An Alternative Asylum and Refugee Programme
- Alistair McConnachie
- Jun 17
- 26 min read
Updated: 5 days ago
In "Refugee Week 2025" we propose a new UK Asylum and Refugee Programme which will replace our membership of the UN Refugee Convention, and which will restore integrity to the entire concept. Alistair McConnachie has a degree in Scots Law.
CONTENTS
Goals of the Programme
Definitions
PART 1: Our 10 Core Proposals
PART 2: Dealing with Those Who Arrive Outside of the Asylum Visa System
PART 3: Dealing with Those Whose Claims are being Considered
PART 4: The Matter of "Asylum Appeals"
PART 5: New Status Called "Contingent Refugee Leave to Remain"
PART 6: Border Force Operation
References
GOALS OF THE PROGRAMME
The UK asylum system has lost all integrity.
Everyone knows it is being abused on a massive scale. The phrase "Asylum Seeker" is discredited in the public mind.
A Programme, in line with the following guidelines, will see a vast decrease in applications. The fraudulent will not want the hassle. The illegals will be in prison. Applications could plummet to their pre-1989 figures.
The rest of the world will see that we are serious, and that there are consequences for anyone who arrives outside of our rules.
The few who are genuine will be grateful to be staying safely and securely, for a temporary period, under the protection of the British government; although they will no longer enjoy the generous benefits which they presently enjoy; and they will no longer have a pathway to permanent settlement.
DEFINITIONS
Officially, an "asylum seeker" or "asylum applicant" is someone who has claimed for "refugee status" within the meaning of Article 1A(2) of the UN Convention relating to the Status of Refugees of 28 July 1951, as amended by The New York Protocol of 31 January 1967. That is, someone who:
"owing to well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable, or owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country…"
The New York Protocol removed from the definition of refugee the Convention's original words which had defined a refugee on the basis of, "…events occurring before 1 January 1951".
A "refugee" is an asylum seeker who has been "recognised as a refugee and granted asylum".
PART 1: OUR 10 CORE PROPOSALS
Recognising that Westminster should be the sole law-making authority on immigration and asylum issues in Britain we propose:
1. Leave the 1951 UN Convention relating to the Status of Refugees [hereinafter UN Refugee Convention]
As Matthew Parris wrote in The Times during a year in which applications for asylum were the highest ever:
Sometimes, something is so plain that we dare not acknowledge it. At the root of all our difficulties over immigration lies a simple cause, and nobody in mainstream politics has the guts to admit it. It is the Geneva Convention on the Status of Refugees. It is unsustainable and it must go. If we cannot reach agreement internationally to wind it down, then Britain should unilaterally withdraw. (1)
The 1951 Convention is outdated and is being abused. Indeed, it was already out-of-date and unfit for purpose by the time it was "amended" in 1967!
It was never intended as a means to move economic migrants around the world, nor for those who are merely dissatisfied with life at home.
It acts to nullify our efforts to close our borders. It is impossible to close our borders under this Convention! It represents an official Open Door to the World!
It is considered a keystone of the post-war international legal order. Therefore, it will not be possible for the UK to agree with all the other signatories to "amend" this international document.
Whatever may have been the intentions of the framers of the Convention – it is now being used to legally justify what amounts to an invasion of our country. We have been in a national emergency since 2018, and we must act.
The UN Refugee Convention has come to represent a serious violation of our national sovereignty, security and safety. We must leave it, and no longer be bound by it.
When we leave, we must institute our own Asylum and Refugee Programme – which we could call the UK Asylum Programme (UKAP) or the UK Temporary Asylum Programme (UK-TAP) – which will address our own needs, as follows.
2. Imprisonment for those who Enter via the 3 Illegal Routes as listed in Part 2 below. (2) This will establish the appropriate deterrent. If necessary, as below, a purpose-built Secure Detention Centre(s) – with a prison-regime – will be built to accommodate sufficient people, the numbers of which can be expected to quickly reduce as the rest of the world gets the message.
