Britain’s new asylum proposals threaten refugee families — and discourage future entrepreneurs

> Key measures

> Impact on families

> Children born in Britain during the 20-year wait

> Future entrepreneurs discouraged by uncertainty

> Response to the UK government’s proposals

By The Immigrant Times

In March 2025, the BBC published an article on three women who were refugees but are now entrepreneurs and job creators in Britain. Under the Home Secretary’s (on the left) proposals, women like Larysa Smirnova (from Ukraine), Basma Eldoukhi (from Palestine) or Yudit Kibrom (from Eritrea) may not have had the opportunity to start their businesses (Photo: BBC)

November 2025: Britain’s Home Secretary (Interior Minister) Shabana Mahmood unveiled what she called ‘the most significant shake-up of our asylum system in modern times.’ Her reforms, presented to the House of Commons, represent a sweeping recalibration of how the UK treats refugees, particularly with respect to their ability to settle, to work, to start families, and to build businesses.

While the UK government has framed its proposals as restoring control, they also raise profound questions: What kind of future is the UK offering to people fleeing persecution? And will those with entrepreneurial spirit, eager to contribute, find this future worth building toward?

Shabana Mahmood's key proposals

Core protection status and temporary leave

Rather than granting indefinite leave, Mahmood is introducing a 30-month ‘core protection’ period for refugees, after which leave must be renewed, subject to safety in their home country.

Twenty-year path to settled status

The requirement for refugees to apply for permanent settlement (indefinite leave to remain) would stretch from the current five years to 20 years under core protection.

No automatic family reunion

The right to bring over family members would be significantly curtailed: ‘There will be no automatic right to family reunion for refugees under core protection.’ Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (which protects family life) is to be narrowed: ‘family’ would be defined more strictly, limited to parents and children, and claims under Article 8 would be subject to more stringent ‘public interest’ tests.

Support no longer guaranteed

The statutory duty (from 2005) to provide asylum seekers with housing and weekly allowances is to be repealed. These supports become discretionary, not automatic. Asylum seekers who have the right to work but do not, or those who have assets, may be denied support.

Enforced returns and incentive payments

For rejected asylum seekers, the government plans to consult on removing financial support from families who refuse to leave, even offering ‘increased incentive payments’ to encourage voluntary return, while ramping up enforced returns where necessary.

In-country ‘protection work and study’ route

A new visa route will allow people on core protection to transition into a work or study visa (if employed or enrolled), paying a fee, and then ‘earn’ settlement more quickly than via core protection alone.

Britain puts families on the waiting list

The Labour government’s proposals have especially sharp consequences for families: The 20-year wait to attain settled status means that many refugees may spend a large portion of their adult life in a form of limbo. For families, that delay is not just bureaucratic, it’s emotional and practical. It makes long-term planning (for housing, education, or business) enormously difficult.

By narrowing family reunions, the government is effectively saying that refugees should not expect to bring extended family members. For many, ‘family’ is not limited to just their children and parents; siblings, dependents, and even elderly relatives matter deeply. Restricting who counts as ‘family’ under Article 8 undermines the ability of refugees to re-create their support networks in the UK.

The removal of guaranteed housing and allowances presents acute risk for destitution, especially for families who cannot immediately secure paid work or who have caregiving responsibilities.

For families with children, the proposals on enforced returns are especially alarming. The government is launching a consultation on removing support from failed asylum-seeker families who refuse to depart, potentially escalating to enforced removal. The sense of insecurity this creates could push families to the margins, afraid to advocate for their rights for fear of triggering removal.

What happens when refugees start families during the 20-year wait?

The government’s proposed asylum regime creates a long stretch of instability for anyone hoping to build a family life in Britain. A significant, and largely unaddressed, question is what happens when a young refugee marries during that 20-year waiting period and has children in the UK.

Under UK nationality law, children born in the UK do not automatically become British citizens. A child is British at birth only if at least one parent is already a British citizen or is ‘settled’ in the UK (meaning they have indefinite leave to remain or an equivalent permanent status). Because Mahmood’s plan forces refugees onto a two-decade track before becoming settled, most refugee parents would not have that status when their children are born.

This means the majority of children born to refugees during those 20 years would not be British citizens at birth. Instead, they would inherit the same temporary, reviewable immigration status as their parents, leaving them equally exposed to the uncertainty built into the system.

There are routes for these children to acquire British citizenship later, such as registration after ten years of continuous residence, or in limited circumstances where a child would otherwise be stateless. But those routes are conditional, not automatic, and depend heavily on discretionary Home Office decision-making, a process that may become even more restrictive in a hardened political climate.

