{"id":339,"date":"2026-03-06T12:16:35","date_gmt":"2026-03-06T12:16:35","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blogs.sussex.ac.uk\/sussex-centre-for-migration-research\/?p=339"},"modified":"2026-03-06T12:56:05","modified_gmt":"2026-03-06T12:56:05","slug":"damned-if-you-do","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.sussex.ac.uk\/sussex-centre-for-migration-research\/2026\/03\/06\/damned-if-you-do\/","title":{"rendered":"Damned if you do, damned if you boat"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Dr Ceri Oeppen, Co-Director of SCMR<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Two days ago, the British Government announced it would halt student visas for nationals of Afghanistan, Cameroon, Myanmar and Sudan (and for Afghans, skilled work visas too). <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Government claims that students from these countries are conducting \u201cvisa abuse\u201d by arriving in the UK on a student visa and subsequently applying for asylum.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"
Mahmood delivering a speech at the Institute for Public Policy Research in Westminster on Thursday. Photograph: Stefan Rousseau\/PA<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

We need to unpick statements from the Government\u2019s announcement<\/a>, illustrating why it\u2019s hypocritical, unfair, and misleading.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The government\u2019s announcement<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

\u201cTough action is required as asylum claims from legal routes have more than trebled since 2021\u201d<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Both the current Labour Government and previous Conservative Governments have repeatedly (in speech and practice) penalised asylum seekers for arriving via so-called \u2018illegal routes\u2019, notably via the \u2018Stop the Boats\u2019 discourse.\u00a0 Meanwhile, the UK Government\u2019s current asylum and returns policy describes safe and legal routes as, \u201cthe right way <\/em>for refugees to enter the UK and benefit from our protection\u201d (Home Office, 2025<\/a>).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Given their wish to prevent people claiming asylum via \u2018illegal\u2019 routes, if three times more people are claiming asylum after arriving through legal routes, shouldn\u2019t they see this as a win? <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Student visas are one of the few \u2018safe and legal\u2019 routes available for people from countries affected by conflict.  Whilst a student visa is clearly not designed as a protection mechanism, UNHCR<\/a> has identified it as an important complementary pathway to protection, a \u2018win-win for refugees and host communities\u2019, encouraged by the 2018 Global Compact on Refugees.  Fellow SCMR Co-Director Tahir Zaman, and I, wrote more about this for IOM\u2019s journal, Migration Policy Practice<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

More importantly, for an individual fleeing conflict and persecution, a student visa is one of a vanishingly small number of ways to travel to the UK in a regular, safe, manner; without putting themselves in danger crossing the Channel in a small boat (see also, Naimat Zafary\u2019s recent SCMR blog<\/a> about desperate journeys from Afghanistan). <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cBritain will always provide refuge to people fleeing war and persecution, but our visa system must not be abused\u201d   <\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

UK asylum grant rates for Afghan nationals have fallen from 99% to 38%<\/a> between 2023 to 2025.  This is not because the situation in Afghanistan has improved.  Indeed, for the kind of young people who might be interested in studying abroad \u2013 particularly women<\/a> \u2013 it has got worse.  For anyone familiar with the situation in Afghanistan it\u2019s not at all surprising that most Afghan students in the UK find the idea of returning to Afghanistan a dangerous prospect; and with limited other options (including shorter graduate visas), decide to seek asylum.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

It is not \u2018abusing the system\u2019 to apply for asylum after you arrive in the UK \u2013 it is a human right, protected by international law.  A right with the very peculiar requirement that you must be physically present in the country where you wish to seek asylum.  It\u2019s clearly better for everyone if you arrive in a safe and legal manner, on a visa.      <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cThe Government has also pledged to open new capped safe and legal routes as an alternative to dangerous small boat crossings\u201d<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

The Government has done this but, in Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood\u2019s own words to parliament<\/a>, \u201cthe numbers [arriving via these routes] will be in the low hundreds\u201d.  Clearly this does not even begin to address the needs. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