3. "Inadmissable" Asylum Claims to be Removed to Country of Origin
At present, if a person says "I want to claim asylum" we are legally obliged, under the UN Refugee Convention to either:
a) admit their claim for adjudication – which can take months and years – or;
b) declare their claim "inadmissible" – meaning we're not going to examine it.
However – and here's the catch with the second option: If we declare their claim "inadmissible" then, under the UN Refugee Convention per Article 33(1) we still cannot send them back to their country of origin where they claim to be unsafe, without an investigation which proves otherwise.
That is, if we render a claim "inadmissible", we are still stuck with the requirement that we cannot send that person back to a country which he claims is "unsafe" for him, without us investigating to discover whether that is true or not. Technically, the person does not have a "right" to stay in the UK, but effectively, it amounts to the same thing!
Under "House of Commons Immigration Rules", para 345, we can try to send such people to any "safe third country", if we can find such countries to agree! (3)
But why on earth would any country want to take them from us? We can't even get France to take them back! This is why the Conservative Party tried to off-load such people to a "safe third country" such as Rwanda.
The reality is, either way, when someone claims "asylum" we're stuck with them!
However, if we leave the UN Refugee Convention, we will be able to say to everyone we choose: "You can claim asylum if you want, and we may or may not examine your claim, but if we declare your claim inadmissible and do not examine your claim, then you will not be allowed to stay here; and we will either return you directly to your country of origin, or you are free to go elsewhere – but one way or the other, you're leaving our shores!"
This means, we will be free to examine their claim if we choose; or we will be free not to examine their claim, and deport them forthwith; or send them to prison if they have entered by any of the methods below which we deem to be illegal.
4. Legislate to Limit the Application of Article 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA 1998) and Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) on the laws of Immigration, Asylum and Deportation
It is primarily the UN Refugee Convention which opens the door into the country in the first place. It is the UN Refugee Convention which is the main reason we are prevented from deporting clearly fraudulent "inadmissible asylum seekers" as per the explanation above.
The HRA 1998 and the ECHR kick in for a far fewer number who don't want to leave and who can make a claim under "family life". Article 8 is the "right to a family life" provision. It states:
1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.
It can be used to prevent deportation of foreign nationals who are in the country illegally, or who have failed the asylum test, but have been in the country long enough to start a family!
The impression given by their lawyers is that the person is in danger of being "split up" from their family, even though, in reality, the person can – and should be expected to – take their family with them wherever they go!
Our proposal is that we should add something around Article 8 of the HRA 1998 which limits its application on immigration, asylum and deportation law.
For example, in Article 8 para 2 (the Exceptions Clause) we could add the words "border control", so it reads:
There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, border control, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.
After all, it is the abuse of Article 8, especially, which has sickened people towards the functioning of both the HRA and the ECHR. Furthermore, we can certainly do this while continuing to remain within the ECHR.
However, it is only going to be a matter of time until such a new law will be challenged by someone who has been impacted.
Say, a person is now going to be deported, and he appeals all the way up to the European Court. If the European Court finds against us, then it may be at that stage that we will have to leave the ECHR for good.
Although, if such a case were to occur and the European judges seriously believed that Britain would absolutely leave the ECHR if the judgment did not go our way, then this would be "persuasive" upon their ultimate decision. After all, it is unlikely they would want to do anything which would cause a determined Britain to leave.
It is also likely that if we speed up the system, as per our suggestions below, then appeals to stay under Article 8 will reduce. This is because people will not be in the country long enough to set up a "family life". Therefore, the problem may largely solve itself.
Article 3 states: "Prohibition of torture: No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment."
It has no Exceptions Clause. It seems fair and proper on its face. However, its application has been stretched very widely to incorporate treatment which is not usually considered to be "torture", "degrading" or "punishment". For example, it was reported in June 2025 that a man had been allowed to stay because he was at risk of having his beard shaved off by the authorities in Tajikistan. The legal application of this Article needs to be tightened up.
There is no need to "abolish the HRA 1998".
It is only Articles 3 and 8 which are used to compromise immigration law. However, the issues relating to Article 3 and Article 8 – as they affect immigration and asylum and deportation – will need to be addressed in order to deliver effective deportation, and secure our borders. All this is eminently possible and do-able.
