The first steps towards the UK’s new asylum regime have now been taken. The Immigration Rules have been changed so that if you apply for asylum now and, after the Home Office has considered your application, you are recognised as a refugee, your protection will last only 30 months, after which you will have to apply to renew it. If at that point the Home Office decides that your country is safe for you to go back to, you will be sent back there.[1] If the Home Office decides that your country is still unsafe, your temporary leave will be extended for another 30 months, but you won’t be able to apply for Indefinite Leave to Remain (ILR) until you’ve been here for 10 years (previously it was five years). Under this scheme, you can apply to renew your 30-month visa four times, at a cost of £3,908.50 each time.[2] However, if you have been receiving benefits (including while in work) for up to 12 months you will have to wait 15 years before you can apply for ILR; if you have been receiving benefits for more than 12 months you will have to wait 20 years before applying for ILR.[3] Incidentally, if you are eligible to apply for ILR, the sooner you do it the better – from 8 April, the cost of an application will rise to £2,064, from the previous £1,938.^[4] Maintaining the Home Office’s capacity to invent money-making schemes has been a consistent element in asylum policy for several decades.

Critics have expressed their concerns about these changes. UNHCR commented on the original proposal to make protection temporary:

Providing refugees with only 30 months of leave at a time is likely to be detrimental to
refugees’ sense of security, belonging and stability, factors critical to positive engagement and participation in society.  Status of such a temporary nature may impact on a person’s ability to find housing, seek employment, learn English and develop skills,  and  risks undermining the Government’s intention to enhance refugees’ ability to contribute to their new communities.[5]

Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, gave this warning:

The rules announced today will create prolonged uncertainty for people who want to live free from danger and have been recognised by the government as needing protection. The changes stand in tension with article 34 of the refugee convention, under which the UK has agreed to facilitate as far as possible the assimilation and naturalisation of refugees.[6]

Sophie McCann of Médecins sans Frontières, said:

Embedding prolonged uncertainty and fear within the asylum system will create further psychological harm and inhibit refugees’ – including our patients’ – ability to heal from their experiences and rebuild their lives with dignity.[7]

Nothing new under the sun?[8]

In one sense, these changes, and the rhetoric behind them, are part of a long-standing, and increasing, unwillingness of UK governments to accept refugees. In 1995, Tory Home Secretary Michael Howard declared that asylum applications were rising in the UK and falling in the rest of Europe because the UK gave easy access to jobs and benefits, claiming that “only a tiny proportion of them are genuine refugees”. Social Security Secretary Peter Lilley claimed that “genuine political refugees are few” and that Britain was “a soft touch”.[9] In 2002, Labour Home Secretary David Blunkett suggested that asylum-seeking children should be educated separately from other pupils so that they weren’t “swamping the local school”. Labour MP Diane Abbott responded, “For goodness’ sake, we’re talking about children here, not raw sewage!”[10] In 2003, Prime Minister Tony Blair’s chief of staff Jonathan Powell proposed withdrawing from Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) – which prohibits torture and inhuman or degrading treatment – so that more asylum seekers could then be deported back to their home countries.[11] Blair scribbled in the margin of one document that raised doubts about the legality of such a policy: “Just return them. This is precisely the point. We must not allow the ECHR to stop us dealing with it.”[12] Lord Irvine, the Lord Chancellor, gave such proposals short shrift, telling Blair and Home Secretary David Blunkett, with much irony, “I don’t know why you guys don’t just adopt the Zimbabwean constitution and have done with it.” Finally, the Attorney-General, Lord Goldsmith, told them that any attempt by the UK to avoid its responsibilities under the European Convention would put the UK in breach of its EU membership obligations.[13] The policy was not adopted. The current Labour government is lobbying in the European Commission for changes in the ECHR, but has not so far tampered with it. Indeed, in its Explanatory Memorandum justifying Mahmood’s new asylum policy, the Home Office carefully explains that the new regime “aims to provide entitlements for refugees that are entirely in accordance with our international obligations but do not exceed them” (my italics).[14] But the unashamed cruelty of Mahmood’s policies, and the deep hostility to asylum seekers she openly displays in her rhetoric, are unprecedented. We would be foolish to imagine that ECHR safeguards are safe in this government’s hands.

Visa brake

The government is refusing all study visas for people from Afghanistan, Myanmar, Sudan and Cameroon. It will also deny Afghans another visa: “Additionally,” says Mahmood, “we will refuse Skilled Worker visa applications from main applicants who are nationals of Afghanistan.”^[15] The visa brake “will come into effect from 26 March but will not affect applications made before 26 March” – which is one bit of good news at least. Mahmood claims that the visa brake is “not intended to be permanent and will be regularly reviewed, with the aim that it can be released as soon as it is considered appropriate to do so”. We probably shouldn’t expect that promise to be fulfilled any time soon.

