https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fIfd6sCe4Gg

One of the UK’s most senior Bishops has warned that Nigel Farage’s proposed asylum ban “betrays Britain’s proud history”.

The Right Reverend Dr Guli Francis-Dehqani, Bishop of Chelmsford, told The Mirror that a plan to shut down the asylum system for five years, as proposed by the Reform leader, flies in the face of Christian teachings. Mr Farage has repeatedly spoken about Judeo-Christian values – saying these are the heart of what makes Britain great.

But he has faced heavy criticism from Christian leaders. The latest intervention comes just days after the Catholic Church of England and Wales voiced its opposition to Mr Farage’s draconian plan. Dr Francis-Dehqani, one of 25 Church of England Bishops who sit in the House of Lords, told The Mirror: “Christians are called to love our neighbours and show hospitality to the stranger, a tradition deeply embedded in Britain’s long-standing history of protecting those fleeing danger and persecution.

“A policy that dismantles our asylum system and slams the door on all those seeking sanctuary, including children and those who have come through established routes, betrays Britain’s proud history of helping those most in need. Instead of locking out the vulnerable, politicians should develop proposals for building a fair, efficient and humane asylum system that honours the inherent dignity of those seeking sanctuary here.”

Last week Mr Farage announced he would bring in a five-year asylum pause if he becomes PM. This would mean Britain would not process any new asylum claims, regardless of their merit – which has sparked outrage among religious leaders.

James Tullett, chief executive at Refugee and Migrant Justice, told The Mirror: “We see every day how faith groups support people in their hour of need. Unlike many politicians who seek to exploit and divide us, bishops, imams, priests, rabbis and other religious leaders regularly preach a message of love, tolerance, acceptance and welcoming thy neighbour.

“This is the UK at its best, a place that does not shirk its responsibilities towards those seeking sanctuary and recognises its moral and legal obligations under international law. We would be a much more united society if our political leaders practised these same values.”

On Wednesday The Mirror reported that the Catholic Church had come out against Mr Farage’s latest proposals. It pointed to Pope Leo’s warnings about hatred and division when asked for its position on Mr Farage’s announcement.

In a statement a Church spokesperson said: “The Gospel calls us to welcome the stranger, and that call must shape how we speak about and respond to people seeking safety. In 2023, The Bishops’ of England and Wales published a document called Love The Stranger reminding us that every migrant has a name, a face and a story.

“As Pope Leo recently commented after his Apostolic Journey to France: ‘We can go back to the values of the Gospel, which are not about hatred and division, they are about understanding, compassion and accompaniment.

“‘I hope deeply, and the Church can be part of this, that we can find ways of reaching out to a majority of people of goodwill who will understand how important their commitment is, even in terms of participating in political processes, to make clear choices for the common good and not for extremist ideas (that perhaps will do much more damage than we are even aware of now).

“For our part, we [promote] the social doctrine of the Church, talking about, teaching about, preaching about what we believe. These are life-giving values and not about destruction, division, and hatred.”’

Last Monday Reform confirmed its plan would involve removing women and children from countries like Sudan and Afghanistan – but it is not clear where they would be sent.

Mr Farage said: “All of the Tories’ and Labour’s immigration schemes – Afghanistan, Palestine – will immediately be closed. Every asylum grant given in the prior five years will be reviewed.

“Those who came illegally, or from a safe country, will have their asylum grant revoked and be deported. Countries that refuse to take back their illegal migrants and criminals will face visa bans, sanctions, and tariffs.”

The Reform chief has previously come under fire from religious leaders over his party’s draconian migration plans. Last year the Archbishop of York, Stephen Cottrell – who was the top Church of England bishop at the time – said Reform’s deportation proposals were “beneath us as a nation”.

Mr Farage hit back by claiming the Church of England had “gone to the dogs”. Former Lib Dem leader Tim Farron, who chairs the Christians in Parliament group, said it is “inexcusable” to make such claims about Christian values.

