Immigration news & insights from Europe
> On this page <
> Poland considers controversial border fence as a success
> France and Britain sign three-year Channel deal
> Exploitation in the German meat industry
> Europe backs'return hubs' for failed asylum seekers
The physical barrier along the Poland-Belarus border is 186 kilometres (116 miles) long. Finished in 2022, this steel fence stands 5.5 metres high and is supported by an electronic system of cameras and sensors, creating a comprehensive barrier designed to restrict migration.
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
​
FOLLOW
Instagram || TikTok || X(Twitter) || Thread || Facebook || BlueSky || Mastodon || LinkedIn ||
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
​
FOLLOW
Instagram || TikTok || X(Twitter) || Thread || Facebook || BlueSky || Mastodon || LinkedIn ||
​
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
​
FOLLOW
Instagram || TikTok || X(Twitter) || Thread || Facebook || BlueSky || Mastodon || LinkedIn ||
​​
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
​
FOLLOW
Instagram || TikTok || X(Twitter) || Thread || Facebook || BlueSky || Mastodon || LinkedIn ||
​
GERMANY / FREIBURG
Freiburg’s two leading mayoral candidates campaign on a pro-immigrant platform
April 2026: On 26 April, residents of Freiburg (Baden-Württemberg), the university city in the far south-west of Germany, will elect a mayor (Oberbürgermeister). The contest takes place against a backdrop of intensifying national debate over immigration, but in a city that has long presented a different face to the rest of the country.
Freiburg is situated where Germany, France, and Switzerland meet. Foreign nationals constitute 17 per cent of the city's population, with 70-75 per cent originating from other European countries. This reflects the city's geography and the regular movement of students, researchers, and workers through one of Germany's oldest universities. The city has an elected migrant advisory council, the Migrantinnenbeirat, which represents residents with immigration backgrounds and held its most recent elections in 2025.
The incumbent mayor, Martin Horn, is seeking a second term. He has spoken publicly in support of immigrants, emphasising the importance of migrant workers to key sectors of the economy and condemning what he described as the negative stories told about migrants and immigrants. In a recent TikTok interview, he said that in certain care sectors, almost all new apprentices are immigrants.
Horn, who is 41 and independent, is supported by the Social Democrats, the liberal Free Democrats, and the pan-European Volt party. Before entering local politics, he worked in international social work and spent periods in Africa and the Middle East. He was first elected in 2018, defeating the incumbent Green mayor, Dieter Salomon, who had held the post for 16 years. Horn's campaign describes Freiburg as "a city that responds to international conflict with more local togetherness."
His main challenger is Monika Stein, 56, a trade union leader and former city councillor running for an independent left-green coalition supported by the Greens, Die Linke, and several local groups. Stein also contested in 2018 and finished third. Her supporters say she advocates for a city where democratic participation is accessible to everyone, regardless of origin, income, or passport.
Seven additional candidates have been approved to stand, including Karl Schwarz of the far-right Alternative für Deutschland (AfD), marking the first time the party has fielded a candidate in a Freiburg mayoral election. His campaign has addressed cultural and security themes familiar from the AfD's national platform.
The presence of an AfD candidate indicates a broader shift in German politics, even though Freiburg remains one of the least favourable areas for the party nationwide. In the Baden-Württemberg state elections held on 8 March 2026, the AfD received only 7.3 per cent of the vote in Freiburg's inner constituency and 10.8 per cent in the surrounding area, both significantly below its state-wide result of 18.8 per cent, which nearly doubled the party's share from the previous state election in 2021. Meanwhile, the Greens secured over 40 per cent of the vote in both Freiburg constituencies, establishing the city as one of their strongest bases in Baden-Württemberg.
If no candidate wins an absolute majority on 26 April, a run-off between the top two will take place on 17 May.