5. Quota of no more than 2,000 Grants of Asylum a Year
This is "principle applicants", excluding dependents.
The earliest official data of applications we have been able to find is the 1979 figure which lists only 1,563 primary applications for refugee status and 525 grants of refugee status. (4)
For the latter part of the 1980s, when the world was just as dangerous as it is today, asylum applications were stable and few. "Asylum" applications started to rocket from 1989 onwards, although still well below numbers today.
The Table is from page 35 of House of Commons Library, "Asylum Statistics", 4 March 2025. Figures are main applicants only and do not include dependants.
As we can see from the Table, in the 5-year period from 1984-1988 the average annual number of principle applicants was 3,963, and the average number of "Total Grants" – meaning "recognised as a refugee" or "not recognised as a refugee but granted exceptional leave" – was 1,934 (49% of applicants).
From 1989 onwards, numbers of applications, and grants, really started to multiply.
In 2024, the UK saw 84,231 applications for asylum representing 108,138 individuals. This marks the highest annual number of applications and individuals seeking asylum ever recorded (although 2002 and 2022 run close). (5)
Our proposal: We aim to bring the number of Grants down to 2,000 a year in order to approximate the historic precedent and annual average for the relatively stable 5-year period, 1984-1988. This was before "asylum" applications rocketed and before the system became discredited. During this period, 49% of applications were granted. Therefore, we'd be looking at around a total of no more than 4,000 applications allowed per year.
6. Maintain Safe Country List from which an asylum claim will not be considered nor granted. This should include all countries in the European Union, countries with accession status to the EU, all countries in the Commonwealth, and all countries hosting British, NATO or UN Peacekeeping Troops.
7. Asylum Applications to be Lodged, and Visas Issued, at the British Embassy or Consulate in Country of Origin
That is, we place asylum-based immigration on the same visa-based footing as any other kind of immigration. A visa would be mandatory and anyone arriving without the visa would be immediately returned.
Our officials in the origin country will be best placed to understand the situation on the ground. They can either deny an asylum consideration; or give a "Refugee Visa" entitling the applicant to stay in the UK for, say 3 years; or give an "Asylum Visa" which could be for more immediate need, which would enable the person to make the journey to the UK where their claim will be further considered.
Eric Nichols suggested the following in a letter in The Daily Telegraph, 1 September 1998:
We should judge an asylum seeker in the British consul in the country concerned. No one should be considered for asylum unless he can produce a special visa, which the British consul would provide only on two conditions being verified: that the applicant was in serious danger of death, torture or persecution, and that there was no country nearer than Britain in which he could reasonably expect to be free of such dangers. To avoid visas being traded, the consul would send a copy with fingerprints and photograph, to the UK Immigration Authorities. This important policy would cut the levels of bogus asylum seeking to very small levels, meaning that the Reception Centres would not be overflowing.
8. A Direct Risk to "Life or Freedom" must be Clearly Present
There must be a clear and present danger. The idea that a person might be in danger should not be sufficient.
As above, Article 1A(2) of the UN Refugee Convention states that a refugee is someone who "owing to well-founded fear of being persecuted…"
Article 33(1) states that such a person should not be returned to "the frontiers of territories where his life or freedom would be threatened on account of his race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion." (6)
We interpret that as meaning that "persecution" is a threat to a person's "life or freedom".
In that case, a claimant should be able to show clear evidence of a direct risk to their "life or freedom" as a result of "his race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion."
Direct risk to life or freedom should be the requirement.
9. Tighten Up the Concept of "Humanitarian Protection"
At present, if an asylum applicant is not at risk of individual persecution but would be at risk of serious threat or harm if returned to their country of origin due to its troubled circumstances, they may be granted "Humanitarian Protection".
However, this humanitarian need can be interpreted very widely.
There is no doubt that if an Asylum Programme such as the one we are advocating were to be enacted, then the NGOs, the "charities" and the lawyers would shift to advocate a further widening of "humanitarian programmes" in order to keep the huge numbers (and their money) rolling in.
