Shabana Mahmood is opening safe and legal routes (Image: Getty)
Labour is inviting “open border activists” to sponsor refugees to move to the UK, critics have declared. The Home Office insisted voluntary organisations allowed to, from today, apply to sponsor arrivals must be “a UK registered charity” and have a “good reputation”, with the ability to provide accommodation.
Under the new controversial safe and legal route, community groups will be able to sponsor people to move to the UK. This includes charities, universities, faith groups and businesses.
Refugees who have sought protection in Bangladesh, India, Pakistan, Malaysia, Egypt, Uganda and Kenya will be eligible to move to the UK once security checks are completed, according to new Home Office guidance. They must also be registered with the UNHCR.
But critics highlighted the huge number of Afghans currently residing in Pakistan, with more than 730,000 registered refugees, as an example of how the scheme could spiral out of control.
Labour hopes it will deter Channel migrant crossings (Image: Getty)
And the UNHCR said there are 225,740 refugees and asylum seekers registered in Malaysia. Around 90% are from Myanmar. Refugees must be outside of their own country to be eligible, the Home Office said.
Robert Bates, Research Director at the Centre for Migration Control, said: “The Shabana-Wave begins. Disaster will ensue. The Home Secretary has given a motivated cabal of open border activist groups, masquerading as charities, the right to bring migrants to Britain.”
The Home Office said the first arrivals are expected next Autumn, with the number set to ramp up to the “low thousands” as illegal migration falls.
A cap will be set for each year, although details of the number have yet to be provided.
Border Security & Asylum Minister Anna Turley said: “Communities across the country will now be able to welcome refugees fleeing war and persecution – helping them put down roots and rebuild their lives.
“Charities, community groups and universities will be at the heart of these efforts. I look forward to working with those who step forward.”
Under Labour’s new plan, community groups will be able to sponsor people to move to the UK. This includes charities, faith groups and businesses.
The Home Office said that around 25% of arrivals will be Afghan women and girls and Palestinians.
Hundreds of people are expected to arrive under the UKRS, which stopped taking new applicants in December 2024, and three new sponsorship routes.
The first arrivals are expected to be next year.
Most refugees admitted under the UK resettlement scheme will be referred through the UN refugee agency UNHCR, with Palestinians coming through the International Refugee Assistance Project (Irap).
Andy Burnham Warned ‘Shabana-Wave’ of Migrants Is Beginning After One Huge Change
Prime Minister Andy Burnham is facing fresh criticism over Labour’s immigration strategy after Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood introduced a controversial change allowing charities, universities, religious organisations and community groups to sponsor refugees seeking to move to Britain. Critics have warned that the policy could trigger a new wave of migration, with some comparing it to the large increase in arrivals during Boris Johnson’s premiership.
The new scheme is designed to provide safe and legal routes for refugees who have registered with the United Nations refugee agency and are living outside their home countries. Eligible applicants from countries including Bangladesh, India, Pakistan, Malaysia, Egypt, Uganda and Kenya could be considered for resettlement after completing security checks.
Under the arrangements, approved organisations will be able to sponsor refugees and help provide accommodation and support as they establish themselves in the United Kingdom. The Home Office says participating organisations must be registered charities or other eligible groups with a good reputation and the ability to provide suitable accommodation.
However, the announcement has generated considerable controversy, particularly among politicians and campaigners who believe the government could struggle to control the number of people entering through the new routes.
Robert Bates, research director at the Centre for Migration Control, warned that the policy could lead to what he described as a new ‘Shabana-Wave’. He criticised the decision to involve voluntary organisations in refugee sponsorship, arguing that the government risked transferring important immigration responsibilities to groups outside direct government control.
The criticism reflects wider concerns about whether the new arrangements could create additional pressure on Britain’s housing market and public services.
One country attracting particular attention is Pakistan, where more than 730,000 registered Afghan refugees were reported to be living. Malaysia is another significant location, with approximately 225,740 registered refugees and asylum seekers, around 90 per cent of whom are from Myanmar.
Critics argue that the number of people potentially eligible for resettlement could make the scheme difficult to manage if demand increases significantly.
However, the Home Office insists that eligibility does not automatically guarantee admission. Applicants must satisfy the relevant requirements, undergo security checks and be accepted through the official resettlement process.
The government has also indicated that annual limits will apply. Initial arrivals are expected from autumn 2027, with numbers gradually increasing to the low thousands as the programme develops.
Ministers believe the scheme could help reduce dangerous Channel crossings by providing refugees with a legal alternative to using people-smuggling networks.
Border Security and Asylum Minister Anna Turley defended the proposals, arguing that communities across Britain should have an opportunity to welcome people fleeing war and persecution. She also emphasised the role that charities, universities and community organisations could play in helping refugees rebuild their lives.
Nevertheless, the announcement creates a political challenge for Andy Burnham. Labour has repeatedly promised to improve immigration controls and reduce the pressure associated with illegal migration. Critics now question whether opening additional legal routes is consistent with those commitments.
The Prime Minister must also consider the financial consequences. Providing accommodation, healthcare, education and other support for newly arrived refugees can involve substantial public expenditure, although the precise costs will depend on the number of arrivals and the arrangements made by sponsoring organisations.
Opposition politicians have already used the announcement to challenge Labour’s approach. They argue that ministers should concentrate on reducing illegal crossings and ensuring that existing immigration rules are properly enforced before introducing additional resettlement opportunities.
Supporters of the policy, however, argue that properly managed legal routes can make the asylum system more orderly and reduce dependence on dangerous journeys across the Channel.
The wider debate also raises questions about Britain’s international responsibilities. The government maintains that refugees fleeing persecution should have access to protection through safe and properly regulated arrangements. At the same time, ministers must ensure that the programme has clear limits and does not place unreasonable pressure on local communities.
Ultimately, the proposed sponsorship scheme represents a significant development in Britain’s refugee policy. Whether it becomes a successful alternative to dangerous migration routes or creates additional challenges for the immigration system will depend on how effectively the government manages eligibility, security checks and annual admission limits.
For Andy Burnham, the challenge will be convincing the public that Labour can combine humanitarian responsibilities with effective border management. The coming years will reveal whether the new programme delivers the controlled resettlement promised by ministers or becomes another source of political controversy over immigration.