EUROPE

Irregular migration* to Europe falls sharply, but the death toll rises

New Frontex data covering the first four months of 2026 indicates a 40 per cent decline in detected crossings across all major routes, yet more than 1,200 people have already died in the Mediterranean this year.

 

May 2026: The number of irregular border crossings into the European Union decreased by 40 per cent in the first four months of 2026 compared to the same period last year, according to preliminary data published on 15 May by Frontex, the EU's border and coast guard agency. Just over 28,500 crossings were recorded between January and April, representing a significant decline that continues a downward trend seen throughout most of 2025, when full-year detections dropped by 26 per cent.

 

The decline was not consistent throughout the year. The sharpest decreases occurred during the winter months, when extreme weather across the main Mediterranean and Atlantic routes disrupted departures: crossings dropped by 52 per cent in January and February combined. As conditions improved in spring, figures began to recover.

 

The Belarus-Poland land route

Frontex observed that pressure on the Belarus-Poland land border sharply increased again in March, driven by improved weather and what the agency described as recent legislative changes that made access to the border zone on the Belarusian side easier.

 

The Central and Eastern Mediterranean routes

The Central and Eastern Mediterranean were the busiest routes from January to April, accounting for about a third of all irregular entries into the EU. The Central Mediterranean recorded approximately 8,500 arrivals, a 46 per cent decrease compared to the previous year, with Libya remaining the primary departure point. The Eastern Mediterranean saw roughly 8,400 crossings, a 32 per cent decline, although the Libya-to-Crete corridor continued to be active.

 

The Western African route

The Western African route, which transports migrants from West Africa to Spain's Canary Islands, experienced the sharpest decline among all routes: detections dropped by 78 per cent to approximately 2,300. Frontex credited this mainly to preventive measures introduced by Mauritania from spring 2025, and later by Senegal and The Gambia, in collaboration with Spain and the EU. The agency warned that smuggling networks along this route are adaptable and that activity can shift rapidly.

 

The Western Mediterranean route

The Western Mediterranean was the only major route to see an increase, with detections rising 50 per cent to around 5,200. The increase was mainly due to higher departures from Algeria, reflecting what Frontex described as a shift in smuggling routes, as stricter controls in Morocco and along nearby routes pushed more departures towards Algerian shores.

 

The Western Balkan route

The Western Balkan route, which transports migrants from Turkey and the Middle East through Serbia and Bosnia and Herzegovina towards Croatia and the broader EU, recorded around 2,800 detections, a decrease of 19 per cent. The Croatian border with Bosnia and Herzegovina remained the primary exit point. Frontex warned that the route is likely to face increasing pressure as weather conditions improve and migrant mobility rises, partly driven by secondary movements connected to the Eastern Mediterranean.

 

The Eastern Land Border route

The Eastern Land Border, which includes the frontiers with Belarus, Russia and, to a lesser extent, Ukraine, recorded approximately 1,100 detections, representing a 49 per cent decrease overall. However, the pressure exerted by Belarus, which had eased at the beginning of the year, re-emerged in March. Frontex also observed that crossings on the EU-Ukrainian border mainly involved Ukrainian men attempting to avoid military conscription.

 

The English Channel route

Crossings to the United Kingdom via the English Channel nearly halved, with about 9,900 attempts recorded. This figure includes both those who successfully reached the UK and those stopped from leaving French shores.

 

Number of deaths remains high

Despite the headline figures, both Frontex and the International Organization for Migration issued a consistent warning. The decrease in crossings has not led to a reduction in deaths. According to the IOM, over 1,200 lives have been lost in the Mediterranean during the first four months of 2026 alone. Frontex observed that smuggling networks continue to send people on perilous crossings in overcrowded and unseaworthy boats, regardless of weather conditions. The agency also highlighted that instability in the Middle East, especially in Lebanon, poses ongoing risks of further displacement towards EU borders.

 

Frontex Executive Director Hans Leijtens, commenting on earlier data in the year, said that the decrease in numbers demonstrated that cooperation between states and with partner countries outside the EU could achieve results, but he added that it was not an invitation to relax.

 

Sources and methodology

This article relies on preliminary data published by Frontex on 15 May 2026 covering the first four months of 2026, as well as earlier Frontex monthly reports for January to February 2026 and the full year of 2025. Death toll figures are sourced from the International Organization for Migration's Missing Migrants Project. Frontex notes that its detection figures refer to crossings rather than individual persons: the same individual may be counted more than once if they attempt to cross at different locations.

