Reform UK MP Lee Anderson (Image: Getty)

The people in Epping represent the vast majority of people in this country who believe that placing tens of thousands of undocumented and unvetted migrants in hotels presents a tremendous risk to local communities.

Lee Anderson is the Reform UK MP for Ashfield

Shameful Labour Is Putting Illegal Migrants’ Interests Ahead of Hard-Working Britons

Immigration has once again become one of the most contentious issues in British politics, with arguments over asylum, border control, public spending and access to employment placing the Labour government under intense political pressure. Critics have accused Labour of putting the interests of migrants ahead of British workers, while ministers insist that their approach is designed to restore control, reduce illegal working and create a fairer immigration system.

The disagreement is not simply about how many people arrive in Britain. It also concerns the responsibilities of the state towards people seeking asylum, the rights of those with no legal basis to remain, the needs of employers and the pressures facing communities and public services.

The political language surrounding the issue has become increasingly heated. Yet behind the competing claims lies a complicated system involving immigration law, asylum obligations, enforcement, housing and the labour market.

Labour faces pressure over immigration

The Labour government has made reducing migration and strengthening control of the immigration system a central part of its policy agenda. Its immigration white paper argues that migration must be controlled and managed, while also acknowledging that migrants have historically made important contributions to Britain’s economy and public services.

The government says its objective is to reduce net migration, restrict reliance on overseas labour and encourage employers to train workers already living in Britain. Its strategy includes tighter visa rules, stronger enforcement against illegal working and measures intended to increase returns of people who have no legal basis to remain in the country.

That makes the political accusation that Labour simply wants an open-door immigration system difficult to reconcile with the government’s stated policy.

At the same time, critics argue that the government’s approach does not go far enough, particularly over people arriving across the English Channel in small boats and the cost of accommodating asylum seekers while their claims are processed.

The distinction between legal and illegal migration is particularly important. People who cross the Channel without permission may enter the asylum system and have their claims considered. That does not automatically mean they have the right to remain permanently. Equally, an asylum seeker cannot simply be described as having been found guilty of illegal immigration merely because they arrived without prior permission.

That legal distinction is often lost in political debate.

The question of support for asylum seekers

One of the most controversial aspects of the system is the provision of accommodation and financial assistance to some asylum seekers while their claims are being processed.

The government itself has acknowledged public concern about this system. In March 2026, the Home Office announced measures intended to make asylum support conditional. Under the new approach, support can be removed from people who illegally work, are able to support themselves, have the right to work or have broken the law. The government presented the reforms as a way of creating a fairer system for taxpayers.

This is significant because it demonstrates that Labour is not treating asylum support as an unconditional entitlement.

The government is simultaneously attempting to increase enforcement. In a parliamentary answer published in June 2026, the Home Office said immigration enforcement action had increased substantially, reporting an 83 per cent rise in arrests for illegal working and a 77 per cent rise in raids since Labour came to power.

The same answer said that nearly 70,000 returns had been recorded during the government’s first 21 months, including returns and deportations of illegal migrants and foreign criminals. According to the Home Office, this represented a 41 per cent increase compared with the equivalent period before the end of June 2024.

Those figures complicate the argument that Labour is simply refusing to enforce immigration rules.

But the small boats crisis remains politically explosive

The English Channel remains at the centre of the immigration debate.

The government’s Border Security Commander has identified tackling organised immigration crime enabled by small boats as the top priority for the border security system. The strategy includes disrupting criminal gangs, increasing enforced returns, reducing incentives for illegal migration and strengthening cooperation with France and other European countries.

The government has also committed additional funding for border security, with up to £280 million per year being invested by 2028-29.

However, returning people who arrive by small boat is not always straightforward.

Some people arriving in this way may come from countries to which the UK cannot lawfully return them because of the security situation or Britain’s international obligations. The Border Security Commander’s report explicitly acknowledges that successful returns depend partly on cooperation from other governments and that some unsuccessful asylum applicants cannot be returned where international law prevents it.

That reality creates a difficult political problem.

Voters may demand faster enforcement, while governments must operate within domestic legislation, international obligations and practical agreements with other countries.

What about British workers?

The argument about British workers is more complicated than simply comparing migrants with British citizens.

The government has said that immigration policy should encourage employers to invest in people already living in the UK rather than relying excessively on overseas recruitment. Its white paper specifically argues that immigration policy should be linked to skills and training requirements in Britain.

