Thank you for this piece Colin. I think you’re right about setting realistic expectations for reform. I’ve been a member of Reunite Families UK for 7 years and I’ve seen how much it’s grown. We’ve learnt so much along the way. As a lived experience organisation there is so much anger, sadness and at times hopelessness among its members that it’s a fine line between managing expectations and alienating often already distraught people. Emotions run high and it’s good for people to have an outlet through campaigning.
But you’re right, the most effective means for change is by fostering relationships, doing useful research and trying to appeal to people’s humanity (most people can relate to the importance of a family life, as you say SPADs are human too). Reunite are on the way to achieving this but it’s a marathon, not a sprint.
I love Reunite Families UK and have met with Caroline several times - we’re both in Bristol. I understand the constraints. And basically all organisations working on immigration issues have similar issues. Each is either or both siloed or, for good reasons, bound by a particular viewpoint. There is some co-ordination through IMIX for example but it’s insufficient. No-one is really working on cross cutting issues in a realistic way because that’s no-one’s job as such.
I take your point about marathon and sprint. But we’re running out of time. I’ve been working in this sector for 25 years now and if anything advocacy might be less effective now than it was back then.
Personally, as someone who worked in Parliament for Labour frontbenchers, then in the charity sector and now as a political commentator, I have to make up my mind on how I talk about immigration when my opinions on it and the facts are very nuanced (and I am an immigrant myself) I would love to see a resource that is objective and doesn't take it for granted that immigration and granting asylum to all who need it is either God's work or the Devil's plan and is realistic on who loses and who gains in each scenario. For example, I wish I would see more lawyers who work with asylum seekers and/or illegal immigrants recognise that some would not qualify for most laypeople's definition of a refugee before these cases made it into GBnews and the Daily mail and we end up where we are. I say that because I know of people who didn't need asylum and got it. How I know they don't need it? They freely tell their friends, and return home too. I also know illegal immigrants and where they came from (Greece, but were not Greek themselves) and were just fine and settled back where they came from; they were not in abject poverty; they just wanted better economic opportunity - as did I, so that doesn't make their motives bad but it does make them willing to break the law which is not something host nations should have to accept. "Humanising" migrants must involve holding them to human standards, not toddler standards. Or to find a solution on how to legislate not to have the freakshow of cases of paedophiles or other violent criminals who we can't deport because of successful appeals. These heavily undermine the public's trust in courts and their perception of who the rule of law is here to protect. When I discuss this with lawyer friends, I get thrown patronising legalese, which I do not need as I have an English law degree and understand very well how and why the system is the way it is and why it is hard to reform. But that does not matter to the millions of voters turning to Reform, not because they are racist (though some, of course, are) but because of the practical, insurmountable difficulties that a generous immigration and asylum system entails in 2025. I understand you don't think it is generous, and I tend to agree when we consider how many millions need to flee wars, but comparatively, to what most people feel they are getting from the state at the moment, there won't be cut-through unless the people trying to help immigrants acknowledge the counternarrative as based on practical reality and practical constraints.
Thanks for your comment. Strongly disagree with you on the violent criminals point, which I’ve left a comment on your Substack about. What you articulate here is really why I’ve started to write this Substack. To try and formulate and articulate a more nuanced and realistic framework of immigration law, one which is not generous as such but which is liberal. I’m not so interested in immigration numbers. I don’t really care how many students or workers come into the country, although I strongly believe that family immigration rights for settled and British people are too limited and expensive. And I think there are good reasons to admit some refugees, not least to show solidarity with other countries that host far more refugees than we do. But I do think we should treat migrants with respect once they are here, even if they ultimately have to be removed. There’s posts here looking at issues like removals and why they are so hard, asylum processing problems and ineffective use of immigration detention. And I’ve tried to explain a rational basis (value for money, effectiveness, unexpected problems) for objections to some immigration control measures beyond “it’s all racist!”
Finding it quite hard to summon the energy to carry on writing this stuff, though, as there is basically no appetite for it on the left or right or in government so far as I can see.
I read Hein den Haas excellent book 'How migration really works' a year ago or so and he convinced me on why a lot of measures on controlling immigration are ultimately counterproductive. But my main objection is that he is looking at the last how many years, when in the previous five years alone, since COVID, social media and connectivity have turbocharged how many more people want to move and how they do it, etc. Obviously, Afghanistan and other regions have had escalated crises, but there is no getting around the fact that the UK does not currently have the state capacity to deal with as many refugees as want to come effectively. Similarly, in my motherland, Greece, loads of money were poured into the country to deal with the refugee crisis, but the state was just not capable of pulling it off. UK state is similarly gutted. Services are overwhelmed from years of austerity etc. Result of having refugees coming but not being properly integrated is civil unrest and ethnic tension = Farage gravy train.