 

* A note on terminology

This article uses the term irregular migrants, in accordance with the language of the European Union, the United Nations, and agencies such as Frontex and the International Organization for Migration. It refers to individuals who cross a border outside an official entry point or without the required authorisation. It does not imply criminality nor does it describe a person's legal status once inside a country: someone who enters irregularly may subsequently be granted asylum and acquire full legal protection.

 

Undocumented migrants is a related term, more common in American usage, which refers to people who are already residing in a country without valid status, whether because they entered irregularly or overstayed a visa.

 

Illegal migrants or illegal immigrants is the term used by some politicians and media outlets. The Immigrant Times does not use it. Under international law, including the 1951 Refugee Convention, seeking asylum is a legal right regardless of how or where a person enters a country. Describing a person as "illegal" on the basis of their manner of entry misrepresents both their status and their rights.

​​

COMMENT

Praise. Criticise. Write.

​

FOLLOW

Instagram || TikTok || X(Twitter) || Thread || Facebook || BlueSky || Mastodon || LinkedIn ||

 

BACK TO TOP​

​

BRITAIN

Net migration to the UK drops to its lowest level since Covid

New Office of National Statistics (ONS) and Home Office data published on 21 May show the sharpest and most sustained fall in net migration in the UK, reaching a record low, driven by a significant drop in work and study visas. Asylum claims also decreased, although they remain significantly above pre-pandemic levels.

 

May 2026: Net migration to the United Kingdom dropped to 171,000 in the twelve months to December 2025, nearly half the 331,000 recorded in the previous year, according to data published on 21 May by the Office for National Statistics (ONS). The figure is the lowest since early 2021, when the new post-Brexit immigration system was being introduced and pandemic travel restrictions remained in place. From a peak of 944,000 in the year to March 2023, net migration has now decreased by 82 per cent.

 

The main cause of the decline was a sharp reduction in the number of non-EU nationals coming for work-related reasons, which fell by 47 per cent in 2025. The ONS mainly attributed this to the impact of successive policy changes: the closure of the overseas care worker recruitment route, increases in salary thresholds for skilled worker and family visas, and restrictions on student dependants introduced under the previous Conservative government and extended by the current Labour administration.

 

Separately, the Home Office published its quarterly immigration statistics covering the year up to March 2026. These showed that 252,775 work visas were granted across all categories, down 17 per cent on the previous year and 59 per cent below the peak reached in late 2023. The sharpest decline was in the Health and Care visa route: 110,725 Skilled Worker visas were granted in total, 76 per cent below the December 2023 peak, with the care sector accounting for most of the reduction.

 

Of those arriving in the UK in 2025, the ONS estimated that 47 per cent came for study-related reasons and 23 per cent for work. Asylum applicants made up 14 per cent of arrivals. There was a net outflow of both EU and British nationals, with more leaving the UK than arriving in each group.

 

Asylum claims dropped to 93,525 in the year ending March 2026, a 12 per cent decrease compared to the previous year. The number remains more than double the level seen in the years immediately before the pandemic. Just over half of claimants entered through irregular routes, including small boat crossings, while 39 per cent had previously held a valid visa. The backlog of asylum decisions decreased significantly: 48,758 people were awaiting an initial decision at the end of March 2026, a 55 per cent reduction from the same point in 2025, reaching the lowest level since September 2019.

 

The number of asylum seekers housed in hotels continued to decline, reaching 20,885 at the end of March 2026, a 35 per cent decrease year-on-year.

 

The ONS noted that its migration estimates carry significant uncertainty and are subject to revision. The 2024 net migration figure has previously been revised downward by 20 per cent since it was first published. The current figure of 171,000 for 2025 may similarly be revised in subsequent releases.

​

COMMENT

Praise. Criticise. Write.

​

FOLLOW

Instagram || TikTok || X(Twitter) || Thread || Facebook || BlueSky || Mastodon || LinkedIn ||

 

BACK TO TOP​

​

POLAND / BELARUS

Poland is proud of its draconian border regime, but rights organisations warn of breaches of the law

May 2026: At the start of 2026, Poland's Prime Minister Donald Tusk called on Europe to emulate Poland on migration. His government could cite real figures: irregular crossings, mainly involving Afghan refugees at the Belarus border, had dropped by almost 96 per cent compared to 2022. Meanwhile, nearly a million Ukrainian refugees had found shelter in the country, more than anywhere in the EU outside Germany. Prime Minister Tusk portrayed this as a collective achievement. Critics view it as two very different stories.

 

Poland suspended the right to seek asylum at its border with Belarus in March 2025. What began as a 60-day emergency measure has since been renewed by parliament multiple times, and is now over a year old. The law, adopted on 21 February 2025, was introduced as a response to what many believed was Russia’s and Belarus’s deliberate use of migration as a destabilisation tool.

