On the immigration front, British families were given a glimmer of good news:
a potential EU deal to ease passport queues.
Downing Street called it progress — but what exactly are we celebrating?
Speeding up entry for tourists compares frivolously to the most far-reaching immigration restrictions on families in a generation. These measures reflect poorly on the UK’s standing in international public law. One wonders what became of Keir Starmer, who once described immigration law as ‘racist’, called for a system based on ‘compassion and dignity’, and pledged to defend free movement.
As a lawyer and an immigrant myself — and mindful of how terms like "expat" or "migrant" often obscure more than they reveal — I find the new White Paper raises serious questions about the direction of immigration policy and its alignment with established rights.
-
Tightening English language requirements may be understandable, but it is worth asking whether similar standards should also apply to everyone, especially given ongoing concerns about the state of the education system.
- Excluding care workers, despite the NHS’s reliance on their work, suggests a possible inconsistency.
- Higher visa fees and additional employer obligations raise further questions about whether the policy is driven by long-term planning or short-term aims.
- Longer settlement periods means exactly that, longer time for immigrants to feel at home
As immigration lawyer Kerry Garcia argues in her article, Starmer's bizarre misrepresentation of UK immigration will damage growth and industries (Law Gazette, 2024), claims that employers rely on “cheap foreign labour” are misleading. Sponsoring a migrant worker is both costly and complex, and in many sectors, such as social care, it remains one of the few available options. Removing access to overseas care workers may therefore worsen an already critical staffing shortage. UNISON has warned that the sector would struggle to function without them.
Sir Keir Starmer’s remark that “settlement is a privilege, not a right” — along with his pledge to “take back control of our borders” — echoes slogans once heard on the far-right fringes and in Trump-era rhetoric. These phrases, which helped fuel a Brexit that few now openly defend, risk obscuring what is being lost: not only by immigrants and their families, but by the UK’s own legal tradition.
Improving our approach to freedom of movement does not pose a national threat. It is just about the right to relocate, to work, and to build a life across borders. Much more than a legal entitlement — it speaks to the humanity of our society: the desire to belong, to contribute, and to care for one’s family. A principle humanity agreed with after the horrors of the WWII on 10 December 1948. Article 13 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that "everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country".
Sir Keir Starmer’s current position, however, seems difficult to reconcile with the idea that dignity should not end at national borders.
We must not allow fundamental rights to be reduced to policy levers.
A fair, lawful, and humane immigration system must be built on rights, not rhetoric.
Because what is really at stake isn’t the speed of a holiday queue — it’s the kind of country we choose to be.
.
Add comment
Comments