He told The Mirror: “Nigel Farage has said that he believes Christian values are what has made Britain great – I don’t disagree, in fact the values of western liberal democracies are fundamentally shaped by the gospel.

“One of those Christian values is that each human being is made in God’s image and loved by God. It’s a massive contradiction to say that we should be a Christian country but then to say things which are diametrically opposed to Christianity, such as denying people any basic human dignity.

“Nigel Farage does not claim to be a Christian and I applaud his honesty on that. But he then says he wants Britain to be run on Christian values whilst clearly not understanding them. And that is what’s inexcusable.”

Mr Farage – who makes no claims to be a devout Christian himself – has previously spoken about advancing Christian values. He told a press conference in February: “I can see that so much of what makes Britain such a great country is associated and irrevocably derived from Christian heritage.”

And in an Easter message earlier this year he said: “The Christian values on which our country is built are something to be proud of.”

Other prominent critics have included the Bishop of Oxford, who said it was “deeply disturbing” that Reform had attempted to “stoke division for political advantage”.

Challenged about the comments by senior Bishops, Mr Farage said: “You’ve just encapsulated beautifully, I couldn’t have done it better myself, why the Church of England has gone to the dogs.

“I think they’ve got a rather twisted view of what their flock in this country actually want them to do.”

Nigel Farage’s Asylum Plan ‘Betrays Britain’s Proud History’, Says Senior Bishop

Nigel Farage’s proposals for reforming Britain’s asylum system have reignited a fierce national debate after a senior bishop reportedly criticised the approach as a betrayal of the country’s proud history of offering protection to people fleeing persecution. The dispute highlights a fundamental disagreement over how Britain should balance border security, immigration enforcement, humanitarian responsibilities and the concerns of communities affected by irregular migration.

For Farage and his supporters, a stricter asylum policy is necessary to restore public confidence in the immigration system, deter dangerous Channel crossings and ensure that government decisions are enforced. Critics, including voices from religious and humanitarian organisations, argue that measures designed primarily around deterrence risk overlooking the individual circumstances of people seeking refuge.

The disagreement goes beyond party politics. It raises difficult questions about Britain’s identity, the meaning of compassion in public policy and the responsibilities of a country that seeks to maintain control of its borders while meeting its legal obligations.

Although the precise wording and context of the bishop’s reported criticism require verification, the underlying clash reflects a longstanding divide in British immigration debate.

Farage’s Approach to Asylum Reform

Nigel Farage and Reform UK have made immigration central to their political programme. The party has called for stronger border enforcement, faster decisions on asylum claims and the removal of people who have no legal right to remain in Britain.

Farage has argued that the current system fails to provide sufficient control over irregular migration and that the government must demonstrate that entering the country unlawfully will not automatically lead to a long-term right to remain.

Supporters say this approach addresses concerns that have been expressed by communities across the country. They point to the dangers of small-boat crossings, the activities of people-smuggling networks and the cost of accommodating asylum seekers while their claims are processed.

For these voters, a government’s first responsibility is to maintain an orderly immigration system and enforce the law. They argue that a system perceived as ineffective risks undermining public trust and encouraging further attempts to enter the country through irregular routes.

However, the practical details of any proposed reform are crucial. Immigration enforcement, asylum eligibility, accommodation arrangements and the removal of people whose claims have been rejected are separate issues governed by different legal and administrative requirements.

A proposal to tighten border controls does not, by itself, establish how the government would assess protection claims or ensure that people facing serious danger are treated lawfully.

These questions would become central to any attempt to translate political promises into policy.

Why a Senior Bishop Might Object

Religious leaders have long participated in British debates about refugees, asylum and the treatment of vulnerable people. Their interventions often draw on humanitarian principles, including the responsibility to protect people fleeing persecution, violence and serious threats to their lives.

