Following the publication of the Government’s “Restoring control over the immigration system” white paper on immigration 6 months ago, and 2 recent statements (Asylum and returns policy & Biggest overhaul of legal migration model in 50 years announced), Edinburgh South West residents have asked me if the Government is going too far, or not going far and fast enough when dealing with the chaotic immigration system it inherited from the Tories. This blog seeks to set out the current landscape and summarises some of the concerns residents have raised with me.

The UK’s relationship with immigration has deep roots: across centuries, people have arrived on these shores in search of safety, work, and opportunity, from early movements such as the Roman settlement in AD 43 to major influxes after the Second World War, when the UK actively encouraged migration from Commonwealth countries to help rebuild the nation and fill critical labour shortages.

Today, the UK’s immigration system is at the heart of a complex and highly charged national debate, balancing promises of tighter controls with the need for economic dynamism and humanitarian responsibility. The government faces intense pressure to deliver on commitments to reform both legal and unauthorised migration routes, acknowledging that recent high levels of net migration have stretched public confidence.

I know many residents in Edinburgh South West are concerned that a tiny number of bad actors are using these legitimate concerns to fuel hate and division both online, and in the real world. 

A central promise of the current government is to stop the illegal small boat crossings in the English Channel (I talk about the progress being made here.). These unauthorised arrivals, many of whom have themselves been exploited, are a source of significant public frustration and are seen as undermining the very concept of secure borders.

Simultaneously, the government is committed to closing asylum hotels, a pledge that is finally showing progress. The number of hotels in use has almost halved since its peak in mid-2023, reflecting a shift towards cheaper, dedicated, large-scale accommodation sites like former military bases. This move has not been without controversy, and is driven by the significant cost of £9 million a day the taxpayer was footing at the peak of the crisis. The objective is to end the use of all asylum hotels entirely, which the government aims to achieve well before the end of the current parliament.

The drive for control is also evidenced by the recent figures on deportation of people with no right to be in the UK. Total returns of unauthorised migrants from the UK have increased by 25% in the last year, reaching the highest level since 2017, at approximately 34,000 people – the top nationalities among people returned from the UK in 2024 were India, Albania, and Brazil. While the majority remain voluntary returns, enforced returns have also increased substantially, demonstrating a renewed effort by Immigration Enforcement to remove those with no right to be in the UK, particularly foreign national offenders. This includes a significant increase in returns to countries like Albania, following new bilateral agreements.

I have personally intervened to ensure two EU immigrants with convictions for stalking and domestic abuse were deported.  Both the Edinburgh South West women who were survivors of this abuse can now live their life in our capital without worrying about meeting these men.

Nonetheless, the UK has an undeniable, decades-old moral and legal duty to support people who genuinely come to the UK to escape torture and persecution. This responsibility is enshrined in international conventions like the 1951 Refugee Convention. However, this duty is not without limits. The government is simultaneously committed to ensuring that the system is not exploited and that it can effectively stop criminals entering the UK – a principle vital for national security and maintaining public trust in the migration process.

Immigration is not just about control; it’s about economics. There is a strong consensus that allowing highly skilled people to come to the UK legally is good for our economy. These migrants are vital to the UK NHS, with nearly 27% of nurses being from outside the UK. 

The points-based immigration system, introduced after leaving the European Union, aims to prioritise skills and contribution over country of origin. This system allows the UK to attract doctors, engineers, and tech professionals who fill critical labour market gaps and drive growth.

Recent figures, however, show that overall levels of legal migration have reached a high historic standards, driven in part by changes to post-Brexit rules that liberalised routes for non-EU skilled workers. The impact of Brexit has made it harder to control migration in critical ways. While the UK regained control over its internal EU borders, it lost the vital co-operation mechanisms—such as the Dublin Regulation, which allowed the UK to return asylum seekers to the first safe European country they entered. This loss of partnership is a significant factor in the Channel crossings crisis, forcing the government to negotiate complex, often fraught, and less effective bilateral agreements with countries like France. The simple fact is that border control does not end at the white cliffs of Dover, it requires international collaboration that has been significantly complicated by leaving the European Union.

The recent changes the government has proposed are indeed concerning for many, particularly human rights lawyers and migrant support groups, who fear the erosion of fundamental protections and a significant increase in the time migrants are kept in limbo. However, a significant proportion of the general public believes the system is broken,  with 52% feeling that immigration numbers should be reduced. Indeed, no political party has tabled a better, politically viable alternative that simultaneously satisfies the public demand for lower numbers and the economic need for key workers. As it stands, the government’s plan is the least worst option.

In summary, the UK’s current immigration situation is a tightrope walk between control and conscience, with policies designed to reduce numbers and tackle channel crossings rubbing up against legal challenges and the country’s economic needs. The effectiveness of the new, more restrictive approach remains to be seen, but the debate continues to dominate the political landscape. At the very least, we have to draw a distinction between (1) those arriving legally with a visa, (2) those men, women and children seeking safety via safe and legal routes and (3) those arriving via unauthorised routes.

Based on these observations and concerns from Edinburgh South West residents, I have submitted a number of Written Questions to the Home Office to better understand the detail of what they propose. I hope the answers to these question will help inform any response Edinburgh South West residents wish to make to the Government’s consultation on “Earned settlement“. These questions are detailed below.

Written Parliamentary Questions to the Home Secretary
UIN 92335 – To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether her plan to offer permanent settlement to refugees only after 20 years residence in the UK will apply to people currently (a) in the asylum system and (b) holding refugee status.

UIN 92425 – To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what assessment she has made of the number of children subject to removal under her plans to remove families from the UK.

UIN 92482 – To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, within the context of her asylum statement on 17 November 2025, if those arriving in the UK via safe and legal routes to seek asylum will have to wait for 20 years for indefinite settled status if they are recognised as refugees.

UIN 92695 – To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, with reference to the policy paper entitled Restoring Order and Control: A statement on the government’s asylum and returns policy, published on 17 November 2025, what value of personal assets would require asylum seekers to contribute to their accommodation and living expenses.

UIN 92696 – To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, with reference to the policy paper entitled Restoring Order and Control: A statement on the government’s asylum and returns policy, published on 17 November 2025, what English as a Second Language provision the Government plans to put in place to encourage asylum seekers to enter new legal work and study routes.

UIN 92697 – To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, with reference to the policy paper entitled Restoring Order and Control: A statement on the government’s asylum and returns policy, published on 17 November 2025, whether caps will be placed on the number of asylum seekers accessing the new legal work or study paths.

UIN 92698 – To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, with reference to the policy paper entitled Restoring Order and Control: A statement on the government’s asylum and returns policy, published on 17 November 2025, whether processes will be put in place for asylum seekers whose home countries have been deemed safe but that are not personally safe for them to return.

UIN 93334 – To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, with reference to her oral Statement on 20 of November 2025, what thresholds is she considering to evaluate integration metrics such as volunteering and proficiency in English.

UIN 93518 – To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, with reference to her oral statement of 20 November 2025 on Migration: Settlement Pathway, what criteria she is considering to define high earners and entrepreneurs.