The issue has also been examined by Parliament’s Home Affairs Committee. In September 2026, a citizens’ assembly-style process found support for prioritising the training and recruitment of British workers before recruiting migrants, while also arguing that migrants should be treated with dignity and helped to integrate.

That combination reflects the complexity of public opinion.

People can simultaneously want lower migration, stronger border controls and greater investment in British workers while believing that migrants who are legally entitled to live and work in Britain should be treated fairly.

The question is therefore not simply whether Britain should have immigration. It is what kind of immigration system should exist, which jobs should qualify for overseas recruitment, how employers should behave and how the government should respond when people have no legal right to remain.

Net migration has already fallen

Another important part of the debate is the difference between net migration and illegal migration.

Net migration includes people arriving through legal routes as well as departures from Britain. According to the Migration Observatory, net migration was estimated at 171,000 in 2025, substantially below the exceptionally high levels recorded in 2022 and 2023. It also reported that 67 per cent of non-EU immigration in 2025 was for work and study purposes.

That means the overall migration figures cannot simply be interpreted as a measurement of illegal Channel crossings.

The two issues are connected politically but are not the same statistically.

A government can reduce legal migration while simultaneously struggling to deal with irregular migration. Equally, a reduction in small-boat arrivals would not necessarily mean that legal migration had fallen.

Understanding that distinction matters when politicians make claims about Britain’s borders.

Labour’s difficult balancing act

Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood has recently faced pressure from both sides of the political argument.

On one side are those demanding tougher restrictions, faster removals and stronger protection of public resources. On the other are organisations representing migrants and workers who argue that some proposed restrictions could unfairly affect people who have already contributed to Britain.

Mahmood has been considering proposals that would lengthen the route to permanent residence for some foreign workers, including people who entered through health and care routes. At the same time, the government has announced new community and student sponsorship routes for refugees and plans to reopen a resettlement route for vulnerable refugees.

The combination illustrates the government’s attempt to pursue two objectives at once: reducing uncontrolled migration while maintaining legal humanitarian routes.

Whether that balance is convincing is ultimately a political question for voters and Parliament.

The bigger issue: fairness

At the heart of the debate is the word “fairness”.

For critics of Labour, fairness means putting taxpayers and British workers first, ensuring that people who enter the country illegally cannot remain indefinitely and preventing public services from becoming overwhelmed.

For the government, fairness also means enforcing immigration rules while maintaining a functioning asylum system and meeting Britain’s legal obligations towards people who may genuinely need protection.

These principles can collide.

A person arriving without permission may have no automatic right to settle in Britain, but they may still have a legal right to have an asylum claim assessed. A British taxpayer may reasonably demand efficient use of public money, while the government may still have legal responsibilities to provide basic support to vulnerable asylum seekers.

Similarly, British workers may deserve greater opportunities for training and employment, while businesses may argue that particular skills cannot always be sourced domestically.

These competing considerations explain why immigration remains one of the most difficult policy areas facing Westminster.

A debate that is far from settled

The accusation that Labour is putting illegal migrants ahead of hard-working Britons has become a powerful political message, but the evidence presents a more complicated picture.

Labour has introduced tougher measures against illegal working, increased immigration enforcement, pursued higher returns and tightened aspects of the asylum support system. At the same time, the government continues to operate an asylum system, maintain humanitarian routes and face criticism over the pace and effectiveness of removals.

The government’s own immigration strategy acknowledges the need to reduce migration and lessen dependence on overseas labour. Meanwhile, independent analysis shows that migration levels have already changed significantly from their post-pandemic peak.

The central question for Britain is therefore not simply whether migrants should receive more or less support.

It is whether the country can establish an immigration and asylum system that is controlled, enforceable, economically sustainable and consistent with the law — while ensuring that British workers, taxpayers and local communities believe their interests are being properly represented.

That debate is unlikely to disappear soon. With immigration remaining a major concern for many voters, every decision on asylum accommodation, work visas, border enforcement and deportations will continue to receive intense political scrutiny.

The government’s challenge is to demonstrate that its policies can deliver both effective border control and a system that the public regards as fair.

For its critics, the test will be whether those promises translate into faster enforcement and greater opportunities for people already living in Britain.

For Labour, the political stakes are considerable: it must convince the public that controlling immigration and protecting Britain’s interests are not competing objectives, but parts of the same policy.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.