 

Warsaw accused Minsk of issuing visas to third-country nationals, mainly Afghans, Syrians, and Iraqis, and facilitating their movement to the Polish border as part of what the European Union has called a hybrid warfare strategy. The accusation is not without basis: the pattern has been documented by EU institutions and independent researchers, and Brussels has acknowledged the security aspect.

 

The numbers support Warsaw's claim of success. According to Poland's Ministry of the Interior and Administration, in the first quarter of 2026, just 158 attempted illegal crossings were recorded at the Belarus border, compared with 3,306 in the same period in 2022, a fall of almost 96 per cent. The government credits a 5.5-metre steel fence topped with razor wire, electronic surveillance, and the asylum suspension law itself. Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk has argued that the security risks at the border justify the measures, and the European Commission, though clearly uncomfortable, has not yet pursued formal infringement proceedings.

 

However, the law's scope has proved much broader than its stated aim. In reality, it now applies not only at the border but also to any migrant found anywhere in Poland whom authorities suspect entered via Belarus, a reach that has effectively shut the asylum system to a large portion of the Afghan community in the country. Since almost every Afghan travelling through Europe passes through Poland via Belarus, the suspension functions as a near-total ban.

 

The human consequences are becoming visible. Rights groups say Afghan migrants are being deported without their individual claims being assessed, in breach of the Geneva Conventions and the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.

 

The Council of Europe's Commissioner for Human Rights, Michael O'Flaherty, wrote to the Polish government in early April 2026, expressing concern that asylum applications are being suspended in every case in which border guards consider that the person has crossed the Poland-Belarus border irregularly. His letter noted the recent removal of Afghan nationals who had not been given the opportunity to lodge applications. Even Frontex, the EU border agency, pulled its monitors from a government-organised deportation flight after learning that the asylum applications of those being deported had not been properly assessed.

 

The UNHCR, the UN Refugee Agency, has warned that the law could breach the principle of non-refoulement, which bans the return of individuals to places where they face persecution. Amnesty International has called the measure blatantly unlawful, arguing it conflicts with Poland's constitution, EU law, and the new EU Pact on Migration and Asylum, which, with some irony, Warsaw is simultaneously refusing to implement.

 

Poland's interior minister stated in March 2026 that compliance with the pact's solidarity mechanism was impossible. The European Commission has warned of legal action against member states that hinder the pact's implementation, which is set to come into force in June 2026.

 

Sources and methodology: This article draws on reporting by the Associated Press (April 2026), data from Poland's Ministry of the Interior and Administration (April 2026), and documentation from the UNHCR, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, Oxfam and the Council of Europe's Commissioner for Human Rights. Statistical figures on border crossings are sourced from the Polish government and the EU Council's migration tracking data.

 

COMMENT

Praise. Criticise. Write.

​

FOLLOW

Instagram || TikTok || X(Twitter) || Thread || Facebook || BlueSky || Mastodon || LinkedIn ||

 

BACK TO TOP​

 

FRANCE / BRITAIN

Britain and France sign a new Channel-crossing deal that critics say does not address the root causes

April 2026: Britain and France have signed a new three-year border security agreement under which the United Kingdom will pay France up to £660 million to enhance enforcement against asylum seekers attempting to cross the English Channel in small boats. The deal was signed in Paris on 23 April 2026 by British Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood and French Interior Minister Laurent Nunez.

 

Some £500 million of the total will be allocated to strengthen enforcement on the beaches of northern France, including the deployment of nearly 1,100 law enforcement, intelligence, and military personnel, a rise of more than 50 per cent from the current figure of around 700 officers. An additional £160 million will be released only if the new strategies are deemed effective. The performance-related component reflects ongoing British frustration that previous funding arrangements have not led to a lasting decrease in crossings.

 

Surveillance measures under the deal include drones, two helicopters, and enhanced camera systems. France will also deploy a new vessel and over 20 extra maritime officers to intercept boats at sea. The agreement also involves the deployment of riot police on the beaches of northern France. 

 

The deal replaces a previous three-year arrangement agreed in 2023 under the Conservative government, under which the UK paid France €541 million. The new agreement reflects a significant increase in British financial commitment. London insisted it would only renew the Sandhurst Treaty, first signed in 2018, extended in 2023, and set to expire this year if it could impose conditions on how the French government uses British taxpayers' money.

 

The situation remains one of persistently high crossings despite years of enforcement efforts. Approximately 41,000 people crossed the Channel to England in small boats in 2025, close to the record of 46,000 set in 2022. Small boats now make up about 89 per cent of all detected arrivals in the UK without authorisation, and nearly all those arriving this way go on to claim asylum. Crossings in 2026 are happening at one of the highest early-year rates on record.

