Politicians blur refugees, asylum seekers, immigrants and “illegal” migrants into one debate. The facts tell a different story.
Public debate in Britain often collapses refugees, asylum seekers, immigrants and “illegal immigrants” into a single, politically loaded category. The reality is messier. Refugees are already recognised as needing protection. Asylum seekers are waiting for that decision. Immigrants move for work, study or family. “Illegal immigrant” is a catch-all label, often used to imply criminality, though many who arrive “illegally” are exercising a legal right to claim asylum under international law.
Small-boat crossings dominate headlines, but most of those on board are asylum seekers, not people “sneaking in to take jobs.” The rhetoric obscures more than it reveals.
Refugees
Definition: People fleeing persecution based on race, religion, nationality, political opinion or social group.
Legal Status: Defined in the 1951 UN Refugee Convention. Refugees are granted protection and rights once recognised.
Key Point: Most refugees’ status is determined before they set foot in Britain.
Asylum Seekers
Definition: People requesting refugee status whose claims have not yet been decided.
Legal Status: Protected from deportation while their case is considered.
Key Point: All refugees were asylum seekers first, though not all asylum seekers are recognised as refugees.
Britain does not take in large numbers compared with its neighbours. Germany and Poland each host roughly three times as many refugees and asylum seekers as the UK. The most common nationalities claiming asylum in Britain are Afghan, Iranian, Syrian, Sudanese and Eritrean. Recognition rates are extremely high: close to 99% for Afghan, Syrian, Sudanese and Eritrean applicants. By contrast, only about 5% of Indian claims succeed.
Historically, around two-thirds of applications succeed at first instance, with appeals raising the eventual success rate to 75–80% — though this share has recently declined.
Between 100,000 and 150,000 people are currently waiting for asylum decisions. Conservative home secretaries Priti Patel and Suella Braverman tightened asylum rules in an effort to reduce approvals, but instead created a large queue of undecided cases, requiring expensive hotel accommodation. Numbers in hotels have fallen by 40% in the past year, but the system remains clogged.
Asylum seekers cannot work and receive only minimal financial support — far less generous than in France or Germany. Support payments have fallen by 37% in real terms since 2000.
Immigrants
Definition: Anyone moving to a country for work, study or family reasons.
Legal Status: Requires a visa, temporary or permanent.
Key Point: Not fleeing danger, but seeking opportunity.
Immigration surged after Brexit. The Conservative government issued almost one million visas in its final year — a record. In the past year visa issuances have dropped by half, though numbers remain historically high.
“Illegal” Immigrants
Definition: People without legal permission to stay, either because they entered without authorisation or overstayed a visa.
Legal Status: No right to remain, but basic human rights protections still apply.
Key Point: The term is legally imprecise and politically charged; the UN prefers “irregular migrant.”
The majority of “illegal immigrants” in Britain are visa overstayers — students, workers or visitors who remain after their permission expires. Many come from countries with strong links to Britain (the US, Canada, Australia) and often have family ties. Britons abroad are just as likely to overstay visas in those countries.
A smaller number enter clandestinely, often via smuggling gangs. Some fall into modern slavery, criminal networks or sex work. These cases draw headlines but represent a minority.
Small-Boat Crossings
Definition: Channel crossings in small vessels, often unsafe, to reach Britain and claim asylum.
Legal Status: The crossings may breach immigration law, but the Refugee Convention allows asylum claims even if entry is “illegal.”
Key Point: Most arrivals are asylum seekers, not economic migrants, though each claim is assessed individually.
Crossings were negligible before 2018, but surged after Brexit, when Boris Johnson’s government withdrew from EU return agreements. This made Britain a more attractive destination for those who had previously been returned to the first safe EU country.
The Bigger Picture
Immigration is not just a political flashpoint but a cornerstone of post-war Britain. Migrants have kept the NHS staffed, fuelled economic growth and helped Britain punch above its weight in sport, science and the arts. From Olympic champions to Premier League stars, from jazz clubs to curry houses, immigration has shaped modern Britain far more profoundly than small boats or visa statistics suggest. The UK has a declining birthrate and will always need immigration to keep the economy going, keep taxes flowing and afford pensions and benefits.
The debate will always be heated, but without migrants Britain would be a poorer, sicker and duller country.
https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/migration-to-the-uk-asylum
That was a nice read.
It was bold of you to post in the local Facebook groups, the dogmatic responses were inevitable.
Hopefully, it will make some people think.
Do you write on substack at all?
Thanks, I try and post on local “have your say” groups to balance out the tidal wave of far right content that gets fed to people on there.
I don’t have a substack, but it is on my list to get round to
And I think there are actually a lot of people out there who aren’t taken in by the far right takeover of social media, and it is good to connect with them!
I have someone close to me, I won’t say who, but this person is retired, has limited mobility and has the news on the TV in the background all day long.
They talk about ‘illegal immigrants’ all the time. I can go through the usual stuff of explaining how there is no legal routes except for people from Ukraine, Hong Kong and Afghanistan, therefor by UK law, every immigrant that enters the country is illegal, but not international law. I explain these people need to be processed. I explain why ‘small boats’ are mostly men, and try to debunk every argument thrown at me with evidence. I can do this for an hour plus, but it just doesn’t get through. The next time I see them, they will start talking about them again, and its as if our previous conversation didn’t happen – this person does not have dementia, but its as if they do.
This is what constantly being exposed to media does to people, especially older generations who have more time on their hands. Many people will by a paper like The Sun or The Mail, be bombarded with stories about immigrants, then the same on the TV, probably the same with their social circle and then again in local groups like Facebook. Facebook algorithms also weighs angry emotes x5 more than standard likes, this naturally drives polarising content.
Its a real problem. Driven by right wing outlets that pour fuel on the subject and wait for some idiot like Tommy Robinson to strike the match. Of course they are quick to hold their hands up and condemn the violence, but just as quick to get back to doing what they do best – dividing the nation.
When you suggest Jon moves to Substack, are you hinting that his work is of a good enough quality to monetize?
Re Facebook, I sometimes wonder if I’m “letting the side down” because I deleted my (then already little-used for years) Facebook account the weekend after Trump won re-election: I was thinking of how (for example) without Facebook there could have been no Cambridge Analytica.
I’m not suggesting he move to substack, he could just copy and paste his blog posts over there. Even if he chooses not to monetize his work, there is the potential for a greater reach.
Sites like Facebook are an inevitable, if not Facebook some other company would entered that space, it may even have been something like Friends Reunited. Although Cambridge Analytica is dead, there are plenty of other companies that have picked up the baton when it comes to profiling and targeting people on social media platforms.
Fundamentally, what centralized social media platforms like Facebook offer to their users, that older forms of online social activity (such as USENET, web forums or blog comment sections) cannot, is the possibility of “going viral”.
This requires that users be able to upload content and have it viewed in a timely manner by potentially millions of followers, which (especially if we’re talking video content) requires a vast amount of expensive bandwidth. Centralized social media platforms pay for this bandwidth by spying on their users in order to micro-target them with ads.