We suggest that "fleeing war" or "living in a war zone" should not be a sufficient reason to grant asylum – unless a direct risk to life or freedom is clearly present.
A general risk to your life or freedom because you happen to be part of a population which is either living in a war zone, or in a failed state, or in generally miserable circumstances, should not be sufficient reason to claim asylum. That's not "persecution". That's just misfortune!
For example, during WW2, Britain was getting bombed by the Germans. There was a general risk to everyone's "life or freedom" but we were not seeking asylum anywhere (although some children were moved to rural areas and some to the Dominions)!
Given that war is, unfortunately, a character of the human condition, then living in, or escaping, a war zone should not, in itself, be evidence of "persecution"; unless we intend to give asylum to millions of people escaping war zones forevermore!
Similarly, claiming asylum because your proclivities – political, religious, sexual – may not be approved by the ruling regime, should not be sufficient evidence unless you can show that you are in clear and present danger of being killed or wrongly imprisoned because of them.
10. Do Not Participate in UN Refugee Schemes
Some people suggest that we should only take in people who have already been deemed refugees and in need of relocation worldwide, from the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR).
It might sound like a good compromise, "Oh, let's just leave it to the UN to decide".
However, a UN programme is just another Open Back Door into the UK. This is because the UN will have thousands of people in its refugee camps forevermore. There is no reason why they should be regularly uplifted from these camps and taken to the UK, any more than we should accept them because they cross the English Channel.
It might only work if Britain accepted a quota of no more than 2,000 from the UNHCR a year (as per our quota suggested above), and if we abolished entirely any form of asylum seeking into the UK via any other method.
Anyway, when the UK withdraws from the UN Refugee Convention, then this may become a moot point since the UNHCR may not co-operate with Britain on such matters at all.
PART 2: DEALING WITH THOSE WHO ARRIVE OUTSIDE OF THE ASYLUM VISA SYSTEM
In the interim, and even when the Visa Requirement is in place, we are still likely to have some who arrive in the UK via other ways, and without a Visa. There will be two categories of route: "Illegal" and "Inadmissible". Those found on the illegal routes will go to prison. Those on inadmissible routes will be deported forthwith. In general, the following will apply:
11. Illegal Route 1: No Asylum for those who Cross the English Channel in a Dinghy or any kind of sea-borne Craft
Such people will be fast-tracked to prison – or to one of our proposed Secure Detention Facilities, which will be effectively prisons, as below. At any point during their sentence, they will be able to choose to be put on the next deportation flight to their homeland.
Bio-metric details will be taken to ensure that all those who have served prison time will not be allowed back in the country legally; and if discovered illegally, they will be sent to prison again.
12. Illegal Route 2: No Asylum if you Enter the UK via the Republic of Ireland either at the land border with Northern Ireland, or across the Irish Sea. Again, fast-tracked to prison. (7)
13. Illegal Route 3: No Asylum for "Stowaways" found in, or on, any kind of moving land, water and air vehicle, including but not limited to Cars, Vans, Lorries, Aircraft, Boats and Ships. Fast-tracked to prison.
14. Illegal Behaviour: No Asylum for those who have destroyed their documents or fail to co-operate in redocumentation. No ID will mean no asylum. This will be considered an "aggravated circumstance" when combined with one of the 3 Illegal Routes. You will go to prison until you remember where you came from, and on completion of sentence you will be deported.
15. No Asylum for those who Travel through a Safe Country to Reach the UK
Asylum will be inadmissible. However, we acknowledge that there will be some who arrive at air or sea ports directly from their country. For such people, we should prohibit asylum if they flew over a safe country's airport on which they could reasonably have been expected to land, or sailed past a dock at which they could reasonably have been expected to disembark.