From this perspective, an asylum system cannot be judged exclusively by the number of people prevented from entering the country. It must also be assessed according to how it treats people who genuinely need protection and whether its procedures allow individual cases to be considered fairly.

A bishop criticising Farage’s proposals may therefore be expressing concern that an emphasis on deterrence could overshadow humanitarian responsibilities. Such criticism reflects a broader ethical argument: border control is a legitimate function of government, but it should not eliminate the obligation to consider whether someone faces persecution or serious harm.

Religious leaders may also be concerned about the language used in political debates. When asylum seekers are discussed only in terms of costs, numbers or enforcement, their individual circumstances can disappear from public view.

At the same time, religious organisations do not necessarily speak with one voice on every aspect of immigration policy. Some emphasise the need to welcome refugees, while others recognise the importance of effective borders, orderly procedures and public confidence.

The key disagreement is often about how those principles should be balanced rather than whether governments have any responsibility to manage immigration.

Britain’s History of Providing Refuge

Britain’s record of receiving people escaping persecution is an important part of the debate, although that history is complex and cannot be reduced to a single narrative.

Across different periods, people fleeing religious persecution, political repression and war have sought safety in Britain. Refugees have included individuals escaping Nazi persecution, people displaced by conflicts in Europe and elsewhere, and communities fleeing violence or oppressive governments.

Some newcomers have made significant contributions to British public life, science, business, culture and education. Their experiences are often cited by advocates who argue that offering protection can be both a humanitarian responsibility and a long-term social benefit.

Yet Britain’s historical record also contains difficult chapters, including restrictions on entry, public hostility towards particular migrant groups and disputes over how many people the country should accept.

The history therefore provides lessons in both compassion and the challenges of managing migration. It can support an argument for maintaining meaningful protection for refugees, but it does not automatically determine the details of a modern asylum system.

Today’s government must operate within contemporary legal obligations and consider the practical demands of processing claims, providing accommodation and managing arrivals.

The question is how those responsibilities can be fulfilled without abandoning the principle that people fleeing genuine persecution deserve a fair assessment of their circumstances.

The Channel Crossings Debate

Small-boat crossings across the English Channel have become one of the most politically contentious aspects of Britain’s immigration system.

The journeys can be extremely dangerous, exposing passengers to cold water, overcrowding and the risk of boats capsizing. People-smuggling networks profit from arranging crossings, often exploiting individuals who have limited safe options for travel.

Farage and other critics of current policy argue that Britain must take stronger action to disrupt these networks and discourage dangerous journeys. They contend that if people believe crossing the Channel will allow them to remain in Britain while their claims are considered, the incentive to make the journey may persist.

Supporters of stricter measures argue that deterrence is essential to preventing deaths and restoring confidence in border control.

Humanitarian organisations counter that people seeking asylum may undertake dangerous journeys because they believe they have no realistic alternative. They warn that measures focused exclusively on preventing arrivals can leave people exposed to smugglers or unable to access protection procedures.

Both the risks of irregular crossings and the need for an effective asylum system are real policy considerations. However, the effectiveness of any particular proposal must be assessed through evidence about its implementation, its effect on smuggling networks and the consequences for people seeking protection.

Political statements alone cannot establish whether a proposed measure would reduce crossings or simply change the routes and methods used.

Can Tougher Border Controls Coexist With Humanitarian Protection?

A central question in the debate is whether a government can strengthen border enforcement while preserving access to asylum for people who qualify for protection.

In principle, border control and refugee protection are not mutually exclusive. A state can investigate irregular entry, prosecute people-smuggling offences, process applications efficiently and remove individuals who have no legal right to remain, while still assessing protection claims according to the law.

The difficulty lies in designing a system that works consistently and quickly.

Long delays can increase accommodation costs and leave applicants uncertain about their futures. Poor communication can frustrate local communities. Weak enforcement against smuggling networks can allow dangerous crossings to continue, while inadequate safeguards can put vulnerable people at risk.