 

The British government argues the deal will disrupt people-smuggling networks and states that joint efforts with France have already prevented more than 42,000 attempted crossings since Labour took office in July 2024. The existing "one in, one out" pilot scheme, under which the UK returns some small boat arrivals to France in exchange for accepting an equal number of asylum seekers with family ties to the UK, continues to operate alongside the new agreement.

 

Refugee organisations have sharply criticised the deal. Sile Reynolds of Freedom from Torture said the agreement meant paying "for police boots and batons to be wielded indiscriminately against men, women and children on the beaches of northern France for the crime of seeking safety," and described the French riot police as a force that the UN committee against torture has previously criticised for excessive use of force. The Refugee Council argued that by fixating on small boats, the British government was attacking the symptom rather than the cause, and that no level of enforcement would resolve a crisis driven by conflict, persecution and the absence of safe legal routes to the United Kingdom.

 

Sources: Reuters; UPI; House of Commons Library; Freedom from Torture; the Refugee Council.

​

COMMENT

Praise. Criticise. Write.

​

FOLLOW

Instagram || TikTok || X(Twitter) || Thread || Facebook || BlueSky || Mastodon || LinkedIn ||

 

BACK TO TOP​

​

GERMANY / MEAT INDUSTRY

Investigation finds exploitation of migrant workers in the German meat industry

April 2026: A television investigation by Monitor, the long-running ARD current affairs programme produced by WDR (Westdeutscher Rundfunk), has found that migrant workers in the German meat industry continue to face systematic exploitation, despite legislative reforms passed five years ago which were intended to put an end to the worst abuses.

 

The Monitor report, broadcast on 21 April 2026, found that large meat companies such as Tönnies and Westfleisch rely on a steady supply of inexpensive labour recruited through employment agencies. Many workers now come from India, China, and Vietnam. They often pay several thousand euros to recruitment agencies in their home countries to secure work in Europe, accumulating significant debts in the process. In Germany, the Monitor found, the reality often differs considerably from what was promised: harsh working conditions, low wages, and little legal protection. Workers who fall ill or raise complaints risk losing their jobs and are left with their debts and no recourse.

 

The investigation identified what it described as legal loopholes in German law which allow the system to continue, and examined what has become of political promises to improve conditions in the sector.

 

The Monitor findings come five years after Germany passed the ‘Occupational Health and Safety Inspection Act’, known in German as the Arbeitsschutzkontrollgesetz, which came into force in January 2021. The law was enacted in response to a mass Covid outbreak at the Tönnies plant in Rheda-Wiedenbrück, in which more than 1,500 workers tested positive, forcing a regional lockdown. It banned subcontracting in core meat production areas, required electronic time recording, set minimum standards for company housing, and increased workplace inspections.

 

Further research by the Hans Böckler Foundation confirmed that the law had led to genuine improvements. Around 35,000 workers who were previously subcontracted were directly employed by meat-processing firms, workplace accidents decreased significantly, and the most severe forms of exploitation associated with obscure subcontracting chains were notably reduced.

 

However, the same research found that the industry remained a distinctly low-wage sector. Two-thirds of workers are still not covered by collective agreements, and many continue to earn only slightly above the statutory minimum wage. Attempts to negotiate a new industry-wide collective agreement in 2025 were unsuccessful.

 

The shift in the origins of the workforce, highlighted in the Monitor investigation, is itself significant. Where migrant workers in German slaughterhouses were once mainly from Eastern Europe, Romania, Poland, and Bulgaria, they are increasingly recruited from Asia.

 

Workers now come from Ukraine, Georgia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Armenia, Vietnam, the Philippines, African countries, India, Sri Lanka, Nepal, and China. Romanian recruitment agencies have become intermediaries, sometimes recruiting workers from Nepal and sending them to German plants. The pattern indicates a treadmill effect: as living standards and expectations improve in one sending country, the industry moves on to find a cheaper, more vulnerable workforce elsewhere.

 

The wider situation across Europe is similarly alarming. The European meat industry employs roughly one million people in a sector valued at about 220 billion euros. In the largest plants in the Netherlands, Britain, and Germany, migrants constitute the majority of the workforce. A deputy secretary-general of EFFAT, the European federation of food and agriculture trade unions, has called the system sick across Europe, based on cheap meat prices and labour exploitation.

 

Sources: Monitor/WDR/ARD; Hans Böckler Foundation (WSI); Social Europe; ORF(Austrai); The Immigrant Times. Monitor is a WDR production for ARD. The full report is available at monitor.de.

