Conservatives vow to end Labour’s Afghan and Palestinian asylum scheme immediately
The Conservative Party has committed to immediately abolishing Labour's new asylum scheme for Afghans and Palestinians should they win the next General Election. Shadow Home Secretary Chris Philp announced the pledge at the Conservative Party conference, arguing that the government should not open its borders further whilst illegal migration remains prevalent.
Labour's Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood unveiled the scheme last week, describing the "safe routes" as largely focused on Palestinian and Afghan women and girls. Philp also outlined plans for a specialist removals force to deport 150,000 failed asylum seekers, foreign criminals and visa overstayers annually, aiming to remove three-quarters of a million foreign nationals over a full Parliament. He additionally criticised Labour's proposals to extend the waiting period for permanent residency, claiming left-wing party members would water down such reforms.
- Conservatives pledge to close Labour's asylum routes for Afghans and Palestinians
- Plans announced for removals force to deport 150,000 people annually
- Dispute over Labour's policy on migrants' permanent residency waiting periods
New here? Start with this
The Labour government recently created a new legal pathway for Palestinians and Afghans to come to the UK, with particular emphasis on vulnerable women and girls. The scheme is designed to offer what the government calls "safe routes" for people from these nations.
The Conservative Party and Labour have long disagreed about immigration policy and asylum levels. These differences are now becoming a key issue in British politics, with the two parties proposing starkly different approaches to who should be allowed to settle in Britain.
Conservatives have argued that immigration levels are too high and enforcement must be strengthened. The party has pledged to scrap the new asylum scheme if elected and to increase deportations of people whose asylum claims have been rejected.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Conservatives argue that expanding asylum routes whilst illegal migration persists is counterintuitive policy. With finite resources, establishing control over borders and removing those without legal right to remain—including foreign criminals and visa overstayers—must be the priority. They contend that opening new asylum categories, however sympathetic the cases, signals that illegal channels might succeed and could encourage dangerous crossings, ultimately undermining the asylum system's credibility and rule of law.
The case against
Labour maintains that safe, legal routes for the most vulnerable—Afghan women fleeing Taliban persecution and Palestinians facing displacement—represent humanitarian necessity rather than indulgence. These routes are orderly and vetted, reducing desperation that fuels illegal crossings and human trafficking. The scheme complements border control by providing genuine sanctuary where needed most, not contradicting it, whilst enabling Britain to meet its obligations to the persecuted through systematic process.
Read the full article at the source →
Originally published by Daily Mail as “Tories pledge to ‘immediately’ scrap Labour’s new asylum routes for Afghans and Palestinians”.