16. No Asylum for those whose Work, Study, Family, or Travel Visas have Expired
Asylum will be inadmissible. This was around one third of asylum claims in 2024. (8)
The Guardian reported that the 3 nationalities most likely to abuse their Work and Student Visas in this way in 2024 were Commonwealth immigrants from Nigerian, Pakistan and Sri Lanka. (9)
17. No Claims Allowed after 7 days in the UK
Asylum will be inadmissible. Some people who have entered illegally, and who have been discovered, will "claim asylum" weeks, months, or years after arriving in the country, in an attempt to regularise their status. They're hoping they can get "Refugee Status" in order to remain for another 5 years on a Refugee Visa, and then the opportunity to apply for "Indefinite Leave to Remain" (ILR), and ultimately "Citizenship". This is an abuse of the system.
Seven days is sufficient time for any person to present themselves to the authorities to lodge a claim – even if only to a police officer to ask for help.
PART 3: DEALING WITH THOSE WHOSE CLAIMS ARE BEING CONSIDERED
18. Asylum Seekers Compelled to Stay in Secure Reception Centres until their cases are settled.
In this proposal a "Secure Reception Centre" is to be distinguished from a "Secure Detention Centre". The former is for people whose claims are being considered and who do not fall foul of Points 11-14 above. The latter is for those – very likely the majority – who have been deemed illegal and who will be, effectively, imprisoned, and subject to a prison-regime.
In a way, the current, and controversial "Hotel Accommodation" option, does provide a sort of reception centre, but in a less-organised fashion.
It will be necessary to build specific Secure Reception Centres, with air-strips for ease of deportation, although under our programme, the numbers entering Secure Reception Centres will be considerably fewer than at present!
To the extent that it is possible, families should be kept together and provided with all suitable amenities, including education for children. In that regard, it may be considered more suitable for the families, or very elderly, to remain in Secure Hotels.
19. Abolish Legal Aid for all Immigration and Asylum Cases
"Immigration and Asylum Law" is now a massive, lucrative legal industry which encourages, facilitates, services, maintains and has a vested financial interest in perpetuating this endless invasion at British Taxpayers' expense! It must be defunded as per our policy here.
20. Make it Legal to Check Asylum Seeker Phones
Some asylum seekers destroy physical evidence of their passports in order to make it harder for them to be deported. This is because some countries are, understandably, reluctant to take back people without evidence that they are genuinely citizens of that country. However, some asylum seekers will take photos of their documents before destroying them.
British authorities should have the power to search such mobile phones to try to find this evidence and this should explicitly exclude any appeal based on the Data Protection Act 2018, or the "right to privacy".
21. Make it Legal to Ankle-Tag Asylum Seekers
It must be possible to Ankle-Tag any Asylum Seeker with a secure electronic tracking device.
The practice applied to asylum seekers is currently "unlawful" because the Information Commissioner's Office said, in December 2023, that the scheme "failed to assess privacy intrusions". (10)
The lawyers will scream that "it's against their human rights". However, if we frame the Small Boats crisis as an issue regarding our security and safety, then it is clearly necessary in order to protect our human rights to live in a secure and safe society protected from harm.
22. Make it Legal to Take and Store Full Bio-metric Details which will be essential in identifying them if they attempt to re-enter the country, either legally or illegally.
23. Make it Legal to Mandate Scientific Age-Testing for those whom authorities have reasonable suspicion to believe are older than they claim.
24. Self-harming, hunger striking, and violent behaviour – with or without criminal conviction – will lead to automatic disqualification from further asylum consideration; and if it has resulted in a prison sentence, then deportation will immediately follow.
25. Asylum Seekers Prohibited from Working
At present, Asylum Seekers can work after 12 months in the country – if they have been awaiting a decision for at least 12 months and the delay is not due to their own actions.
These jobs are usually restricted to jobs on the Home Office's "Immigration Salary List" – which is a list of occupations where a "reduced salary threshold" applies to Skilled Worker visa applications. That is, where "Skilled Workers" are allowed to be paid a salary which is lower than usually expected for that position. It's a way of making it easier (cheaper) for employers to hire people.
However, as a general principle, this really shouldn't be allowed. It encourages more people to seek asylum, and also undercuts native Britons in the workplace.
