Andy Burnham Condemns Masked Anti-Migrant Protests as Channel Crossings Keep Immigration Debate Intense
Prime Minister Andy Burnham has sharply criticised a series of masked anti-immigration demonstrations in southern England, describing attempts to intimidate local communities as “not the British way” while acknowledging that public concern over immigration remains legitimate.
His comments come amid renewed political pressure over Channel crossings and the continued use of temporary accommodation for asylum seekers — two issues that have become increasingly intertwined with protests in coastal towns.
Speaking to ITV News Meridian on September 25, Burnham addressed demonstrations that had taken place in Dover, Portsmouth, Gosport and Basingstoke. Some participants had dressed in black, covered their faces and gathered around ports or other locations linked to migrant arrivals.
Burnham drew a distinction between opposition to government immigration policy and behaviour that he said crossed into intimidation.
Asked specifically about masked protesters, he said he condemned the tactic because he believed it was intended to create fear. He added that people should be able to live in their communities without feeling threatened by groups arriving to cause unrest or provocation.
“I recognise the concern that many people in the public have around immigration,” Burnham told ITV, before arguing that attacking police officers or intimidating members of the public represented “a different agenda.”
The remarks are significant because immigration remains one of the most politically sensitive issues facing the government.
Official Home Office figures show why.
On September 23, 781 people arrived in the UK after crossing the English Channel in 10 small boats. There were another 526 recorded arrivals on September 27. The government cautions that the daily figures are provisional and may later be revised.
The 781 arrivals therefore support the claim that more than 780 people crossed in a single day, although that figure should be considered alongside the wider pattern: crossings fluctuate considerably depending on weather, enforcement activity and the operations of smuggling networks.
For example, the Home Office recorded no arrivals on September 25 or September 26. On September 21 there were 150 arrivals, followed by 154 the next day.
That volatility illustrates the difficulty of drawing conclusions from one particularly high day.
Protests and the Argument Over Public Order
Recent protests have increased tensions around the issue.
ITV reported that six people were arrested after protesters gathered at a marina in Gosport. Some demonstrators wore black clothing and face coverings and chanted “send them back.” Earlier in September, masked protesters had also blocked road access to the port of Dover.
Supporters of anti-immigration demonstrations argue that conventional political channels have failed to address public frustration over irregular migration and that protests are therefore an expression of legitimate anger.
Critics respond that opposition to immigration policy does not justify threatening behaviour, disruption or confrontations with police.
Burnham’s comments attempted to separate those two issues.
Rather than condemning everyone concerned about immigration, he explicitly acknowledged that such concern exists among members of the public. His criticism was directed at what he characterised as intimidation and provocation.
That distinction is important in assessing some of the more dramatic descriptions circulating online. Claims that Burnham was simply dismissing all anti-migration protesters, or that he had characterised everyone concerned about immigration in the same way, go beyond what he actually said in the ITV interview.
Similarly, broader assertions about the “real agenda” of every person attending the protests cannot be established from the evidence currently available. Different demonstrators may have different motivations, ranging from opposition to asylum policy to broader nationalist politics.
Government Points to Falling Hotel Numbers
At the same time, ministers have been emphasising another set of figures: the substantial reduction in asylum seekers housed in hotels.
Home Office data showed that 16,021 asylum seekers were temporarily accommodated in hotels at the end of June 2026, compared with 32,041 a year earlier — a year-on-year reduction of approximately 50%.
The number was also significantly below the September 2023 peak of 56,018.
The government has pledged to end the use of asylum hotels during this Parliament. In September, the Home Office told Parliament that fewer than 160 hotels remained in use, down from 213 in July 2024.
Independent fact-checking organisation Full Fact has described that commitment as still “in progress.” It noted that while the hotel population had fallen significantly, asylum seekers were also increasingly being accommodated in other forms of housing, including privately managed properties.
That qualification matters.
Closing asylum hotels does not necessarily mean the government no longer has to provide accommodation. People who would previously have been placed in hotels can instead be housed in dispersal accommodation, houses of multiple occupation or other facilities while their asylum claims are considered.