These aren\u2019t the only numbers I have issue with in the Government\u2019s announcement.\u00a0 They make \u2018interesting\u2019, and varied use of either percentages or whole numbers, in their statement, according \u2013 I assume \u2013 to the message they want to convey.\u00a0 For example, in the opening they say, \u201cAsylum applications by students from Afghanistan, Cameroon, Myanmar and Sudan rocketed by over 470% between 2021 and 2025\u201d.\u00a0 This emotive language \u2013 \u2018rocketed\u2019, \u2018470%\u2019 \u2013 doesn\u2019t tell us how<\/em> many<\/em> students from these countries applied for asylum.\u00a0 Even Colin Yeo <\/a>\u2013 a leading immigration barrister and founder of the Free Movement<\/a>\u00a0immigration law website \u2013 couldn\u2019t fully work out exactly what this 470% increase represents in total numbers, although he points out that in 2025, 227 Afghan student visas were issued, so even if most subsequently apply for asylum, we are not talking huge total numbers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

There\u2019s more to say on how the announcement uses numbers to convey their message, e.g. \u201casylum support \u2026 costing more than \u00a34 billion a year\u201d; \u201csupported at public expense, including over 6,000 in hotels\u201d, but I\u2019ll leave that for another time.  Suffice to say, the cost of the asylum system, and the misuse of hotels as temporary accommodation is certainly not the fault of asylum seekers, however they arrived!<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What next?           <\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

This is the first time the UK government has issued a blanket ban on visas for specific nationalities.  This is an extremely concerning development, one which paves the way for further use of (actual and threatened) visa bans<\/a> for countries that do not cooperate with the Government on \u2013 for example \u2013 return agreements.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It\u2019s also a further blow to UK universities who have already seen massive drops in international student numbers due to increasing financial maintenance requirements, changes to graduate routes, restrictions on dependent visas, and threatened caps on numbers of visas for students from certain countries (e.g. Pakistan, Nigeria, Sri Lanka).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Most significantly, the hypocrisy of stopping people from conflict-torn countries obtaining visas to travel through \u2018safe and legal routes\u2019, whilst also heavily penalising those who arrive via so-called \u2018illegal means\u2019, is appalling. Earlier this year, I wrote about <\/a>how migrants\u2019 manner of arrival is becoming a (racialised) proxy for \u2018good\u2019 and \u2018bad\u2019 immigrants .  But this latest announcement makes it clear that even those arriving via \u2018safe and legal routes\u2019 are apparently unwanted too.  Whilst officially the language and slogans of the \u2018hostile environment\u2019 and \u2018stop the boats\u2019 may have been dropped by Labour, it is clear that the spirit of hostility, and the Kafkaesque array of obstacles put in the way of those seeking safety, continues apace.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Dr Ceri Oeppen, Co-Director of SCMR Two days ago, the British Government announced it would halt student visas for nationals of Afghanistan, Cameroon, Myanmar and Sudan (and for Afghans, skilled work visas too).  The Government claims that students from these…<\/span><\/p>\n

Read more ›<\/a><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":24,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[5449],"tags":[222595,255794],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.sussex.ac.uk\/sussex-centre-for-migration-research\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/339"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.sussex.ac.uk\/sussex-centre-for-migration-research\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.sussex.ac.uk\/sussex-centre-for-migration-research\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.sussex.ac.uk\/sussex-centre-for-migration-research\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/24"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.sussex.ac.uk\/sussex-centre-for-migration-research\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=339"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.sussex.ac.uk\/sussex-centre-for-migration-research\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/339\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":344,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.sussex.ac.uk\/sussex-centre-for-migration-research\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/339\/revisions\/344"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.sussex.ac.uk\/sussex-centre-for-migration-research\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=339"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.sussex.ac.uk\/sussex-centre-for-migration-research\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=339"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.sussex.ac.uk\/sussex-centre-for-migration-research\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=339"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}