The Hostile Environment in the UK: Failures of the Asylum System

Nathan is a recent graduate from the University of Glasgow in Scots Law and Politics. He writes about the varied manifestations of the hostile environment in the UK, the failures within the asylum application process that make gaining refugee status in the UK so difficult in the first place, and the positive side of immigration that must be conveyed.

---

Since the development of regulations for migration and humanitarian support during and after colonial rule, the UK’s migration policy has been inextricably linked with racism and the politics of prejudice. Regulatory developments, from the British Nationality Act 1981 – which created tiers of citizenship depending on whether you are located on the British isles or in colonies – to the restriction and frustration of asylum appeals under the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 and the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants etc.) Act 2004, and the imposition of financial thresholds and restrictions on dependents (mostly children under 18 and those who rely on you financially) under new Immigration Rules in 2012, have increasingly shaped access to citizenship and asylum. More recently, racism and prejudice is seen with the effective criminalisation of seeking asylum via ‘irregular’ routes under the Nationality and Borders Act 2022, while the Restoring Order and Control White Paper (a government document setting out a proposal for future legal changes) published in May 2025 ushered in suspensions on family reunification routes and on permanent refugee status.

Brexit, foreign policy and colonial rule has made it possible to draw a very distinct timeline of demonisation and oppression of migrants and racialised minorities throughout British history. This can be traced through the construction of race and hostility between 1792 and the present day, particularly after the end of colonial rule (whenever we determine that to be, since there is much debate about when (and if) it has stopped). It should also be noted that 1792 is the year the Home Office was created. For the author of this blog,  it is wholly arguable that the primary  premise of this government department’s establishment has been to prevent deemed ‘undesirables’ coming to the UK, with race being the first determinative factor. Indeed, most of what this post discusses shows discrimination oriented on race.

It can also be traced through the cohort of 50,000 Caribbean migrants dubbed the Windrush generation, who faced injustices through government policy after arriving between 1948 and 1971. For a period of three decades between the 50s and 80s, reports have shown that every piece of immigration and citizenship legislation has been designed to reduce the number of persons of colour. The Windrush generation is the epitome of that treatment. 

Other examples of racialised migration policies and government communications include:

• the political campaigns telling undocumented immigrants to go home in 2013, and the Breaking point poster in 2016.

• Now, we also see the regular otherising of migrants of all statuses through a common belief that they are not British enough, for instance, to stand for election (unless you are Boris Johnson and migrate from the US to become prime minister, instead of being a refugee from Somalia, an active community figure, and council leader who stands to be a London MP. In that case, far-right (unelected) agitators will insinuate an invasion or takeover).

This timeline shows a strong acceleration of racialised migration policy in the last 20 years, and there have been many cases of prejudicial and harrowing treatment of people migrating to the UK in the broadest sense. This piece will seek to highlight the realities of more than a decade of hostile policy faced by those seeking asylum as a matter of human right, whilst also spotlighting some of the positive contributions that migrants of all backgrounds, make to communities and states. 

Policing Migration at Community Level

Before exploring the policing of migration in airports, student visas and housing, it is easiest to start with defining the hostile environment and how it applies to everyday life. Within the last 25 years, government policy surrounding immigrants, especially refugees, has been characterised by the hostile environment, first explicitly coined and acknowledged by Theresa May in 2012 via amendments to the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. It was characterised by depriving access to public services and assistance and making untrained professionals legally responsible for reviewing immigration status. With very sinister racial undertones, this was an explicit attempt to discourage and demonise refugees and migrants. This integration of everyday border enforcement is racist, prejudicial and costly for all those engaging with it. 

It is most suitable to start with the point of entry, where airlines can be charged up to £2,000 for boarding passengers without valid citizenship or travel status. The obvious result: do not take the chance; be strict and turn anyone deemed a risk away. When we remember that regular and legal routes into the UK are (almost fully) closed, that displaced persons may not be able to collect travel documents when fleeing from disaster and tragedy, or when they are destroyed or confiscated, and that many do not speak English (despite the best attempts of colonialism), we can see that prejudice and deterrence are inevitable outcomes. And once that happens: an all but inevitable return to either their home country or a random one, where they risk experiencing the very things that led to their displacement. All the while, the state wipes its hands clean.

For those able to enter (mostly for education and work, contrary to popular belief), universities and other academic institutions are equally restrictive in their handling of international students. Many international students are ineligible for student fee contributions and often need to go through more onerous and flawed processes. Some cases have seen revoked sponsorships due to issues with these processes, something only recently found unlawful in the High Court in Birmingham, despite revoking sponsorships for issues beyond their control being a practice since tuition fees became payable by students in 1998. 

