In the lead-up to the highly anticipated 2024 general election, immigration policy has emerged as a critical political battleground shaping the future of the United Kingdom. Against the backdrop of Brexit’s seismic impact and the resurgence of figures like Nigel Farage (whose Reform UK party has galvanised support for stricter immigration controls), the national conversation is at a crossroads. 

Central to the current debate is the Conservative government’s controversial Rwanda scheme, which proposes external processing of asylum seekers in Rwanda—an initiative vehemently opposed by Labour and other critics. The decision to deport asylum seekers to Rwanda epitomises the depths of moral bankruptcy within a regime marred by scandal and sleaze.

Labour’s objections are not solely grounded in pragmatic concerns about cost and feasibility but also emphasise a moral imperative to uphold human rights and fair asylum practices. This stance underscores a deeper philosophical divide in British politics regarding the ethical obligations towards refugees and migrants, particularly amidst global crises that drive mass displacement.

Recent spikes in immigration to the UK have been influenced by diverse factors, including geopolitical instability, economic opportunities, and humanitarian crises. Post-Brexit policies have sought to recalibrate immigration levels, emphasising skilled migration through schemes like those for Hong Kong and Ukrainian citizens fleeing conflict.  According to the Migration Observatory at Oxford, these numbers are already expected to decrease. Concurrently, initiatives like the care workers’ visa have addressed domestic labour shortages, highlighting the intertwined nature of immigration policy with broader economic and social objectives.

The Rwanda scheme epitomises the current Conservative government’s strategy to manage immigration by externalising asylum processing—a move criticised for its potential human rights implications and echoes of past contentious practices. Rwanda has a documented history, highlighted by the UN, of forcibly returning asylum seekers, a practice known as “refoulment,” and denying them access to asylum procedures. Even in 2021, under Boris Johnson’s leadership, the UK government criticised Rwanda’s concerning human rights record at the United Nations, citing issues such as torture, deaths in custody, and disappearances. This should be of huge concern, as the UK is a signatory to both the Refugee Convention and the European Convention on Human Rights, and outsourcing asylum processing to Rwanda could compromise such crucial international obligations. 

According to a YouGov poll, 86% of Brits disagree with the current government’s handling of immigration, suggesting a fertile ground for opposition parties like Labour to present an alternative, less draconian approach.

Labour has opposed this policy primarily on pragmatic grounds, citing its expense and impracticality. It has voted against the scheme in the House of Commons, rejecting both the Illegal Migration Act and the recently enacted Safety of Rwanda Act. Labour’s manifesto promises to tackle “criminal smuggler gangs”, increase staffing to reduce the asylum backlog, negotiate with France, and create a more transparent process for refugees with family ties in the UK to seek resettlement. 

Labour suggests the answer to a global crisis lies in rhetoric and continuing policies focused on crackdowns and strict law enforcement. Starmer persists in discussing “smuggling gangs” and advocating for tougher “law enforcement.” Current anti-smuggling operations in the UK and across Europe frequently yield more harm than good. In France, heightened police controls have precipitated alarming clashes between migrants and border authorities, resulting in the use of tear gas. To date, 14 migrants have lost their lives attempting to cross the English Channel, marking a significant increase from the 12 fatalities in all of 2023. Charities supporting migrants, including the French organisation Utopia 56, contend that increased militarisation and equipment will not deter crossings but will exacerbate dangers. Migrants, already risking their lives, may be compelled to take even greater risks to reach the French coast.

According to Amnesty International, the most effective way to prevent dangerous and often deadly boat crossings to the UK is to establish safe and legal routes to “reduce exploitation, abuse, loss of life and other harms; and to reduce opportunity for smugglers and traffickers”. By allowing people to arrive safely and have their claims assessed fairly, the motivation to risk perilous journeys would significantly decrease. Few would choose a hazardous crossing if they could legally and safely enter the country and engage with a just system.

To truly reduce the number of refugees—including the small percentage seeking asylum in the UK—we must address the root causes of displacement: war, persecution, and famine. This means not giving cover for dictatorships such as Kagame’s regime in Rwanda. It also means intensifying, rather than diluting, our efforts to combat climate change (60% of refugees and internally displaced people live in countries most susceptible to climate change, and this will continue to increase as climate change worsens). 

Starmer’s pledge to scrap the Rwanda scheme is a step in the right direction, yet it only scratches the surface of the broader issue at hand. To truly make a difference, he must find the political courage to replace the divisive rhetoric that has characterised immigration policy with a more humane and compassionate approach. The overwhelming dissatisfaction Brits have with current immigration policy offers Starmer a unique political opportunity to redefine the narrative around immigration,

Looking forward, the 2024 General Election presents a pivotal moment for reshaping Britain’s immigration landscape. Beyond partisan rhetoric, the challenge lies in crafting policies that reconcile security concerns with humanitarian imperatives, addressing global migration dynamics and upholding the UK’s international commitments. The outcome will not only shape domestic socio-political dynamics but also signal Britain’s stance on global human rights and its role in a rapidly changing geopolitical order.