Indeed, Home Office figures reported by the Independent showed that the number living in dispersal accommodation rose from 66,234 in June 2025 to 69,038 in June 2026.
The hotel reduction is therefore measurable progress toward one government commitment, but it does not in itself resolve the broader question of asylum accommodation.
Two Different Measures of the Immigration System
The political dispute increasingly revolves around which statistics should receive the most attention.
Government ministers can point to falling asylum applications, a reduced asylum backlog, fewer people living in hotels and lower overall asylum expenditure.
In the year to June 2026, 85,891 people applied for asylum, down 21% from 108,585 in the previous 12-month period. The number waiting for an initial asylum decision also fell substantially.
But critics continue to focus heavily on Channel arrivals because boats remain a highly visible symbol of irregular migration.
These measurements are not mutually exclusive.
It is possible for the number of people in asylum hotels to fall while hundreds of people continue crossing the Channel on particular days. Hotel usage reflects accommodation policy, processing rates and the overall asylum caseload; daily small-boat figures measure a much narrower phenomenon.
Burnham’s government is therefore confronting two political challenges simultaneously: demonstrating greater control over the asylum system while responding to public anger about irregular crossings.
The Political Argument Is Likely to Continue
Another source of disagreement concerns whether protests are primarily driven by genuine local anxiety or by groups attempting to exploit immigration for political purposes.
Burnham has suggested that some recent activity goes beyond ordinary political protest. Opponents of the government dispute that broader interpretation and argue that ministers risk avoiding legitimate questions about border enforcement by concentrating attention on the conduct of demonstrators.
There is currently insufficient evidence to assign a single motivation to everyone involved in these protests.
What can be established is that the protests have included disruptive incidents, arrests and masked participants; that the government continues to face significant numbers of Channel arrivals; and that the number of asylum seekers living in hotels has fallen markedly.
Those facts produce a more complicated picture than either side’s political messaging might suggest.
Burnham’s “not the British way” comment was not a declaration that concern over immigration itself was unacceptable. His stated argument was that intimidation, attacks on police and behaviour intended to frighten communities should be distinguished from peaceful criticism of immigration policy.
Meanwhile, the latest statistics provide ammunition to both sides of the debate.
A single day with 781 Channel arrivals demonstrates that small-boat crossings remain a serious operational and political challenge.
Yet the roughly 50% year-on-year reduction in asylum seekers living in hotels is also supported by official figures.
The central debate is therefore unlikely to disappear simply because one indicator improves.
For the government, the test will be whether declining hotel use and other changes to the asylum system can eventually be accompanied by a sustained reduction in dangerous Channel crossings.
For communities affected by both migrant arrivals and demonstrations, meanwhile, the immediate challenge is maintaining public order while preserving the right to peaceful political protest.
And amid increasingly heated rhetoric from all sides, distinguishing documented facts from political interpretation may prove just as important as the arguments themselves.
Andy Burnham Condemns Anti-Migrant Protests as “Not the British Way” — Immigration Debate Intensifies Across the UK
Andy Burnham has entered the increasingly heated debate over immigration and public demonstrations, with remarks condemning anti-migrant protests as “not the British way” highlighting the growing divide over how Britain should respond to concerns about asylum, border control and community relations.
The debate comes amid continuing public discussion about the number of people seeking asylum in the United Kingdom, the use of hotels and other accommodation for asylum seekers, and the pressure that some residents believe migration places on local services. Across the country, demonstrations have drawn attention to these issues, creating difficult questions for political leaders attempting to balance public concerns with the rights and safety of migrant communities.
Burnham’s reported comments reflect a broader argument about the character of public protest and the responsibilities of political leadership. Supporters of a firm response to anti-migrant demonstrations may argue that politicians must challenge rhetoric that risks encouraging hostility towards vulnerable people. Others may contend that criticism of immigration policy should not be dismissed simply because it is expressed through protest.
At the heart of the controversy lies a fundamental distinction: people have a democratic right to question government policy, including immigration, but that right does not extend to violence, intimidation or attacks against individuals because of their nationality or immigration status.