​

Further reading from The Immigrant Times: Foreign nationals in German states and cities ||

​

COMMENT

Praise. Criticise. Write.

​

FOLLOW

Instagram || TikTok || X(Twitter) || Thread || Facebook || BlueSky || Mastodon || LinkedIn ||

 

BACK TO TOP​

​​

ITALY

Italy’s legal profession is furious over the government’s migrant bonus scheme

April 2026: The Italian government's latest security decree has triggered an angry response from the country's legal profession after the Senate approved a clause that would pay lawyers a financial bonus for each asylum seeker or irregular migrant they successfully persuade to return voluntarily to their country of origin.

 

The measure was inserted as an amendment during the Senate debate on Decree-Law No. 23, a sweeping security and immigration package adopted by Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni’s government on 24 February 2026. The decree covers public order, police operations, investigative powers, and immigration management. Having passed the upper house, it is now before the Chamber of Deputies, with a conversion deadline of 25 April 2026, after which it would automatically lapse if not passed into law.

 

The contentious clause would channel funds through Italy's National Bar Council, the Consiglio Nazionale Forense, to compensate lawyers who assist foreign nationals in Italy's existing assisted voluntary return programmes, provided the client actually leaves the country. The incentive is estimated at approximately €615 per completed return. The government has allocated €246,000 for 2026, rising to €492,000 per year thereafter.

 

The reaction from the legal profession has been fierce. The National Bar Council stated that it was never consulted and demanded that any reference to its involvement in administering the incentives be removed. The Organismo Congressuale Forense and the Union of Criminal Chambers have both declared the measure incompatible with professional ethics. At the core of the objection is a fundamental principle: a lawyer's duty is to act in their client's exclusive interest, not to deliver results that serve the state. Tying payment to a successful return, critics argue, turns that relationship on its head.

 

The University of Padua's Human Rights Centre has noted that the Italian Constitution, in Article 24, establishes that the right to a defence is inviolable at every stage of legal proceedings, and that the European Convention on Human Rights guarantees an effective remedy to anyone whose rights are violated. Lawyers, it argues, are the guarantors of those rights. Offering them compensation for facilitating a government policy, even at the expense of their clients' interests, implies either a poor regard for lawyers' ethical integrity or a belief that such safeguards may be relaxed in the case of migrants.

 

The controversy has drawn scrutiny from President Sergio Mattarella, who is closely monitoring the file. Although Italian presidents typically sign legislation once it reaches their desk, Mattarella has the power to refuse promulgation or return the text to parliament if he identifies serious constitutional problems. Institutional sources indicate that without a revision sufficient to neutralise the provision, the president could withhold his signature, creating a significant institutional standoff.

 

Opposition leader Elly Schlein of the Democratic Party accused the government of attempting to turn lawyers into "executors of political will," thereby undermining the constitutional right to a defence. Even within the governing majority, discomfort has surfaced, with Enrico Costa of Forza Italia proposing a parliamentary motion to address the issue, though that has not yet satisfied the legal profession's concerns.

 

The clause fits into a broader pattern in Italy's immigration policy under Giorgia Meloni. The same security decree has, separately, repealed a provision that previously allowed legal aid in expulsion proceedings, reducing the avenues available to migrants facing removal. The government has framed voluntary return as a humane alternative to forced deportation, but critics argue that incentivising the lawyers of asylum seekers to promote government policy crosses a line that cannot be defended in a state governed by the rule of law.

 

Sources: EUalive/FocusEurope.it; University of Padua Human Rights Centre (Italian Yearbook of Human Rights); Human Rights Watch; Consiglio Nazionale Forense.

​

COMMENT

Praise. Criticise. Write.

​

FOLLOW

Instagram || TikTok || X(Twitter) || Thread || Facebook || BlueSky || Mastodon || LinkedIn ||

 

BACK TO TOP​

​​​

EUROPEAN UNION

EU Parliament backs ‘return hubs’ for failed asylum seekers, but no country has agreed to take deportees

March 2026: The European Parliament has approved sweeping new deportation rules that would allow rejected asylum seekers to be sent to detention centres outside the bloc, but critics warn the move risks creating ‘legal black holes’ where rights cannot be guaranteed.

 

Members of the European Parliament voted 389 to 206, with 32 abstentions, in favour of a measure to ease the establishment of migrant detention centres outside the European Union, known as ‘return hubs’. The vote marks a significant step in a broader tightening of Europe's immigration architecture, though the regulation still faces a further round of negotiations before becoming law.

