Greens want to use taxpayers’ money to help fight immigration raids on illegal workers
The Green Party is planning to use public funds to help illegal workers resist immigration raids, with Hackney Council preparing an "information campaign" to inform them of their rights. Several Green-led London councils have already pledged to stop cooperating with Home Office raids. At the party's Brighton conference, senior figures proposed this initiative alongside other radical policies.
At the same conference, the party revealed plans developed with the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants to launch the taxpayer-funded awareness campaign. The Greens are simultaneously proposing to wipe criminal records after just five years for crimes including assault, drug possession and theft—a move that prompted Shadow safeguarding minister Alicia Kearns to accuse the party of being "criminal apologists". The conference has also sparked internal conflict, with former party leaders Caroline Lucas and Adrian Ramsay condemning a proposed "Zionism is racism" motion as potentially making Jewish members feel unwelcome.
- Greens plan taxpayer-funded campaign to help illegal workers understand rights
- Party proposes wiping criminal records after five years
- Internal conflict over "Zionism is racism" motion divides former leaders
New here? Start with this
The Green Party has proposed that councils use public funding to help people living in the country without legal status understand their rights when facing immigration raids. Several Green-led councils in London have already decided to limit their cooperation with these Home Office enforcement operations, and the party plans an information campaign about workers' legal protections during raids.
Immigration enforcement officers conduct raids to identify people living in the country without proper legal authorisation. Supporters of the Green proposal argue that these individuals often lack awareness of their legal rights and protections during enforcement, whilst critics contend that public funds should not be used to help people resist government action.
The proposal reflects broader questions about how local and national government should work together on immigration policy and what responsibilities councils have when national enforcement agencies operate in their areas. These questions remain contested across different parts of the political spectrum.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Advocates argue that everyone deserves equal access to legal rights and protection from exploitation, regardless of immigration status. An information campaign funded by public services would help vulnerable workers understand their protections against wage theft, unsafe conditions, and coercion—issues that affect them whether or not immigration enforcement is involved. This represents a commitment to human dignity and rule of law: ensuring that all people within a jurisdiction receive equal protection, whilst stopping unscrupulous employers from exploiting workers' fear and uncertainty.
The case against
Critics contend that immigration law exists for legitimate reasons and should be enforced consistently. They argue there is a meaningful distinction between helping people understand their rights—which is neutral—and actively supporting them to resist lawful immigration enforcement, which represents a misuse of taxpayers' money. Those who entered or remained unlawfully knew the legal consequences of their actions. Directing limited public resources towards helping people evade enforcement, rather than towards supporting legal residents and citizens, undermines faith in the rule of law and may encourage further illegal immigration.