Sir Keir Starmer has branded Reform UK’s plan to stop illegal immigration racist (Image: GETTY)
The row over immigration has taken another sharp turn, with Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer and Reform UK trading blows over whether concerns about migration can be labelled “racist”. Sir Keir accused Nigel Farage’s party of promoting a “racist” policy after Reform pledged to scrap settled status for all non-EU migrants.
He said: “I do think that it is a racist policy. I do think it is immoral. It needs to be called out for what it is.” Pressed on whether Reform is trying to appeal to racists, he said: “No, I think there are plenty of people who either vote Reform or are thinking of voting Reform who are frustrated. They had 14 years of failure under the Conservatives, they want us to change things.”
Get the latest politics news – straight from our team in Westminster and more
Invalid email
You agree you are 18 or over. We use your sign-up to provide content in ways you’ve consented to and to improve our understanding of you. This may include adverts from us and third parties based on our knowledge of you. You can unsubscribe at any time. More Info.
So what do you think? Vote in our poll and join the debate in the comments section. Can’t see the poll below? Click here
He said: “They may have voted Labour a year ago, and they want the change to come more quickly. I actually do understand that.”
Sir Keir also pledged to put an end to taxpayer-funded taxis for asylum seekers travelling to medical appointments “as soon as we can”. He said: “I’m looking at alternative accommodation and doing everything we can to bring forward the closure of asylum hotels.”
Under its plan, people who already hold indefinite leave to remain would have to re-apply under stricter rules. He said: “It is one thing to say we’re going to remove illegal migrants, people who have no right to be here. I’m up for that. It is a completely different thing to say we are going to reach in to people who are lawfully here and start removing them. They are our neighbours.”
Reform hit back hard. Zia Yusuf, the party’s head of policy, said Sir Keir’s remarks show “this is a Prime Minister circling the drain”. He argued that the Labour leader is insulting “very reasonable people” who simply want migrants to “pay their way, speak English and not commit crime”.
POLL: Is It Racist to Be Worried About Migration?
Migration has become one of the most contested subjects in British politics, with arguments over immigration numbers, asylum, border controls and integration regularly dominating public debate. The question of whether it is racist to be concerned about migration has become particularly prominent as politicians and voters argue over how the issue should be discussed.
At its core, there is an important distinction between discussing migration as a matter of public policy and making judgments about people because of their race or ethnicity.
People can have concerns about the scale of migration, the pressure placed on housing and public services, the operation of the asylum system, wages, infrastructure or the government’s ability to manage borders. Those concerns can be expressed through political debate without automatically constituting racism.
However, the way such concerns are expressed can cross into racial or ethnic prejudice when individuals or groups are stereotyped, dehumanised or treated differently because of their background.
This distinction is increasingly important in Britain because immigration is both a policy issue and a highly sensitive social subject.
Different people can reach very different conclusions about appropriate migration levels while sharing the same expectation that public debate should remain focused on evidence and policy rather than hostility towards particular groups.
The debate has intensified as Reform UK has made migration a central part of its political message. Nigel Farage and other Reform politicians have argued for significant reductions in immigration and tougher controls on Britain’s borders.
Labour has also faced pressure over migration. The government has pledged to strengthen border security and reduce irregular migration while dealing with asylum applications and Britain’s wider immigration system.
The Conservatives have likewise proposed tighter controls in several areas.
The existence of disagreement between the parties demonstrates that concern about migration is not automatically synonymous with racism. Immigration policy is a legitimate area of democratic debate, and governments routinely make decisions about who can enter, work, study or settle in a country.
The more difficult question is where legitimate policy criticism ends and racial prejudice begins.
One useful way of considering the distinction is to examine what exactly is being criticised.
A statement about the number of visas issued, the cost of processing asylum claims, the availability of housing or the capacity of public services is fundamentally different from a claim that people are undesirable because they belong to a particular racial or ethnic group.
Likewise, disagreement with government immigration policy is different from hostility towards migrants as individuals.
The distinction becomes especially important when political campaigns use emotionally charged language.
Supporters of tougher migration policies may argue that strong language is necessary to draw attention to problems they believe have been ignored. Critics may argue that certain rhetoric risks creating suspicion towards entire communities.
These disagreements cannot always be resolved by a single definition.
Racism generally involves prejudice, discrimination or hostility based on race or ethnicity. But political arguments about migration can involve nationality, religion, culture, economic competition and legal status as well.
