Opinion: Can a Hardline Asylum Policy work without a Jobs Strategy?

Finito World

Shabana Mahmood’s proposed asylum reforms are a political thunderclap: tougher rules, longer waits, and a clear signal to people smugglers and prospective arrivals that the UK is not an easy destination. But beneath the headline-grabbing rhetoric lies a quieter truth: without a coherent jobs and employability strategy, no asylum overhaul can ever really work — at least not in the long-term interests of the country or the individuals it hosts.

The government’s plan to extend the time refugees must wait before applying to settle from five to twenty years is designed to make the UK a less attractive destination for irregular migration. But what does that really mean in practice? A two-decade period of uncertainty, review, and potential removal creates not just legal limbo — it actively discourages integration. The refugee becomes a temporary guest, not a future citizen. And that distinction matters enormously in how they interact with work, education, and the economy.

If you want to reduce the burden on the state — Mahmood’s stated aim — you need people to contribute. The best way to do that is through employment. Yet the proposed changes risk locking thousands of people out of meaningful, long-term jobs by design.

As it stands, only around 10% of asylum seekers have the right to work while their claims are processed. The new proposals don’t clearly expand that right — in fact, they lean in the other direction, making accommodation and financial support discretionary for those who could, but don’t, find work. But in the absence of proper access to the labour market, that expectation feels more like punishment than empowerment.

The liberal case, made again this weekend by Ed Davey, is simple: let asylum seekers work. That way, they earn money, pay taxes, reduce the state’s financial burden, and integrate better. It’s a view supported by economists, employer groups, and refugee organisations alike. It’s also a model proven to work in countries that treat asylum seekers as potential contributors, rather than permanent liabilities.

The Danish model — cited as inspiration by Mahmood — is instructive here, but also a warning. Yes, Denmark has reduced asylum claims. But it has also created a class of long-term residents who live in legal limbo, often unable to fully join the economy, participate in society, or build futures for themselves or their families. One Syrian refugee in Denmark told the BBC, “You rebuild everything while knowing it can be taken away from you at any moment.” The psychological weight of that temporariness is corrosive — and makes it harder to retain work, access training, or plan for anything beyond the short term.

There’s also a practical question for UK employers. With acute labour shortages in sectors like care, construction, and logistics, the refusal to tap into the talents of asylum seekers seems self-defeating. The Home Office’s own Migration Advisory Committee has long argued for a more flexible approach. And data shows asylum seekers often arrive with qualifications, language skills, and a willingness to take up jobs others won’t.

If the government truly wants to reduce the appeal of the UK to smugglers and opportunists, it must do more than increase the threat of removal. It must offer a credible alternative pathway — one where those who follow the rules, contribute to society, and build lives can reasonably expect some certainty in return. Mahmood hinted at that, suggesting those who take up legal routes and employment might be eligible for earlier settlement. But until that becomes a clearly defined and well-publicised policy, it remains just that — a hint.

There is no doubt the current asylum system is broken. The backlog is staggering. The costs are rising. And public confidence is low. But if the fix simply extends limbo for those with the right to remain, while denying work to those ready to contribute, we risk compounding the problem.

A modern asylum policy must be about more than deterrence. It must be about what happens next — not just for border control, but for employability, community cohesion, and economic resilience.

Because without jobs, without integration, and without hope, even the toughest immigration regime will start to buckle under its own contradictions.