Also I just finished listening to Nicolla Kelly's book 'anywhere but here' and the grievance I have on the liberal migration types (Sorry, this is a brute generalisation ) versus the net migration zealot types (again, inelegant grouping) is while the latter does not think is their responsibility to solve the humanitarian issue of refugees existing and suffering (sorry you were born in the wrong place the wrong time) the former doesn't think it is their responsibility to answer the question who funds this, how do you get the voters to be on board, what do you do about the obvious cultural tension, how do you build up state capacity etc.
I gather from an immigration solicitor that many immigration solicitors recognise that most asylum seekers need a medicolegal report (MLR) in accordance with the Istanbul Protocol if their cases are to be adequately assessed. A major reason why immigration tribunals overturn half or more of Home Office decisions is the lack of medicolegal evidence at the time when the Home Office case workers reached their decisions.
Having more MLRs produced before Home Office decisions are reached could make the system more cost-effective, and reduce the aggravation of mental health problem among asylum seekers as they wait in anxiety and alienation for their final decisions.
Doctors writing MLRs are unlikely to want to work for the Home Office. Many do not want to work for charitable agencies that they see as unnecessary intermediaries between themselves and the commissioning solicitors. The advent of an association of writers of medicolegal reports on asylum seekers is overdue to foster and regulate this activity.
Asylum seekers can seek legal aid as soon as they lodge an asylum application. That system could and should be being used by immigration solicitors to fund MLRs that are sent directly to the Home Office at the time of the Statement of Evidence Form.
This particular issue doesn't need a campaign.
However what does need a campaign is the content of the Initial Contact Form used by the Home Office when asylum seekers first present. It should include the following questions - or similar, as answers to these questions are central to the issue of whether a grant of asylum is justified.
- Have you been subjected to torture or inhumane or degrading treatment in your home country?
- Do you fear torture or inhumane or degrading treatment if you are returned to your home country?
If the answers to either of these questions are positive, it behoves the the Home Office caseworker to advise the applicant to obtain legal advice and how to make contact with a practitioner of immigration law.
Thank you for this piece Colin. I think you’re right about setting realistic expectations for reform. I’ve been a member of Reunite Families UK for 7 years and I’ve seen how much it’s grown. We’ve learnt so much along the way. As a lived experience organisation there is so much anger, sadness and at times hopelessness among its members that it’s a fine line between managing expectations and alienating often already distraught people. Emotions run high and it’s good for people to have an outlet through campaigning.
But you’re right, the most effective means for change is by fostering relationships, doing useful research and trying to appeal to people’s humanity (most people can relate to the importance of a family life, as you say SPADs are human too). Reunite are on the way to achieving this but it’s a marathon, not a sprint.
I love Reunite Families UK and have met with Caroline several times - we’re both in Bristol. I understand the constraints. And basically all organisations working on immigration issues have similar issues. Each is either or both siloed or, for good reasons, bound by a particular viewpoint. There is some co-ordination through IMIX for example but it’s insufficient. No-one is really working on cross cutting issues in a realistic way because that’s no-one’s job as such.
I take your point about marathon and sprint. But we’re running out of time. I’ve been working in this sector for 25 years now and if anything advocacy might be less effective now than it was back then.
Personally, as someone who worked in Parliament for Labour frontbenchers, then in the charity sector and now as a political commentator, I have to make up my mind on how I talk about immigration when my opinions on it and the facts are very nuanced (and I am an immigrant myself) I would love to see a resource that is objective and doesn't take it for granted that immigration and granting asylum to all who need it is either God's work or the Devil's plan and is realistic on who loses and who gains in each scenario. For example, I wish I would see more lawyers who work with asylum seekers and/or illegal immigrants recognise that some would not qualify for most laypeople's definition of a refugee before these cases made it into GBnews and the Daily mail and we end up where we are. I say that because I know of people who didn't need asylum and got it. How I know they don't need it? They freely tell their friends, and return home too. I also know illegal immigrants and where they came from (Greece, but were not Greek themselves) and were just fine and settled back where they came from; they were not in abject poverty; they just wanted better economic opportunity - as did I, so that doesn't make their motives bad but it does make them willing to break the law which is not something host nations should have to accept. "Humanising" migrants must involve holding them to human standards, not toddler standards. Or to find a solution on how to legislate not to have the freakshow of cases of paedophiles or other violent criminals who we can't deport because of successful appeals. These heavily undermine the public's trust in courts and their perception of who the rule of law is here to protect. When I discuss this with lawyer friends, I get thrown patronising legalese, which I do not need as I have an English law degree and understand very well how and why the system is the way it is and why it is hard to reform. But that does not matter to the millions of voters turning to Reform, not because they are racist (though some, of course, are) but because of the practical, insurmountable difficulties that a generous immigration and asylum system entails in 2025. I understand you don't think it is generous, and I tend to agree when we consider how many millions need to flee wars, but comparatively, to what most people feel they are getting from the state at the moment, there won't be cut-through unless the people trying to help immigrants acknowledge the counternarrative as based on practical reality and practical constraints.