 

The Return Regulation would streamline the return process of rejected asylum seekers across the EU. Its most controversial element is the introduction of return hubs, detention facilities located outside of the EU's borders, designed to hold people whose asylum cases have been refused or who have been deemed unauthorised to remain in the EU. Under the current system, people without legal status are generally allowed to remain in EU territory until they are deported. Under the new law, people would instead be forcibly removed to facilities in non-EU countries whilst awaiting their final deportation.

 

The regulation also introduces stricter rules, including the fast-tracking of asylum claims from certain nationalities and extended detention periods of up to 24 months. The European Council, representing the EU national governments, overturned in December 2025 an earlier exclusion of families with children from being sent to return hubs, now permitting their transfer alongside adults.

 

The hubs would operate through bilateral agreements between individual EU member states and host governments, with no overarching EU-wide binding framework. Only about 20 per cent of people ordered to leave the EU are currently returned to their country of origin, a figure supporters of the regulation repeatedly cited as justification for the reform.

 

The committee vote confirmed a trend of the European People's Party (EPP) siding with the right-wing European Conservatives and Reformists (ECR) and the far-right Patriots for Europe (PfE) and Europe of Sovereign Nations (ESN) on all migration-related files. The result was also supported by some members of the liberal Renew Europe group. Centre-left and left-wing parties, along with the Greens, largely opposed the measure, though some Socialists voted for or abstained.

 

The legislation deliberately leaves host countries unspecified, with arrangements to be handled through bilateral deals. Initial research by the Immigrant Times suggests that negotiations about the placement of ‘return hubs’ might involve the following non-EU countries.

 

Albania is the most established precedent. Italy has been routing arrivals to Albanian detention centres since striking a bilateral deal praised by Prime Minister Meloni as a model for Europe. However, the arrangement has faced legal challenges and seen slow uptake. EU interior ministers endorsed Albania as one potential hub location in December 2025, alongside Serbia and North Macedonia.

 

Uganda has been a focus of Dutch and German interest. A working group consisting of Germany, Greece, Austria, Denmark, and the Netherlands has formed within the EU to establish joint return hubs, with Uganda among the locations repeatedly discussed.

 

Rwanda has also attracted attention. Germany is in talks with Rwanda to replicate the now-abandoned UK scheme, though the status of those negotiations remains unclear. Rwanda has separately indicated openness to such arrangements, having agreed to accept deported migrants from the United States.

 

Tunisia is frequently mentioned as a candidate, though it carries serious caveats. The UNHCR's Director of International Protection has stated ‘serious protection concerns in Tunisia and Libya’, describing them as ‘not safe countries for refugees and asylum seekers right now’.

 

Libya has also appeared in press reports as a possibility, despite being a country in which torture and systematic violence against women, migrants, and opposition members are widely documented.

 

Denmark has additionally initiated talks on corresponding agreements with Ethiopia and Egypt, so far without concrete results.

​

COMMENT

Praise. Criticise. Write.

​

FOLLOW

Instagram || TikTok || X(Twitter) || Thread || Facebook || BlueSky || Mastodon || LinkedIn ||

 

BACK TO TOP​

​

SWEDEN

Sweden moves to deport migrants who fail ‘Honest Living’ test

March 2026: Sweden's right-wing government has announced plans to introduce legislation that would require migrants to demonstrate what it calls an ‘honest living’, or face the withdrawal of their residence permits and potential deportation. The proposal, unveiled on Tuesday (24 March), marks one of the most far-reaching shifts in the country's immigration policy since the coalition came to power in 2022.

 

Migration Minister Johan Forssell presented the bill at a press conference, framing it as a matter of shared civic responsibility. "Following laws and rules is a given, but it must also be a given that we do our best to live responsibly and not harm our country," he told journalists.

 

The minister was also at pains to acknowledge that the majority of migrants act in good faith. "The vast majority of people who come to Sweden are perfectly honest; they simply want a better life for themselves and for their families. They want to work, do the right thing, learn the Swedish language, and become part of our country," he said. However, he argued that public trust in the immigration system depended on the ability to remove those who behaved otherwise.

 

The proposed measures would primarily target students, those on work permits, and their families. Under the new rules, authorities would be empowered to assess whether an individual was adhering to the "honest living" standard — and if not, residence permits could be denied or revoked.

 

Crucially, the bill would go beyond targeting those convicted of serious crimes. It would also cover what the government calls "transgressions," including social benefits fraud, accumulating excessive debt, public order disruptions, drug addiction, or making statements that glorify terrorism or are deemed to threaten Sweden's national security.

 

The proposals draw on an official inquiry commissioned back in November 2023, which recommended reintroducing a fundamental requirement of good conduct into Sweden's Aliens Act. Examples cited by the inquiry include unwillingness to pay debts, abuse of the welfare system, or close associations with criminal networks or violent extremist organisations.