Immigration remains a major political fault line
Immigration has become one of the most contentious subjects in British politics. It touches on national sovereignty, economic growth, public services, housing, employment and the country’s humanitarian responsibilities.
For some voters, concern centres on the government’s ability to control the number of people entering the country and process asylum claims efficiently. Others are worried about the financial cost of temporary accommodation, the availability of housing and whether local authorities have sufficient resources to support expanding populations.
These concerns can become particularly intense in communities where asylum accommodation is introduced without what residents consider adequate consultation. People may ask how facilities are selected, how public money is spent and what arrangements exist to address any pressure on local services.
Such questions are legitimate subjects for democratic debate. Governments have a responsibility to explain their decisions, publish relevant information and ensure that local communities understand how policies affect them.
However, public frustration can also be directed at asylum seekers themselves, even when individuals have little control over the policies governing their accommodation. People awaiting decisions on their claims may have fled conflict, persecution or other serious dangers. Their individual circumstances vary, and their legal status must be assessed through the appropriate procedures.
A political discussion that fails to distinguish between government policy and the people affected by it risks turning a debate about administration into a confrontation between communities.
Why Burnham’s intervention matters
As a prominent Labour politician and Mayor of Greater Manchester, Burnham occupies a position from which comments about public order and community relations can attract national attention.
His reported criticism of anti-migrant protests places emphasis on the manner in which political disagreements are expressed, rather than treating every demonstration as evidence of public hostility towards migrants.
The phrase “not the British way” invokes a familiar debate about British political culture. Some interpret it as a call for tolerance, restraint and peaceful disagreement. Others may question whether appeals to national values do enough to address the underlying concerns that motivate people to take to the streets.
The phrase itself does not settle the immigration debate. It raises a question about the standards that should govern public conduct when political tensions become intense.
Britain has a long history of demonstrations, from labour movements and anti-war marches to campaigns over taxation, public services and civil rights. Protest has frequently played an important role in drawing attention to problems that political institutions were slow to address.
The right to protest must therefore be protected even when demonstrators express views that elected representatives strongly oppose. At the same time, peaceful assembly should not be confused with threatening behaviour or violence.
Burnham’s intervention, if accurately reported in this context, highlights the challenge facing political leaders: condemning intimidation without suggesting that every person concerned about immigration is motivated by prejudice.
The anger behind anti-migrant demonstrations
To understand the protests, it is necessary to examine the range of concerns that may bring people onto the streets.
Some demonstrators focus on the use of hotels to accommodate asylum seekers. They question whether temporary arrangements offer value for money, whether the government has alternatives and whether local residents have been adequately informed.
Others express wider concerns about the scale of immigration, the pace of demographic change or the effectiveness of border enforcement. Some connect these issues to pressure on housing, healthcare and other public services.
These arguments are not identical, and demonstrators should not automatically be assumed to share the same motivations. Nor does attendance at an anti-migrant demonstration establish that a person supports violence or discrimination.
Nevertheless, public events can become dangerous when rumours circulate, inflammatory claims are repeated without evidence or individuals are targeted because of their appearance or perceived background.
Misinformation can intensify anxiety, particularly when claims about crime, accommodation costs or alleged government decisions spread quickly through social media. Once such claims become embedded in a local debate, correcting them can be difficult.
Authorities and politicians therefore have an important responsibility to provide accurate information. Clear explanations of asylum procedures, accommodation arrangements and local spending can help residents distinguish documented problems from speculation.
Ignoring public concerns may deepen mistrust. Allowing unsupported allegations to circulate unchecked can also damage community relations. A credible response requires both transparency and a commitment to factual discussion.
The rights of migrants and the responsibilities of government
The immigration debate often becomes framed as a choice between defending the rights of migrants and responding to the concerns of British residents. In practice, public policy must address both.
People who arrive in the UK and claim asylum are subject to legal procedures designed to assess their claims. Those procedures determine whether an individual qualifies for protection under the relevant rules. A claim should not be treated as automatically valid or automatically fraudulent simply because of the circumstances in which the person arrived.
The government must also maintain effective immigration enforcement, process applications within reasonable periods and implement lawful decisions. Delays can increase accommodation