A workable policy therefore needs several elements: efficient decision-making, appropriate accommodation, fair procedures, effective action against criminal networks and lawful arrangements for returns where protection is not granted.

Any proposal that promises rapid results should be examined against these practical requirements. Ministers must explain how decisions will be made, what safeguards will apply and how the policy will be funded.

The debate should focus on whether the measures achieve their stated objectives rather than assuming that either a tougher approach or a more welcoming one automatically resolves every problem.

The Political Stakes for Nigel Farage

The disagreement with religious leaders illustrates the political challenge facing Farage as he seeks to make immigration a defining issue for Reform UK.

His supporters may interpret criticism from prominent public figures as evidence that established institutions are out of touch with people who want stronger immigration controls. They may argue that politicians should prioritise the concerns of residents who feel that their communities have not been adequately consulted about asylum accommodation or the pressures on local services.

Critics, however, may see the same controversy as a warning that proposals presented as decisive solutions could conflict with humanitarian principles or legal obligations.

Both interpretations form part of the wider political contest over immigration, but the practical merits of a policy must be considered separately from the political reactions it generates.

For Farage, the challenge is to demonstrate how his proposals would operate in practice, including the legal basis for removals, the treatment of people with protection claims and the arrangements needed to manage the system.

For his opponents, the challenge is to explain how Britain can maintain public confidence in asylum procedures while preserving meaningful protection for refugees.

The disagreement is unlikely to disappear simply because political figures exchange criticism. It reflects competing expectations about what the state owes its citizens and what responsibilities it has towards people arriving from abroad.

The Responsibility of Government

Ultimately, the government of any political party must address both public concerns and legal obligations.

Residents have a legitimate interest in knowing how immigration rules are enforced, how public money is spent and what measures are being taken to prevent dangerous crossings. Communities affected by asylum accommodation also deserve clear information and opportunities to raise concerns.

At the same time, people seeking asylum should not automatically be treated as criminals merely because they entered through an irregular route. Their claims must be assessed according to the applicable law and the individual circumstances of their cases.

An effective system must distinguish between people who qualify for protection, those whose claims are still being considered and those who have no legal basis to remain after the relevant procedures have concluded.

That distinction is essential to both fairness and public confidence. If the system fails to process claims efficiently or enforce final decisions consistently, frustration can grow. If it fails to protect people facing persecution, it risks violating the principles that underpin refugee protection.

Political leaders must therefore explain how their proposals would address these competing responsibilities rather than presenting the issue as a simple choice between compassion and control.

A Debate About Britain’s Identity

The reported criticism from a senior bishop touches on a question that extends beyond the immediate details of Farage’s asylum plan: what kind of country does Britain want to be?

For some people, national responsibility begins with secure borders, predictable rules and confidence that immigration decisions are enforced. For others, Britain’s identity is also closely associated with offering refuge to people escaping persecution and ensuring that vulnerable individuals are treated with dignity.

These priorities need not be irreconcilable, but balancing them requires detailed policy, competent administration and honest public discussion.

Historical examples of refuge can inform the debate without settling every modern question. Likewise, concerns about irregular migration deserve serious consideration without automatically discrediting the principle of asylum.

The most useful discussion will distinguish between verified facts, political claims and moral arguments. It will ask what a proposal would actually do, whom it would affect, whether it would work and what safeguards would be necessary.

For Nigel Farage, the challenge is to show that his proposed reforms can deliver effective border control within the law. For critics, the challenge is to demonstrate how humanitarian protection can be maintained within a system that commands public confidence.

The debate over Britain’s asylum policy is therefore about more than one politician or one bishop’s reported intervention. It concerns the responsibilities of government, the limits of enforcement and the principles that should guide the treatment of people seeking safety.

Whatever policy Britain ultimately adopts, its success will depend on whether it can combine effective administration, lawful enforcement and a credible commitment to protecting those who genuinely need refuge.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.