you know a decent carpenter, please let me know!
• A new appeals body to be created. The Statement refers to it an independent body with professionally trained adjudicators. It remains to be seen if the independent bodies will not simply be part of the Home Office. There will be no right of appeal from their adjudication and no judicial control over legality of their decisions.

Denying appeal rights for clearly unmeritorious claims – there is not much new in this. As it is claims certified as manifestly unfounded can only be appealed from outside the UK.

Review of Article 8 balancing exercise which weighs public interest against the right to protection of family life for individual families.It may be appropriate at this point to clarify that Article 8 is not, and has never been, a basis for claiming asylum.

As mentioned above, since 2012, the right to private life protected under Article 8 ECHR only applies in immigration context if the person has lived in the UK for a continuous period of 20 years. The right to protection of family life applies where there is a British or settled partner and/or a British or settled child. People with a British partner or child do not take a dangerous boat trip to claim asylum. They make an application for a visa as a partner or parent.

A quick glance on the role of Article 8 in family immigration.

The Immigration Rules provide that only insurmountable obstacles to living with British partner outside they UK would justify waiver of the financial requirements for the partner visa. Where the financial requirements can be met but not through the specified sources of income, the requirement can be waived only if the refusal could result in unjustifiably harsh consequences for the applicant, their partner or child. Where the refusal would clearly result in unjustifiably harsh consequences, the decision-maker must exercise discretion. The only other exception applies where refusal of permission to stay would break a relationship between parent and child settled in the UK.

In summary

There is much less news in the "most substantial reform" than the government would like to make it sound. Denial of financial support to destitute asylum seekers and expropriation of assets from people arriving in small boats sounds macabre, but it's hardly promising in terms of restoring order or control. The statement, like life itself, is full of sound and fury signifying nothing.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.