However, the government has recently decided that we need to make the experience of international students even harder. A visa brake has been applied by the current Labour government to four countries. The Labour government, under former Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer, implemented a visa brake in March 2026 that ended study visas for students from Afghanistan, Cameroon, Myanmar and Sudan. The irony of these countries being selected despite the UK recognising and providing aid for humanitarian crises in those countries  shouldn’t be lost on anyone. This was justified as a measure to mitigate widespread visa ‘abuse’ and attempts to claim refugee status upon completing their studies, despite the fact that the asylum refusal rate for these four countries ranges from 10-15%. Further, despite a legal challenge by four students in the High Court in London, the court found that the justification was rational. These two examples demonstrate a disproportionately harsh (and dangerous) treatment of many international students that is both unwarranted and counterproductive. It also demonstrates that the derogation from the protected right of claiming asylum has retained institutional recognition. Denying students access to education because of administrative issues and prejudicial stereotypes is contrary to everything that a democratic country should aspire towards. Apparently, using international students for their cash and incredible stories, then banishing them when they exercise autonomy and their human right to claim asylum, is considered acceptable by many.

One pertinent problem in the UK is housing. There isn’t enough of it, and housing  that is available is expensive and not very good. Landlords providing residential tenancies are required to check that persons intending to rent have the right to do so. This has led to both greater delay and racial discrimination as landlords would rather prioritise convenience over ensuring equality. Research has shown that nearly a quarter of surveyed landlords have felt unable to rent to non-UK passport holders due to penalties and the process being too complicated. This invites two questions. First, if over a quarter feel unable, how many feel deterred, reluctant, or unwilling? How many would just pick the white or British citizen because it is less work? Second, if the landlords find checks too difficult, what are we expecting those affected to do? If those providing rental properties struggle, what about those with limited English proficiency? Or those with limited education as it was denied in their home country? Or those who are older and cannot use technology? Or those who cannot afford legal assistance? This should be a matter of grave concern, but the UK government is more than happy to continue the policy.

And the result of this is both shocking and not surprising. Nearly 9 in 10 asylum seekers, stateless persons, and victims of modern day slavery, report no response to the online checks required for them to rent, meaning they cannot access the property. Nearly half of landlords are not even aware of their obligations or the relevant codes of practice, leading to obvious risks of discrimination and prejudice. And ethnic minorities and migrants take twice as long to find a home to rent. If you needed any more evidence that UK policy is centred around racism and hostility towards migrants, there you go. A legal challenge was lodged in England, and the legality of this policy was upheld on appeal. In blunt terms, the otherising of racial minorities has become judicially acceptable, even when it concerns the right to shelter. It is important to note that this policy only applies in England.

These institutional manifestations of the hostile environment are indicative of a systemic dehumanisation of those simply seeking protection and prosperity. We are failing to ensure that access to the basics, education and housing, is free from overt and unchecked discrimination. Rather disturbingly, we have moved from the needless and harmful as described above, to the deliberate and dangerous. In recent years, under iterations of both the previous Conservative government and current Labour government, cruel and abhorrent treatment of refugees and asylum seekers became normalised and more common, most strikingly from the state.

State Treatments of Persons Seeking Asylum

I have already touched on the issues of housing for people who have refugee, settled or citizenship status. For people who are still going/to go through the asylum system, the UK government were found to breach equality duties when they attempted to house asylum seekers who were victims of torture and human trafficking in substandard and crowded accommodation without consultation. Despite many misconceptions of asylum seekers living in luxury hotels, the starker reality of poor hygiene, food provision, dietary accommodation and financial support have led to situations where accommodation has been found to be inhabitable, or indeed a cause of death. The UK, whose economy is strong, is finding the task of preventing death and degrading treatment to those in the most difficult positions an impossible task. Are we, as a society, more content with damp, mold and overcrowding when people do not have a British passport or the ability to complain directly to a private landlord to uphold their fundamental rights to safe housing?

As an additional layer, state maltreatment is also found within sponsorship and asylum applications. A culture of disbelief and dismissal despite very little evidence is commonplace, often leading to rejections of family visits and significant extra work to guarantee basic contact. Relating to asylum applications, children are entitled to greater protections, and entitlement is determined by the immigration agent reviewing the case. A court, after judicial review, found that there was no requirement to clarify guidance around judging the age of those stating they are children to avoid potential discrimination or misapplication. This is despite the fact that, in 2022, nearly 900 children were wrongly treated as adults, placing them at significant risk of being denied access to basic protections and education. If we had 1000 British children treated as adults after conviction and sent to prison, there would be unrest. 

While the report recognises that many affected minors do not have documents as they are destroyed or stolen, the report indicates that poor record keeping and ‘perfunctory’ visual assessments are making the problem worse. It is also worth considering that local authorities are twice as likely to deem young arrivals as children than border forces. Take from that what you will. 

Worryingly, this is only set to get worse as AI is rolled out to estimate the age of asylum seekers from next year. This has caused rightful concern about more children being wrongly treated as adults, principally due to preexistent biases in AI. Further reporting has found the software to be overestimating the age of teenagers, particularly young women, and significantly higher error rates among Sub-Saharan Africans.

The mistreatment of children and adults occurs before the application stage, and continues throughout the process. The asylum application interview acts to ascertain the risk relied upon in the application, and establish the merits of granting refugee status. Funding cuts to civil legal aid, particularly within immigration cases, mean that translators and legal representation cannot always be provided, forcing people to navigate an unknown system alone and in another language. 