Under our plans, we will be speeding up the process between application and decision. Therefore, unless they have been granted Refugee Status, an Asylum Seeker should not be in the country long enough to have the chance to work.
26. Any Asylum Seekers Returning home "on Holiday" will Forfeit their Claim and be prohibited from re-entering.
27. Decisions reached within 3 Months
The time spent in these Centres will be short because the aim will be to reach a decision within 3 months. If there are far fewer Asylum Seekers being considered anyway, then this should be doable.
PART 4: THE MATTER OF "ASYLUM APPEALS"
The Appeals process keeps the system in total gridlock.
The way it works at the moment is that an Asylum Seeker can potentially have multiple appeals on different points of law. They can appeal on a particular point of law to the First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber). If that appeal is unsuccessful, they may be able to appeal to the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber). If both appeals fail, then the person can start the Appeals Process again on a completely different point of law!
This is intended to drag out their stay. It severely clogs up the courts.
We can either Abolish the Right of Appeal for Asylum Decisions, or we can Shorten the Appeals Process.
28. Abolish the Right of In-Country Appeal for Asylum Seekers
The right of in-country appeal is not required under the UN Refugee Convention but was first introduced into the UK by the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993, and is presently found in the Nationality and Immigration Act 2002, secs 82-84.
The UK could abolish the in-country right for Asylum Seekers to appeal against a refusal of an application for asylum. That's an easy way to speed up the process!
The Labour Party was making noises about abolishing the Appeals Process in 2004 but gave up on the idea.
Those who want the Appeals Process to continue will point to Article 6 of the HRA 1998 (the "Right to a Fair Trail") and they will say that an Appeals Process is necessary to ensure such a fair "trial".
To that, we can object that Article 6 says nothing about an Appeals Process. Furthermore, an asylum or immigration hearing is not a "trial", in any normal legal sense of the word.
Even without Article 6 of the HRA 1998, they would say that the right to an appeal is a traditional part of our "Common Law". That it is somehow "a fundamental part of the British legal process" and that we should not "abandon the rule of law", or "deny vulnerable people the protection of the law".
All of that may sound grand – for British Citizens! But it is far from clear why such concerns should apply to people who are not citizens!
Furthermore, some of these people will have come into the country in a manner which did not follow our normal "due process" of entry. Yet we are obliged to twist ourselves out of shape in order to follow the "due process of the law" for them? It doesn't seem right.
It is especially concerning that the Appeals Process is over-loading the system. It means that the process itself is undermining the exercise of the law in the first place.
For example, the following was published in 2001 and still nothing has been done:
My friend the asylum adjudicator has lost count of the number of claims that he has dismissed because they clearly have no merit whatever, only to discover that the claimant, several years later, turns up in front of an asylum adjudicator again, with exactly the same case, having gone around the legal appeals process only to reach the point he or she started from. That the claim has been turned down at every stage does not seem to matter at all: the claimant's lawyers – funded at every stage by Legal Aid – always seem able to find some basis on which to launch yet another appeal. (11)
If Asylum Appeals were to end then virtually nobody would be upset and most people would be very happy, except some in the mainstream media – who would seek to keep this in front of us day in and day out – and the lawyers who make millions of pounds from these endless appeals.
29. Or Shorten the Appeals Process in the Following Ways:
a) Only One Appeal to be Allowed
As above, multiple Appeals are common. In future, only one Appeal should be allowed, which could involve several points of law if the person chooses.
b) Appeal to be considered within 1 month of the initial Decision, while Asylum Seeker remains in Secure Reception
c) Ban Appeals 28 Days before Deportation
No more "last minute" Appeals.
30. Asylum Appeals should Not be Subject to Judicial Review
This is a process where the courts supervise the actions of public bodies to ensure decisions are lawful. At present, an Asylum Seeker might seek Judicial Review when there is no right of appeal, or when an appeal has been unsuccessful, and the person believes the decision was unlawful. He or she will apply to the Upper Tribunal to challenge the decision.
At present, if the Home Office certifies a case as "clearly unfounded" – which also means there is no recourse to an Appeals Process – then the person may seek Judicial Review. The person can also claim Legal Aid for Judicial Review. All that needs to end!