Further reading from The Immigrant Times: Foreign nationals in German states and cities ||
​
COMMENT
​
FOLLOW
Instagram || TikTok || X(Twitter) || Thread || Facebook || BlueSky || Mastodon || LinkedIn ||
​
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
​
FOLLOW
Instagram || TikTok || X(Twitter) || Thread || Facebook || BlueSky || Mastodon || LinkedIn ||
​
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
​
FOLLOW
Instagram || TikTok || X(Twitter) || Thread || Facebook || BlueSky || Mastodon || LinkedIn ||
​
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
​
FOLLOW
Instagram || TikTok || X(Twitter) || Thread || Facebook || BlueSky || Mastodon || LinkedIn ||
​
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
​
FOLLOW
Instagram || TikTok || X(Twitter) || Thread || Facebook || BlueSky || Mastodon || LinkedIn ||
​
WAR IN THE MIDDLE EAST
Europe must prepare for a refugee surge from the Middle East, UN migration chief warns
7 March 2026: Amy Pope, Director General of the International Organisation for Migration (IOM), has warned that a large-scale refugee crisis could reach Europe rapidly if the war in the Middle East continues to escalate. Speaking in Brussels, she drew a stark comparison with the Ukraine conflict, in which millions of people crossed the border within days. Turkey would be the first major recipient of refugees fleeing Iran, she said, with pressure likely to fall on Greece, Bulgaria, and the Western Balkan route if controls were relaxed, reactivating a corridor that shaped European politics a decade ago.
Full story: Middle East Reporting
​
COMMENT
​
FOLLOW
Instagram || TikTok || X(Twitter) || Thread || Facebook || BlueSky || Mastodon || LinkedIn ||
BRITAIN / REFUGEES
Britain hopes new status restrictions will reduce the flow of refugees
March 2026: The UK Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood announced on 2 March 2026 that refugee status will become temporary and subject to review every 30 months for all adults claiming asylum from that date.
Under the previous system, refugees were granted five years of protection and allowed to bring their families, followed by near-automatic, fee-free permanent settlement with continued access to benefits and housing — described by the government as among the most generous offers in Western Europe. The Home Secretary argued this had become a pull factor driving illegal migration.
The change is modelled on Denmark's approach, which the government says reduced asylum claims by more than 90% over a decade. Refugees whose home countries are judged to have become safe will be expected to return, while those who still face danger will have their protection renewed. www New legal routes via work and study visas will also be created as an alternative pathway.
Under separate reforms announced last year, refugees will also have to wait 20 years for settlement unless they switch to a legal visa route.
The government frames the policy as restoring order while remaining humane. Home Secretary Mahmood said the country "will always provide sanctuary to those fleeing war and persecution," but argued the system must not create incentives that fund human traffickers or draw people without a legitimate need for protection.
Officials estimate the change could eventually cut the number of refugees on a pathway to settlement by up to 40 per cent.
The reforms have drawn significant pushback from refugee organisations and some politicians. The International Rescue Committee (IRC) UK said the cuts created uncertainty, fuelled anxiety, and stripped away the stability people need to rebuild their lives, and argued there is no evidence the measures will deter dangerous journeys.
The Refugee Council warned that the policy was unworkable and extremely costly, estimating that it would require between 1.66 and 1.9 million status reviews over the first decade, at a cost to the taxpayer of between £1.1 billion and £1.27 billion.
The Council also raises concerns about the restriction on family reunion, noting that 90 per cent of such visas previously went to women and children, and warns that the prolonged temporary status echoes past injustices seen in the Windrush scandal.
Within Parliament, as many as 80 Labour MPs are reported to be considering an amendment that would exempt families with children and people in recognised shortage-occupation jobs.
More broadly, critics have accused the government of adopting Reform UK's anti-immigration rhetoric, the party that regularly tops opinion polls.
Further reading from The Immigrant Times: Britain's immigration policy, a threat to prosperity || Britain’s new asylum proposals discourage future entrepreneurs || Britain debates immigration || Britain’s Labour Party moves to the right on immigration || The fiscal benefit of immigration in Britain || Britain’s care system depends on Filipino nurses ||
​​​
COMMENT
​
FOLLOW
Instagram || TikTok || X(Twitter) || Thread || Facebook || BlueSky || Mastodon || LinkedIn ||
BACK TO TOP​​​