 

If passed by parliament, the legislative amendments are set to enter into force on 1 July 2026.

 

The bill does not stand alone. Sweden's centre-right minority government, which relies on support from the anti-immigration Sweden Democrats, has been pushing hard to advance a suite of reforms across multiple policy areas ahead of legislative elections in September.

 

The country has already seen a 30 per cent reduction in asylum applications between 2024 and 2025, following earlier legislative tightening. The Swedish Migration Agency granted 79,684 residence permits in 2025, but only six per cent were for asylum-related purposes, down sharply from 18 per cent in 2018.

 

To further encourage departures, the government has also introduced financial incentives: from 2026, migrants who voluntarily return to their countries of origin can receive up to 350,000 kronor, approximately £28,000. Last year, just over 8,300 people took up similar voluntary return arrangements.

 

The government has described the overall direction of travel as a "paradigm shift", a deliberate move away from Sweden's historic identity as one of Europe's most asylum-friendly nations, towards a model that prioritises labour migration and skilled workers.

 

The proposals have drawn concern from rights groups and legal observers, who warn that the ‘honest living’ standard is broad and potentially open to arbitrary application. Critics point out that conditions such as debt accumulation or drug dependency may reflect social hardship rather than wilful misconduct, and that vulnerable migrants could find themselves penalised for circumstances largely beyond their control.

 

Sweden's centre-right government is a minority administration, meaning it will require the continued backing of the Sweden Democrats to push the bill through parliament. With September's elections on the horizon, immigration is expected to remain a central battleground in Swedish politics.

 

Further reading from The Immigrant Times: Immigrants in Europe’s Nordic nations ||

​

COMMENT

Praise. Criticise. Write.

​

FOLLOW

Instagram || TikTok || X(Twitter) || Thread || Facebook || BlueSky || Mastodon || LinkedIn ||

 

BACK TO TOP​

​

BRITAIN

The UK’s Prime Minister moves to soften immigration crackdown after Labour revolt

March 2026: The UK’s Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer is stepping back from some of his government's most controversial proposed immigration reforms, after a sizeable Labour revolt, led by former deputy prime minister Angela Rayner, threatened to split the parliamentary party.

 

Downing Street (the UK Prime Minister’s official residence) confirmed on Wednesday (18 March) that the Prime Minister is considering exempting large numbers of people from plans that would force most migrants to wait a decade for settled status in the UK, rather than the existing five years. For the hundreds of thousands of people who have built their lives here in good faith, working, paying taxes, raising children, it is the first sign that their needs are being considered.

 

Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood unveiled the controversial reforms in early March 2026 as part of a sweeping package aimed at reducing the number of people entering and settling in the UK. The flagship change would double the qualifying period for ‘indefinite leave to remain’ (ILR) from five to ten years for most migrants. Refugee status would also become temporary rather than permanent.

 

Crucially, and most controversially, Mahmood insisted the changes must apply retrospectively: affecting hundreds of thousands of people already living here, many of whom arrived during Boris Johnson's premiership. In a speech two weeks ago, she framed the case in stark terms, warning that without action, some 350,000 lower-skilled workers and their dependents would qualify for settlement over the next five years, gaining access to welfare, healthcare and social housing.

 

The Home Secretary also announced a pilot scheme offering families whose asylum claims have failed up to £40,000 to leave voluntarily, and threatened forced removal, including the handcuffing of children, for those who refuse.

 

The announcement caused many Labour MPs on the left of the Party to revolt. A group of 100 MPs signed a letter opposing the measures, arguing: "You don't win back public confidence in the asylum system by threatening to forcibly remove migrants who have lived here lawfully for 15 or 20 years." Sarah Owen, leader of the centre-left Tribune group, drew a direct comparison with Donald Trump's ICE immigration enforcement operations.

 

Then came the most explosive intervention. Angela Rayner, the former deputy prime minister, took to the stage at a Mainstream campaign group event on Tuesday (17 March) night and denounced the plans as a betrayal. "We cannot talk about earning a settlement if we keep moving the goalposts," she said. "Because moving the goalposts undermines our sense of fair play. It's un-British."

 

Many colleagues believe Rayner's intervention was also a thinly veiled pitch for the Labour leadership, with May's local elections looming and the party's poll ratings under pressure. The Green Party's recent victory in the Gorton and Denton by-election has rattled MPs who argue Labour faces as great a threat from its left as from Reform UK on its right.

 

On Wednesday afternoon, Starmer held a meeting at Downing Street with Black and minority ethnic Labour MPs, attended also by Justice Secretary David Lammy. One MP described the mood bluntly: "There's a sense the centre just isn't hearing us, not even on the tone or framing." Another was more direct still: "It's always been a poor policy."