31. Failed Asylum Seekers to Pay the Cost of their Asylum Accommodation and Legal Process
In 2016 the Danish government introduced the "jewellery law" which allowed authorities to confiscate money and valuables from Asylum Seekers. The rationale being that this could be used to contribute towards the cost of their asylum process. However, the deterrent effect is also reported to have been considerable!
32. Detain and Fast-track Back Failed Asylum Seekers
If an applicant loses a case, he or she, and their family will be kept in Secure Reception, until deported home. This will likely involve the establishment of a government agency tasked with such removals.
33. Voluntary Assisted Return, and Involuntary Return, of Failed Asylum Seekers
If a failed Asylum Seeker agrees to leave voluntarily, then the cost of his passage will be paid by the UK Government. This is to encourage him to leave as soon as possible. Biometric details will ensure that the person will be allowed to enter the country on a work or study visa in the future, but if detected illegally, will be sent to jail.
If the failed Asylum Seeker refuses to cooperate in his removal, then the cost of the passage will be either paid for by himself, or deducted from the Foreign Aid usually spent on his origin country; and biometric details will ensure that the person will not be allowed to legally enter the country again, and if detected illegally, will be sent to jail.
PART 5: NEW STATUS CALLED "CONTINGENT REFUGEE LEAVE TO REMAIN"
Central to our proposals is the fact that Refugees are not British Citizens and therefore should not be eligible for the full range of benefits which accrue to a British Citizen. Granting official Refugees the full range of benefits enjoyed by British Citizens undermines the concept of national citizenship, even though it is currently required by Articles 23 and 24 of the UN Refugee Convention. (12)
34. New Refugee Status of "Contingent Refugee Leave to Remain"
At present, if asylum is granted, the person will be given "Refugee Status" aka "Refugee Leave to Remain" for 5 years, after which he will be allowed to apply for "Indefinite Leave to Remain" (which he will be granted) and then, if he wants, he can apply for British Citizenship after 1 year. That means that from getting off the boat at Dover and having his claim processed, a person could become a British Citizen after only 6 years legal stay!
Under our proposals, his Leave to Remain will become "contingent" on the Refugee following the terms of their "Contingent Refugee Leave to Remain" visa, which will include:
35. No "Asylum to Permanent Settlement" Pathway
The current "Asylum Seeker, to Refugee, to Indefinite Leave to Remain, to Citizen" route will be closed. It is a massive incentive to claim asylum in the first place!
Furthermore, there is no reason to give Refugees a pathway to citizenship! It is not required under the UN Refugee Convention. It should be enough that we saved them from "persecution."
If we do this, then it will deter those fraudulent asylum seekers who are only trying to find a way to permanent settlement.
Furthermore, when many realise that it is going to be difficult to lay down roots here, then some who are already here will go back and take their chances at home.
36. There shall be a Presumption that Refugee Status is Temporary
As above "Refugee Status" will no longer be a status which, effectively, leads to permanent residence.
Instead there will always be the presumption that the refugee will return when it is safe to do so. In this sense, their status should be reviewed every 3 years, with the expectation that they will return within 3 years if it is safe to do so. Only in unusual circumstances would they be allowed to remain another 3 years. In any case, ILR and Citizenship options will not be available.
37. Refugee Status Probationary upon Paying Your Own Way
It will be a term of the Contingent Refugee Visa that a Refugee will be expected to become a net contributor to the public purse. It will not be possible to become a Refugee and simply live off the benefit system. It shall be clear that Articles 23 and 24 of the UN Refugee Convention – which place Refugees on the same benefit levels as British Citizens – no longer have any standing in the UK.
38. Refugee to Repay Cost of previous Asylum Accommodation and Legal Process
This can be taken from future earnings, similar to the way the Student Loan system works.
39. Refugees Already Here will no Longer enjoy a Pathway to Permanent Settlement
Those Refugees already present when this law is enacted, and who currently enjoy "Refugee Leave to Remain" will no longer have a pathway to "Indefinite Leave to Remain" and British Citizenship. They will also find that the generous benefit system will no longer be available.
