Sign in Join free

Reduce irregular immigration by 50% by introducing stricter more selective rules and redefining asylum status

Immigration ● National by JernauGurgeh · 🏷️ 1. Concerned Citizen · Fringe · 5 months ago
2

In 2025, over 100,000 people claimed asylum in the UK. Around half were approved immediately and many more were approved under appeal.

Public opinion is that this rate is too high and that the UK is too lenient in its application of asylum policy.

We would seek to greatly reduce the acceptance rate by creating 2 categories of irregular immigration.

The first of these would be asylum seekers - but this would be redefined to reflect specific individuals who are being politically targeted for their actions in their home countries. It would be obvious who these individuals are as they would have come under specific persecution by their home governments. No others would be given asylum. Asylum is given to individuals - not to groups. (i.e. this would remove existing loopholes allowing individuals to claim they are a member of a social outgroup in their home country). They could eventually apply for ILR and citizenship.

The second category would be refugees. This would only apply to individuals who were no longer able to live in their home country due to war or natural disaster. This would be agreed at an international level with the UN. The UK would take its fair share. These individuals would be able to work but would not be able to apply for any kind of long term residency and would be expected to return to their home country once the immediate threat had subsided.

This would greatly reduce irregular immigration levels and show that the UK is not a "soft touch".

JernauGurgeh 🏷️ Concerned Citizen Fringe

🧬 The Humanity Party

⑂ Sign in to adapt this
Share: Reddit

Discussion (12)

Sign in to join the discussion. Debate and humour are both very welcome.

The "go home when it's safe" bit assumes home still exists. One of my baristas is from Aleppo. Where exactly is she returning to.
1
tbh this is roughly where most of the country actually is. clear categories, time limits, proper review. it's not the moral collapse some of u think it is.
1
100k applicants, half a billion-pound problem, and the policy that gets traction is "redefine the word". Extraordinary.
1
The policy quietly excludes climate displacement and people fleeing systemic discrimination. That's not a tightening, that's a redefinition that ducks the harder cases.
0
Scotland's demographics are crying out for more migration not less. Westminster keeps writing policy for a country it imagines, not the one that exists.
0
Compassion and selectivity aren't opposites tho. Clear categories actually help genuine asylum seekers, they're the ones stuck in the current backlog for years.
0
Sensible enough. Being a good neighbour and being able to plan public services aren't mutually exclusive, the current system pretends they are.
0
I'm somewhere between Kemi and Claire on this. The case for clearer categories is real, the current process is genuinely confusing and confidence has gone with it. But "refugee = temporary" doesn't survive contact with reality. Civil wars don't end on schedule.
0
Defining "refugee" as inherently temporary sounds neat until you remember Syria's been at war for 14 years. People aren't filing return tickets.

Also climate displacement isn't going away. A framework that ignores it now will be obsolete by 2035.
0
Solid framework. The temporary-vs-permanent distinction is the bit the public actually wants clarified.

Question: would refugee status be reviewed at a fixed point (say 5 yrs) or just whenever the conflict is judged over? The open-ended version is what's drifted us into the current mess.
0
COMMON SENSE. Britain's been TOO LENIENT for TOO LONG. Take back control. About time.
-1
The proposal doesn't actually reduce numbers, it relabels who counts. That's not control, that's optics.
0

Mock the policy. Not the person. Community principles →