 

The Prime Minister's spokesperson sought to walk a careful line, saying the government is "considering responses to the Home Office consultation" and will respond "in line with our principles and values", without committing to anything specific.

 

Exemptions now being discussed could include migrants working in the public sector, who may qualify for ILR after five years under the revised plans, and those already close to gaining settled status. Under the consultation’s tiered model, high earners, those on £125,140 or above for three consecutive years, could qualify in just three years. But those who have claimed benefits face a far harsher deal: 15 years if they claimed for under a year, and 20 years if for longer.

 

Downing Street made clear, however, that exemptions will not cover everyone already in the country, falling short of what Rayner and many Labour MPs have demanded.

 

Further reading from The Immigrant Times: Britain’s immigration policy threatens the country’s future prosperity ||

​

COMMENT

Praise. Criticise. Write.

​

FOLLOW

Instagram || TikTok || X(Twitter) || Thread || Facebook || BlueSky || Mastodon || LinkedIn ||

 

BACK TO TOP​

​

BRITAIN / AFRICA

Britain slams the door on African students, thus risking its access to the continent’s mineral riches

March 2026: Britain's Labour government has invoked an unprecedented ‘emergency brake’ on student visas, raising questions about the long-term cost of rebuffing future African partners.

 

Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood announced on 4 March 2026 that student visas for nationals of Afghanistan, Cameroon, Myanmar and Sudan would be suspended in what the Home Office described as an emergency response to surging asylum claims. Asylum applications by students from the four countries rose by more than 470 per cent between 2021 and 2025, according to official figures. Claims by students from Cameroon and Sudan spiked by more than 330 per cent over that period, the government said.

 

Mahmood defended the decision in bland terms: the visa system was being abused by students from those countries applying for asylum after entering Britain. The restrictions, introduced via an immigration rules change, will come into force on 26 March 2026.

 

Critics, however, have challenged the government's arguments. Immigration lawyer Sonia Lenegan noted that while the percentages look alarming, the absolute numbers tell a different story: just 120 people from Sudan on student visas claimed asylum in the year up to September 2025. For a country wracked by civil war, that figure may reflect genuine desperation rather than systematic abuse.

 

The decision also carries a political dimension. Britain's Labour government is trying to fend off attacks by the hard-right Reform UK party, which has surged in the polls on an anti-immigrant platform. Critics argue the policy has less to do with visa integrity than with domestic electoral pressure.

 

The broader consequences of Britain's tightening approach to overseas students were examined by The Immigrant Times in a piece on British immigration policy and national prosperity. Every international student who studies in Britain leaves with a personal connection to the country, its people, its culture and its values, the article argued. A future finance minister who studied in London is more likely to look favourably on British banks seeking to operate in their country, an observation that resonates sharply in the context of the Sudan ban. Every student turned away is a potential ambassador for Britain who will instead forge their deepest connections with another country.

 

That strategic cost looks particularly steep when set against the unfolding geopolitical contest across Africa. Africa holds an estimated 30 per cent of the world's known mineral deposits, including 85 per cent of the world's manganese, 80 per cent of platinum and chromium, and 47 per cent of cobalt, materials essential to electric vehicles, batteries, semiconductors, and defence technologies.

 

Producer countries are actively seeking to use strategic competition among buyers to negotiate greater value from their resources, and they have no shortage of suitors. China, the United States, and the Gulf states are all deepening their foothold on the continent. Europe has a strategic interest in supporting Africa-based processing and better regional integration of value chains, given its proximity to the continent and dependence on global supply chains for critical minerals.

 

Influence in Africa is built over decades, not years, through educational exchanges, professional networks, and the goodwill of a generation trained abroad. By barring Sudanese students today, Britain may find itself without allies or access tomorrow, precisely when the scramble for African resources reaches its peak.

 

The Home Secretary says she is restoring order to Britain's borders. She may, inadvertently, be surrendering Britain's seat at one of the most consequential tables of the 21st century.

 

Sources: UK Home Office (gov.uk); Al Jazeera; Electronic Immigration Network; Africanews; The Immigrant Times; Institute for Financial Affairs (Ethiopia); Nordic Africa Institute; ECCO Climate; Office for National Statistics; National Institute of Economic and Social Research.

​

Further reading from The Immigrant Times: Britain’s immigration policy threatens the country’s future prosperity and international influence ||

​

COMMENT

Praise. Criticise. Write.

​

FOLLOW

Instagram || TikTok || X(Twitter) || Thread || Facebook || BlueSky || Mastodon || LinkedIn ||

 

BACK TO TOP​

​​​​