Thanks for your comment. Strongly disagree with you on the violent criminals point, which I’ve left a comment on your Substack about. What you articulate here is really why I’ve started to write this Substack. To try and formulate and articulate a more nuanced and realistic framework of immigration law, one which is not generous as such but which is liberal. I’m not so interested in immigration numbers. I don’t really care how many students or workers come into the country, although I strongly believe that family immigration rights for settled and British people are too limited and expensive. And I think there are good reasons to admit some refugees, not least to show solidarity with other countries that host far more refugees than we do. But I do think we should treat migrants with respect once they are here, even if they ultimately have to be removed. There’s posts here looking at issues like removals and why they are so hard, asylum processing problems and ineffective use of immigration detention. And I’ve tried to explain a rational basis (value for money, effectiveness, unexpected problems) for objections to some immigration control measures beyond “it’s all racist!”
Finding it quite hard to summon the energy to carry on writing this stuff, though, as there is basically no appetite for it on the left or right or in government so far as I can see.
I read Hein den Haas excellent book 'How migration really works' a year ago or so and he convinced me on why a lot of measures on controlling immigration are ultimately counterproductive. But my main objection is that he is looking at the last how many years, when in the previous five years alone, since COVID, social media and connectivity have turbocharged how many more people want to move and how they do it, etc. Obviously, Afghanistan and other regions have had escalated crises, but there is no getting around the fact that the UK does not currently have the state capacity to deal with as many refugees as want to come effectively. Similarly, in my motherland, Greece, loads of money were poured into the country to deal with the refugee crisis, but the state was just not capable of pulling it off. UK state is similarly gutted. Services are overwhelmed from years of austerity etc. Result of having refugees coming but not being properly integrated is civil unrest and ethnic tension = Farage gravy train.
Also I just finished listening to Nicolla Kelly's book 'anywhere but here' and the grievance I have on the liberal migration types (Sorry, this is a brute generalisation ) versus the net migration zealot types (again, inelegant grouping) is while the latter does not think is their responsibility to solve the humanitarian issue of refugees existing and suffering (sorry you were born in the wrong place the wrong time) the former doesn't think it is their responsibility to answer the question who funds this, how do you get the voters to be on board, what do you do about the obvious cultural tension, how do you build up state capacity etc.
I gather from an immigration solicitor that many immigration solicitors recognise that most asylum seekers need a medicolegal report (MLR) in accordance with the Istanbul Protocol if their cases are to be adequately assessed. A major reason why immigration tribunals overturn half or more of Home Office decisions is the lack of medicolegal evidence at the time when the Home Office case workers reached their decisions.
Having more MLRs produced before Home Office decisions are reached could make the system more cost-effective, and reduce the aggravation of mental health problem among asylum seekers as they wait in anxiety and alienation for their final decisions.
Doctors writing MLRs are unlikely to want to work for the Home Office. Many do not want to work for charitable agencies that they see as unnecessary intermediaries between themselves and the commissioning solicitors. The advent of an association of writers of medicolegal reports on asylum seekers is overdue to foster and regulate this activity.
Asylum seekers can seek legal aid as soon as they lodge an asylum application. That system could and should be being used by immigration solicitors to fund MLRs that are sent directly to the Home Office at the time of the Statement of Evidence Form.
This particular issue doesn't need a campaign.
However what does need a campaign is the content of the Initial Contact Form used by the Home Office when asylum seekers first present. It should include the following questions - or similar, as answers to these questions are central to the issue of whether a grant of asylum is justified.
- Have you been subjected to torture or inhumane or degrading treatment in your home country?
- Do you fear torture or inhumane or degrading treatment if you are returned to your home country?
If the answers to either of these questions are positive, it behoves the the Home Office caseworker to advise the applicant to obtain legal advice and how to make contact with a practitioner of immigration law.