The Labour Government recently announced that those arriving by irregular means to the UK, even if they are legitimate refugees, will be barred from ever becoming British citizens. Assistant Professor in Public Policy at the School of Government and International Affairs Omar Hammoud-Gallego argues that this kind of policy will not protect Labour from Reform’s insurgence, while at the same time it won’t solve the problem of irregular migration.
In British politics, a familiar pattern has re-emerged: when politicians struggle to achieve any measurable targets, they resort to scapegoating the only population that lacks the power to vote them out—migrants. This past week, the Home Office illustrated this trend once again. It began by publishing videos of deportations to reinforce the message of Labour’s tough-on-migration approach. Then, it amended its naturalisation guidance, stating that anyone who arrives in the UK irregularly — even if ultimately recognised as a refugee—will be permanently barred from becoming a British citizen. This latest policy shift is outright useless, opportunistic and counterproductive.
Given the limited availability of legal pathways for refugees, many asylum seekers hoping to reach the UK—whether due to family ties, language, or other reasons—often have no choice but to embark on dangerous journeys, such as crossing the Channel. In 2024, according to Home Office data, the UK resettled 9,554 refugees, but this was almost entirely due to the Afghan Citizenship Resettlement Scheme, which accounted for over 9,000 of these cases. This underscores the inadequacy of legal migration routes for most asylum seekers.
This latest policy follows the Conservatives’ recent proposal of increasing the wait time between obtaining indefinite leave to remain and eligibility for British citizenship from 12 months to five years. Such policy – also with no clear deterrent effect and that serves only to delay the integration of migrants into British society – suggests that they are stuck in a limbo of “symbolic” policymaking as well.
The broader issue, however, extends beyond the ineffectiveness of these policies. It lies in the way British politicians, particularly since the Brexit referendum, have treated migration policy as a tool for symbolic policymaking. Rather than pursuing evidence-based, practical solutions, they have prioritised headline-grabbing rhetoric aimed at shoring up electoral support. This approach is not unique to the UK; across Europe and beyond, migration and asylum policies have become a political messaging tool rather than a serious area of governance, as my research demonstrates.
While the Home Office’s latest policy shift is likely to face legal challenges for its apparent incompatibility with the Geneva Convention, what it really shows is that Labour appears to have drawn the wrong lesson from the Conservatives’ approach to the same issue. Instead of formulating pragmatic migration policies, this populist shift strengthened the perception that Labour is engaging in the same type of symbolic struggles, reinforcing the idea that migration policy is more about political posturing than practical governance.
Recent polling underscores the risks of this strategy. Nigel Farage’s Reform Party is now polling neck-and-neck with Labour, a concerning development for Keir Starmer and a doom-scenario for the Conservatives. However, by attempting to match Reform’s rhetoric on migration, Labour risks falling into the same trap as the Conservatives.
Chasing the far right on immigration only enables them to set the government agenda and serves to normalise extreme positions while yielding little electoral reward, while also alienating Labour’s core voters. This strategy has already failed for the Conservatives in the UK, for Emmanuel Macron in France, and for Friedrich Merz in Germany, who last week attempted to pass a migration bill in the German Bundestag by relying on the votes of the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD), an attempt that spectacularly backfired.
Yet, there is an alternative for social democratic and liberal parties: delivering on the issues that matter to voters. According to the latest YouGov data, the top four concerns for Labour supporters are the economy (60 per cent), health (53 per cent), the environment (28 per cent), and housing (25 per cent). Only 22 per cent cite immigration and asylum as a top three issue, leading its supporters to wonder about the wisdom of alienating most of its electorate with symbolic policymaking of this kind.
Here is what Labour could do instead: it should focus on practical and effective migration policies rather than symbolic gestures. A good starting point would be negotiating an agreement on the return of asylum seekers with the European Union, similar to what Britain used to be able to do under the Dublin Regulation, a policy which would likely require the UK to resettle a fixed number of asylum seekers from mainland Europe. That seems a price worth paying to conclusively address this issue.
Additionally, Labour could expand resettlement programmes and allow asylum applications to be submitted from France or other countries, providing a safe, legal alternative to dangerous crossings. This two-pronged approach – together with serious and mutually beneficial collaborations with European partners on smuggling gangs – would demonstrate that legal routes exist, reduce small-boat crossings, and undermine the populist narrative that thrives on chaos and fearmongering. An additional bonus would come from allowing recently-arrived asylum seekers to work, instead of the current 12 months ban. By tackling migration pragmatically, Labour would force its opponents on the right to focus on other policy areas where their appeal is weaker, such as the NHS, the economy and housing.
Labour’s embrace of populist rhetoric on migration should concern its supporters, not just for its lack of substance but for what it reveals: a government that, having achieved little so far and fearing the upcoming local elections, has resorted to the same brand of symbolic policymaking that defined the latter days of the disgraced Conservative government and its infamous Rwanda Plan. And so, despite a change in leadership, when it comes to refugee policy, it seems we are right back where we started—back to square one.
This article is republished from the LSE British Politics and Policy blog. Read the original article.
Our School of Government and International Affairs is ranked seventh in the UK in the Complete University Guide 2025.
Visit our Government and International Affairs webpages for more information on our undergraduate and postgraduate programmes.