A recent report from the UNHCR in March has documented significant issues within the asylum application and interview process as a result. They have found that nearly half of all refusals reviewed in 2025 by the tribunal were overturned, and that many of these were due to insufficiencies in obtaining information and translating the information provided. Moreover, just over half of all decisions reached mandated quality standards. There is constant and rightful outrage about decision making in the DWP, but no coverage for failings in the asylum process. For context, the report, which shows failings in the DWP, has the failure rate at three times lower than that of the asylum application system. 

Relating to the interview, a third of all interviews failed to ascertain the full basis of the claim, and half failed to ascertain even the material elements. How can you engage in lengthy interviews with such a power imbalance and still not even get the basic details? No wonder there are complaints of unfair process and undeserved denial of protection.

And when they do get to the crux of the claim, there is also a failure or mishandling of probing material facts. This can, of course, both retraumatise and leave the applicant at a disadvantage, especially unaccompanied minors. Despite the guidance provided to offer people the chance to tell their story, delayed start times and improper practices meant answers were kept brief with no opportunity for detailed responses to be given. This often resulted in many applications being rejected for reasons of the very lack of detail they were not given the opportunity to provide. When reading the report, it is rather astonishing that these facts were established despite interviews consisting of nearly 100 questions on average.

The culture of disbelief created by ‘quizzing’ applicants probably helps to explain a lot. In many interviews observed, the nationality of the applicant and their understanding of national context is tested, and this is not required in the guidance. Examples from the report saw a Gazan applicant asked 34 questions about Palestine, and the substantive merits of the claim were only considered after 90 questions. The culture of disbelief and hostility is most explicitly exemplified by over a third of applications being rejected due to credibility concerns that applicants could not respond to.  This demonstrates that the application proposal is adversarial, insufficient and hostile towards those engaging with it, and is unproductive since nearly 40% are granted at first instance and two-thirds at reconsideration or appeal.

One must also remember that this is compounded as interviews are often conducted via translator. Translators are often not trained for the interview context and are not necessarily socially and culturally educated, meaning that nuances and descriptions of domestic contexts are not conveyed. In other cases, interpreters are provided in a different language, caseworkers have no training on handling apparent inconsistencies, and members are unable to balance the need for impartiality with the recommendation to establish trust. This is mostly caused by suboptimal funding and performance return. These factors make the effective and sensitive consideration of applications the last priority, and risk retraumatisation and the denial of deserved protection. But as I have posited, all the funding and help in the world cannot fix a hostile and disbelieving culture that takes establishing credibility and trust as a starting point, rather than hearing and acting on the story the individual has to share. It needs a radical reimagination based on compassion and rights.

The Good, Bad and Ugly of Public Treatment of Refugees

This post induced a heavy dose of sorrow and reflection for the author. It shows that racism and hostility towards migrants have become rampant and normalised . I feel that more awareness needs to be raised about the avoidable deaths caused by precarious and forced small boat crossings, the immediate and long-lasting effects of violent riots in Ballymena, the disorderly marches and hostility in Liverpool, or the disorder in Glasgow. Each of these stories carries a highly personal cost. Houses and leisure centres housing refugees, people of colour and children were set on fire. British citizens were rounded up and assaulted. Hotels housing asylum seekers had windows smashed and fires set. This is the lived experience of people in some of the most vulnerable and attacked positions in society. We have descended into a period of emboldened racism that mirrors the rhetoric of the Nazis. Racism is so emboldened that volunteers preventing families from drowning have been harassed, and lifeguards escorting asylum seekers to the UK having their boats slashed with knives.

However, we have a twofold duty to voice these tragic incidents and make a positive difference. There are many organisations who form the humane and compassionate side of debates around migration.  While many see the immediate appeal of the economic argument, we need to first acknowledge that seeking asylum is a human right, and in using our platform to amplify the voices, lived experiences, creations, and talents of people who have crossed borders, who make our country a better place.. Many inspirational people in the UK  are or descend from migrants and refugees, including K’Naan (Somalia), Freddie Mercury (Zanzibar), Rita Ora (Kosovo), Bob Marley (USA), Peter Faberge (Russia), and Mo Farah (Djibouti). At the community level, Oksana migrated from Ukraine and now works in the council helping to support Ukrainians displaced by the conflict. Paria has designed sustainable menswear, inspired by her Persian culture, which has been recognised across the UK. And Kian has opened renowned restaurants in Soho which display the best in Iranian cuisine. 

I wish to close this piece by emphasising one valuable point that I made and is often missed. These stories of extraordinary resilience are much stronger than hate and show what communities and people of all origins are capable of. But this does not absolve our obligation to help anyone in need. Our privilege and responsibility to help anyone in need, regardless of origin or perceived value, must be imperative. People are more than an economic commodity. The British, despite its very troubling history, has a lot to offer what is a relatively small share of the most vulnerable and resilient persons in the world. Protecting the right of all people should be a basic want in society. We are all human, and we must always remember that if we are going to live in true solidarity.