The implications become even more troubling when considering what happens if one or both parents face removal during the 20 years. If a child is not British and has no independent right to remain, they may be removed alongside a parent whose protection is withdrawn, despite being born and raised here. Conversely, a child who does manage to obtain British citizenship cannot legally be removed, potentially resulting in painful family splits if the parent loses their status. Either way, the reforms inject deep and lasting insecurity into the lives of children who may know no other home but the UK.

These questions strike at the heart of the government’s claim that the proposals are ‘fair and humane’. A system where children grow up in Britain without a secure future. and where their right to remain depends on the political winds shaping their parents’ immigration reviews, risks creating a generation of young people raised in permanent limbo.

Mahmood’s plan will stifle entrepreneurial ambitions

The new proposals by the UK Home Secretary will make it harder for Britain to nurture the kind of global entrepreneurs who have historically flourished when given stability and a chance to belong. Think of Sergey Brin, who arrived in the United States as a refugee child and went on to co-found Google; Andy Grove, a refugee twice over who built Intel into the backbone of modern computing; Jan Koum, who fled persecution in Ukraine before creating WhatsApp; or Hamdi Ulukaya, the Kurdish refugee who built Chobani from an abandoned factory.

Britain has its own modern success stories too, entrepreneurs like Sir Anwar Pervez, who built Bestway Group into a major wholesale empire, and Rami Ranger, whose family fled violence before he went on to found Sun Mark. These are the kinds of futures that become harder to imagine when refugees spend twenty years in a holding pattern, never fully allowed to settle, invest, or build with confidence.’

Uncertainty and risk

A 20-year path to permanence means decades of uncertainty. For someone whose business requires investment, long-term contracts, or securing credit, this is a significant handicap. Would a bank lend to someone without settled status? Would potential investors, clients or partners trust long-term commitments if your leave must be renewed every few years?

Cost and burdens

The ‘work and study’ route requires paying a fee to apply. For someone just starting, cash flow may be tight; having to divert funds into visa fees rather than investing in their business could make or break a small enterprise.

Conditional support

With no guaranteed housing or financial support, a would-be entrepreneur may lack the safety net needed to leap, especially in the early, financially fragile phases of starting a business.

Social and psychological impact

The feeling of being perpetually ‘temporary’ can weigh heavily. The emotional burden of not truly belonging, of being constantly under review, may dampen innovation, risk-taking, and community-building.

In short, while the government is offering a ‘protection work and study’ route, the structural disincentives built into its model are likely to discourage precisely those refugees who most want to make a meaningful, long-term contribution to British society.

Response: Dissent, division, and lukewarm support

The reaction to Mahmood’s proposals has been fierce, both from within her own Labour Party and from across the political spectrum.

Labour backbench revolt

Several Labour MPs have expressed deep unease. According to the newspaper The Standard, some regard the changes as too punitive, warning that they betray the party’s traditional values of compassion and solidarity. One MP reportedly argued that reviewing refugee status every two and a half years would divert ‘huge amounts of resources’ from making the asylum system more efficient.

Right-wing / Conservative voices

Interestingly, some Conservative and right-wing Reform UK politicians have welcomed the proposals as a step in the ‘right direction’. The right-wing Reform UK party, in particular, has long pushed for tougher immigration controls; their leaders have framed Mahmood’s plan as aligning with their vision, albeit not going far enough. Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch, for instance, offered conditional praise, stating the proposals were ‘steps in the right direction.’

Humanitarian and left-wing criticism

Refugee advocates and left-wing Labour MPs have been deeply critical. Charities argue the plan risks pushing vulnerable people into destitution. The Refugee Council has warned that making support discretionary and limiting family reunion will ‘force refugees into destitution and sleeping rough’. Some have also accused the government of pandering to far-right sentiment, suggesting that Labour is shifting its stance to stanch political bleeding to Reform UK.

Fazit

Shabana Mahmood’s reforms mark a stark departure from the UK’s previous asylum paradigm. By introducing a temporary-protection model, slashing the automaticity of family reunion, and demanding a 20-year wait for settlement, the government seems to be reimagining refugees not as future citizens, but as long-term guests, conditionally tolerated, always under review, and incentivised to return.

For refugees who arrive with aspirations to work, to start businesses, to raise families, this is a chilling landscape. The extra bureaucratic hurdles, the prolonged uncertainty, and the eroded safety nets may well dampen the very ambition and integration the government claims to encourage.

In that context, one must ask: Why would someone with a real stake in building a future here choose to invest their life in a system that treats them as temporary by design? Refugees are told, ‘You are welcome, for now. But don’t get too comfortable.’

Further reading: Immigration in Britain || Britain and the Danish immigration model || Challenged by Reform UK, Labour moves to the right on immigration ||

BACK TO TOP

FOLLOW

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