Write for us!
In recent years, the debate on immigration in the UK has been plagued by the following issues: its alleged impact on public services due it being ‘too high’, the daily illegal boat crossings and the most contentious issue of them all, arguments that detention seekers are afforded too much protection by international human rights law – which guarantees the right to liberty and prohibits arbitrary arrest.
Consecutive governments most notably, the recent Conservative one, have talked tough on immigration without reducing overall numbers, or explaining clearly how they are made up (prime example – on average 35% of immigrants, are students on temporary visas). Meanwhile unauthorised small boat crossings account for about 90% of all illegal entries and lastly, the average asylum seeker is detained for 143 days before a claim is decided. I aim to share three different policy proposals which I believe will tackle these issues.
Fact vs. fiction on immigration
The debate came to a head in the lead up to the Brexit referendum when net migration rose to 311,000 in the preceding year. Proponents argued that by leaving the EU we would be able to control our own borders, and scrap EU restrictions, freedom of movement between member states being a fundamental condition of membership.
After the Brexit vote, net immigration figures spiked to unprecedented highs, peaking at 764,000 in 2022. This was caused by a post-pandemic surge in non-EU work visa applications, particularly in health and social care in light of the pandemic as well as an increase in international students, and those arriving for humanitarian reasons, for example, those from Ukraine and Hong Kong.
The irony of this surge was that post-Brexit, numbers were expected to go down, when in fact they doubled. Why did this happen? The answer lies squarely in the fact that after Brexit, there was no plan or policy that would have had any meaningful impact on reducing numbers. Successive prime minsters’ talked a good game, without delivering any tangible outcomes.
I propose here three policies which I believe will go a long way towards tackling the issues I have set out so far.
Scrap arbitrary net migration targets and remove students from net migration figures
Setting arbitrary numbers in terms of net migration targets in recent years has led to two key outcomes; firstly a lack of credibility on the part of government: a real sense of distrust among the public when successive governments have been unable to deliver on their promises; secondly, vanity metrics: David Cameron’s government promised to cut net migration to below 100,000 a year, when it rose by more than 50% on average to 318,000 during the six years period of his government (2010 to 2016).
Given the above reality, I believe arbitrary numbers should be scrapped and students should be removed from the overall figure to deal with a distortion that could be as high as 40%. In addition to this, a drop in overseas student numbers would likely have a long-term impact on net migration figures because some students overstay their visas.
The extent of this will depend on future numbers. New data, published for 2026, suggests that immigration rates are lower than expected, so the recent decrease in student numbers might have a lesser long-term impact on net migration than initially thought.
Introduce a real-time border database and biometric scanning system with a private sector operator paid by results
Introducing a real-time border database and biometric scanning system, operated by the private sector and funded on a pay-for-results model, would create a hyper-secure, efficient, and accountable way to track cross-border movements, especially in the light of illegal small boat crossings. This would also reduce the likelihood of identity fraud. Biometric records ensure accurate tracking of visitor movements across the whole of the UK.
In addition, the centralised system allows authorities to respond quickly to irregular migration patterns, while providing a faster processing system also for travellers coming to the UK. Finally, automated data collection and verification improve efficiency, allowing border officials to focus on travellers may who require added checks. *
The proposed border management system connects three core technical pillars:
- Biometric Scanning Nodes: High-throughput “biometrics-on-the-move” kiosks and e-gates installed at key entry/exit points (e.g., at airports, Eurostar terminals, and ferry ports). These capture facial geometry, iris scans, and fingerprints in under two seconds.
- Real Time Central Database: A localised, cloud-based data repository syncing instantly with national and international security databases (such as Interpol, watchlists, and visa systems). It continuously tracks entry and exit records, automatically enforcing stay limits (e.g., detecting overstays past allowed durations).
- Pre-Screening Portals: A companion web interface where travellers submit personal and biometric details prior to travel, like systems the EU’s EES/ETIAS protocols.
Lastly, instead of the state funding the initial multibillion-dollar CAPEX, a private consortium finances, builds, and maintains the infrastructure. The government pays the operator based on Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) instead of traditional service contracts.
Make detention an absolute last resort, introduce a 90-day limit on any detainee and allow asylum seekers to work after that period
My proposal to make immigration detention an absolute last resort, introducing a maximum time limit on detention (specifically, 90 days) and protecting the right to seek asylum aligns with the core platforms of major human rights organisations, such as the UN, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch.
The UK is the only country in Western Europe without a statutory maximum time limit on immigration detention, so exact stays vary widely. The longest publicly recorded case involves an individual who was detained for nine years, but the average length is six months. Charities and human rights organisations continue to cite prolonged indefinite detention as a cause of severe mental distress, including depression and post-traumatic stress disorder.
Following on from the contentious issue revolving Human Rights, another cause of disagreement amongst charities and organisations is that while an asylum seeker’s claim is still being considered (i.e. the interim period between the post-detention stage and subsequently applying for refugee status), they are prohibited from working. Removing this ban would have a three-pronged benefit:
- Mental health impact
Preventing asylum seekers from working affects their mental health, with longer term consequences for them and the NHS if they subsequently acquire refugee status. They are five to six times more likely than average to have mental health needs and 61% will experience severe mental illness.
A report by the Mental Health Foundation studying the impact of asylum processes on mental health, found that policies restricting work or meaningful activities contributed to psychological distress and social exclusion. The Foundation also reported that not being allowed to work leads to ‘loss of self-esteem, loneliness, and an increased risk of depression’ for asylum seekers. - Aid integration
A ban on working also affects the long-term economic integration of refugees. Research consistently shows that being unable to work causes de-skilling, reducing employment prospects even after refugee status is granted, creating what researchers call an ‘economic scarring effect’. A study from Germany found that those who waited longer for permission to work were less likely to find employment within 5 years, and it took nearly 10 years for this gap to close. Given the cultural and language barrier facing many asylum seekers, employment integration would be a massive benefit in that respect too, as it would allow asylum seekers to assimilate socially far quicker. - Public finances
Allowing asylum seekers to work would also bring benefits to the UK economy. Analysis by the Lift The Ban Coalition, suggests that if half the 73,866 people waiting an initial decision for longer than three months found employment at the average UK salary, the benefit from tax, national insurance contributions, and savings in asylum support, could be over £280m. Based on the Home Office data from 2022, NIEC calculate that allowing asylum seekers to work would increase tax revenue by £1.3bn, reduce government expenditure by £6.7bn (specifically, in relation to accommodation vis-à-vis hotels), and an increase GDP by £1.6bn, annually.
It seems clear that a Liberal approach to immigration could help us to meet the challenges of the 21st century, while benefiting the individuals concerned as well as our economy.
* Exit checks at all UK points of departure will also be reinstated and matched with visa entry data to ensure that overstay is tracked and prevented. ↩︎
Kayed Al-Haddad is spokesperson for The Liberal Party for Economics, Fiscal Policy and Monetary Policy.