As a result, individual statements need to be considered in context.
For example, arguing that a government should reduce immigration is a policy position. Saying that a particular ethnic group should be excluded simply because of its ethnicity is a fundamentally different proposition.
Similarly, asking whether immigration levels are sustainable is different from claiming that immigrants are inherently responsible for social problems.
This distinction is important for voters because political rhetoric can sometimes collapse complicated policy questions into broad claims about entire populations.
Migration itself is not a single phenomenon.
The UK immigration system includes workers, students, family members, refugees, asylum seekers and other categories. Their legal circumstances and reasons for coming to Britain can be very different.
The impact of migration can also vary across regions and communities.
Some areas may experience increased demand for housing or public services, while other parts of the economy may depend heavily on migrant workers. Businesses may argue that migration helps address labour shortages, while some workers and residents may be concerned about wages, competition for jobs or pressure on local infrastructure.
These are empirical questions that can be investigated separately from questions about race.
This is one reason why evidence matters so much in the migration debate.
Claims about the effects of migration should ideally distinguish between different types of migration and different outcomes. A discussion of asylum seekers, for example, should not automatically be treated as a discussion of all migrants.
Likewise, concerns about illegal immigration should not be used to imply that people who entered Britain legally have done anything wrong.
The language used by politicians and commentators therefore matters.
A democratic society needs room for disagreement about immigration policy. Voters should be able to support lower migration, higher migration or different immigration rules without being automatically assigned a moral or racial identity because of that preference.
At the same time, the freedom to debate immigration policy does not remove the responsibility to distinguish policy criticism from prejudice.
That distinction can become difficult when arguments move from government decisions to assumptions about groups of people.
A useful test is whether the argument is directed at a policy or at people because of their identity.
For instance, someone might argue that the government should reduce the number of work visas. That is a policy argument.
Another person might argue that employers should recruit more British workers where suitable candidates are available. That is also a policy or economic argument.
But if an argument claims that people of a particular race are inherently less deserving of employment or citizenship, it has moved into a different territory.
The same principle applies to asylum.
It is legitimate to debate how asylum claims should be processed, how quickly decisions should be made and what should happen when applications are rejected.
It is not legitimate to assume that every asylum seeker has the same motives or characteristics.
Britain’s political debate would benefit from maintaining these distinctions.
The question posed by the poll therefore has no simple answer that can be applied to every expression of concern about migration.
Being worried about migration, by itself, does not establish that someone is racist. People can have concerns for economic, social, cultural, environmental or public-service reasons.
Equally, describing something as a migration concern does not automatically make every statement about migrants acceptable. The substance and language of the argument still matter.
This is particularly relevant during periods of political tension.
When migration becomes a major electoral issue, politicians have incentives to use strong language. Supporters want their concerns to be heard, while opponents may highlight statements they believe cross the line into prejudice.
Voters can assess these competing claims by looking at the actual policies being proposed and the evidence used to justify them.
The same approach can be applied to Reform UK.
The party’s immigration proposals can be evaluated according to questions such as how they would work legally, what they would cost, how they would affect different categories of migrants and what consequences they might have for Britain’s economy and public services.
Those questions are separate from whether individual voters who support particular policies should be described as racist.
Likewise, Labour’s migration policies can be examined according to their objectives, implementation and outcomes without assuming that supporters or opponents have a particular motive.
The wider debate also highlights the importance of language.
Political disagreement is inevitable, but treating opponents as morally illegitimate simply because they hold different views can make constructive debate more difficult.
People should be able to ask difficult questions about migration while recognising that migrants themselves are individuals with different circumstances, backgrounds and experiences.
Ultimately, concern about migration and racism are not synonymous concepts.
A person may be concerned about the scale or management of migration while opposing racial discrimination. Another person may support high levels of migration while believing that border controls and immigration rules should be enforced effectively.
The important issue is what a particular argument actually says and how it treats people.
As Britain continues to debate immigration, voters will hear competing claims from Labour, the Conservatives, Reform UK and other political groups. Understanding the difference between a policy disagreement and racial prejudice can help keep that debate focused on evidence, laws and practical consequences.
The poll question therefore invites a broader conversation rather than a simple label.
Is concern about migration itself racist? No—not by itself.
But whether a particular statement or policy argument is prejudiced depends on its content, assumptions and treatment of people.
That distinction allows Britain to have a serious debate about migration without confusing legitimate political disagreement with racial hostility.