Likewise, a previous Refugee who has already been granted "Indefinite Leave to Remain" will find that they are no longer on a pathway to British Citizenship, and that their benefits system will be amended.
Refugees already here will also be required to pay a sum towards their Asylum Accommodation and the Legal Process which brought them to where they are today.
Refugees already here will be given 6-months' notice of these changes in order for them to adjust their own circumstances in plenty of time, whether that is finding employment or leaving the country.
40. Refugee Status Probationary upon Good Behaviour. Any Refugee (or Asylum Seeker, as above) who is convicted of a criminal offence, shall serve their sentence, and then be immediately deported to their country of origin, biometric details retained, and banned for life from re-entry.
41. If a Refugee commits a Serious Crime then a Civil Servant should share the Blame
The official person in the Civil Service, who signed off on the offender being allowed to stay, could be prosecuted along with the offender himself. This may or may not be workable, but it would certainly focus minds on making careful decisions!
PART 6: BORDER FORCE OPERATION
42. Deunionise "Border Force"
Border Force is part of the Civil Service and its members are civil servants. It is a law-enforcement organisation under the authority of the Home Office. It operates on the front-line of Britain's borders and it has powers of arrest. In that sense, it is a bit like the Armed Forces, and a bit like the Police, although neither of those are considered to be civil servants nor are they allowed to be unionised. Similarly, Border Force should not be subject to Union Leaders who could be expected to oppose certain political policies!
43. Build up Secure Detention Centre Capacity
It will be necessary to create these purpose-built prisons specifically for illegal migrants. The Isle of Sheppey, which already has 3 prisons, has been suggested as a possible location. It also makes sense to equip such Secure Detention Centres with air-strips for easy deportation flights. Secure Detention Centres are best built in England. If they are in Scotland or Wales, the ruling nationalists will try to exploit opposition to them for political gain.
44. Build up Border Force capacity, including fast interception craft, and whatever software, hardware and infrastructure is necessary.
45. Wilful Obstruction of a Border Force Official in the Course of Duty shall be a Criminal Offence
This is a serious crime deserving of a punishment which reflects the danger and cost to which the obstructer is subjecting the public.
REFERENCES
1. Matthew Parris, "This foolish convention on refugees must be scrapped", The Times, 29-6-02.
2. For further information on criminalisation, see Alistair McConnachie, "To Stop the Boats, Criminalise the Channel Crossers", 16-3-25.
3. This was detailed in the House of Commons, "Statement of Changes in Immigration Rules", 23-5-94 (opens as a PDF). This paragraph now appears in the "Immigration Rules" (updated 25-5-25) as Para 345D which states that if "the Secretary of State believes removal to a safe third country within a reasonable period of time is unlikely, the applicant will be admitted for consideration of the claim in the UK."
4. Alistair McConnachie, "Is the World 52 Times more Dangerous than 1979?", 10-2-24. See footnotes 3 and 4.
5. Home Office, "How many people claim asylum in the UK?", 27-2-25.
7. Alistair McConnachie, "No Asylum if you Enter UK via the Republic of Ireland", 11-4-25.
8. Ibid for statistics.
9. Rajeev Syal, "Nigerians, Pakistanis and Sri Lankans face UK student visa crackdown: Applicants will be targeted by Home Office due to suspicions they are most likely to overstay and claim asylum", The Guardian, 6-5-25.
10. Tony Fisher, "Asylum seeker demands explanation for ankle tag", BBC News, 8 April 2024.
11. Alasdair Palmer, "What Mr Isiko tells us about the asylum system", Sunday Telegraph, 18-2-01.
12. Alistair McConnachie, "End our Out-Dated, Massively Expensive, Refugee Benefit System" (10-3-25).
For more articles on immigration see our Territorial Sovereignty: Article Index
SUPPORT A FORCE FOR GOOD
If you think our comprehensive and educational research and publications, and our colourful physical activism is worth supporting, then please help us to keep up this good work!
Comments