The Centre Must Hold (On Asylum)

On Monday, UK Home Secretary Shabina Mahmood announced planned updates to the UK’s asylum system. Already, the debate is fracturing into its familiar trenches. On the left, some argue that it's inhumane. On the right, others claim it does not go far enough. Both miss the core point: the public has lost confidence in the current system. Any government refusing to make the system fit for purpose would be kicked out at the next election or, worse, completely wiped out.  

A YouGov poll showed 58% of Britons considered immigration a top national concern. Seventy percent feel current migration levels are too high. Another Ipsos poll found the same, with two-thirds of the public finding current levels unacceptable. Across the West, right-wing parties have found success by using opposition to migration as a rallying point. Center-left parties have not offered viable options to uneasy voters. Mahmood has noticed this, stating, “I know illegal migration is causing huge divides here in our own country. I do believe we need to act if we are to retain public consent for having an asylum system at all."

If centrist parties do not act, the public’s dissatisfaction could pave the way for leaders like Nigel Farage, who might feel empowered to consider shutting down the asylum process entirely.

The most significant change Mahmood introduced is extending the timeline for permanent residency applications from five to 20 years. Although this may appear punitive, the rationale is clear: the UK attracts many because of its global language, cultural familiarity, and longstanding ties to its former empire. A shorter, more predictable route to settlement intensifies this attraction.

The policy is meant to be challenging. That is the political reality the government faces. Even so, the system still includes safeguards. Refugees can receive protection, and their status will be reviewed every thirty months. Legal immigration routes, such as student and skilled-worker visas, remain unchanged. Those who arrive through approved channels and contribute by working, paying National Insurance, learning English, avoiding benefit dependency, keeping a clean record, and participating in the community may see a shorter path. Playing by the rules matters.

Deterrence is key to the new changes, but it rarely works alone. Paired with a structured process removing immediate incentives, it better reduces dangerous crossings. If the government prompts applicants to contribute by offering a shorter timeline, it challenges another recurring right-wing narrative.

Migrants are vulnerable and need protection. However, a disorganized system that increases public resentment risks harming everyone involved. Without reform, there is a danger that rising asylum claims will prompt the public to demand stricter measures or closure of the system—especially under figures like Farage. The high number of applications under Starmer’s leadership demonstrates the unsustainability of the current approach.

Populists have used panic about migration to great effect. During the Brexit debate, control of the borders was one of the clearest arguments that resonated with voters. Yet leaving the EU also removed the UK’s ability to return asylum seekers to the first safe European country they entered, a tool the old Dublin Agreement once provided. Successive governments have never resolved that gap, and the public noticed. Last year, they harshly punished the incumbent Conservative government thanks to this (and a laundry list of other shortcomings, to be fair) and elected the, at the time, only viable alternative.  There was no honeymoon period, and the British are ready to cast Labour aside if they don’t correct the problems they perceive.

Trust in this policy has been eroding for years, and it has already led to the near extinction of the once indomitable Conservative Party.  Mahmood is trying to make sure the same does not befall her Labour Party.