 So what is the reason for applying the “visa brake”? It’s the usual one: asylum seekers are “taking advantage” of us. The Home Office says that high numbers of asylum claims are made by people from these countries after they have finished their study periods in the UK – and the Home Office sees this as abuse: “The government is clamping down on visa abuse so the UK can maintain its ability and proud tradition of helping those genuinely in need.” Mahmood, in typically strident mode, said she was “taking the unprecedented decision to refuse visas for those nationals seeking to exploit our generosity. I will restore order and control to our borders.”[16] There is, however, conflict, war and human rights abuse in all four of these countries: the Taliban are still the government in Afghanistan and the security situation is volatile. Moreover there have been increased tensions between Afghanistan and Pakistan, with violent clashes on the border. In Sudan there has been civil war since 2023, during which millions have fled their homes. The United Nations (UN) has called this the world’s largest humanitarian crisis. There is unrest in Cameroon, where militia are fighting for the independence of the country’s two English-speaking regions in what is mainly a French-speaking nation. There has been civil war in Myanmar since 2021, following a military coup.[17]

So “abuse” and “exploit” may not be the most appropriate words to describe the actions of students and skilled workers from those countries who need safe routes to protection. (You will notice there is no question of the government listening to their asylum claims, which is an obligation under the Refugee Convention. There is just a total ban on the visas. And if anyone from these four countries, in desperation, dares to arrive in a small boat, don’t worry – we’ve already declared that to be “illegal”.[18])

Nevertheless, there is a chance that the visa brake will put the Home Office in more trouble than it expected. Five students from Sudan and one from Afghanistan, with undergraduate degrees in medicine and other science-based subjects, have written an open letter to the Home Secretary saying that the decision to deny visas to students from only four countries is not only unlawful and irrational but also a violation of their human rights. They have launched legal action against the government.[19] Maybe others will join them. It is always possible to resist.

---

[1] For the notorious, and disastrous, record of governments in assessing whether a country is “safe”, see Mouncer, Bob (2009), Dealt with on their Merits? The Treatment of Asylum Seekers in the UK and France, University of Hull, Kingston-upon-Hull, paras 6.5.3-6.5.9: https://acrobat.adobe.com/id/urn:aaid:sc:EU:ecdd073f-c9b1-4905-859b-33bd62c23f47 For more recent inspections of the Home Office’s use of country reports, see An Inspection of the Production and use of Country of Origin Information, Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration, Chapter 6, January 2018: An_inspection_of_the_production_and_use_of_Country_of_Origin_Information.pdf

[2] “UK migrant families face giving up vital in-work benefits to avoid being ‘punished’, The Guardian, 20/2/2026: UK migrant families face giving up vital in-work benefits to avoid being ‘punished’ | Benefits | The Guardian

[3] “Some migrants to face 20 year wait for settled status”, BBC News, Some migrants to face 20-year wait for settled status – BBC News

[4] “Emergency Brake” Visa Pushback, Key Asylum Changes and More – UK March 2026 Updates, Immigration Advice Service: Emergency Visa Brakes, Asylum and More – March 2026 Updates

[5] UNHCR Observations on UK Asylum Statement “Restoring Order and Control”, UNHCR, 31 December 2025, para 5.9:   UNHCR Observations On UK Asylum Statement ‘Restoring Order and Control’ | UNHCR UK

[6]  Article 34 reads: “The contracting states shall as far as possible facilitate the assimilation and naturalisation of refugees. They shall in particular make every effort to expedite naturalisation proceedings and to reduce as far as possible the charges and costs of such proceedings.”

(“Mahmood’s move to make asylum temporary ‘may undermine refugee convention’”, The Guardian, 2 March 2026: Mahmood’s move to make asylum temporary ‘may undermine refugee convention’ | Refugees | The Guardian)

[7] “Mahmood’s move to make asylum temporary ‘may undermine refugee convention’”, The Guardian, 2 March 2026: Mahmood’s move to make asylum temporary ‘may undermine refugee convention’ | Refugees | The Guardian

[8] The biblical book of Ecclesiastes, chapter 1, verse 9: “What has been is what will be, and what has been done is what will be done; and there is nothing new under the sun.”

[9] Mouncer, Bob (2009). Dealt with on their Merits? The Treatment of Asylum Seekers in the UK and France, University of Hull, Kingston-upon-Hull, pp. 96-97: https://acrobat.adobe.com/id/urn:aaid:sc:EU:ecdd073f-c9b1-4905-859b-33bd62c23f47

[10] “Row erupts over Blunkett’s ‘swamped’ comment”, The Guardian, 24 April 2002: Row erupts over Blunkett’s ‘swamped’ comment | Politics | The Guardian

[11] Nicholas Watt & Patrick Wintour, “How immigration came to haunt Labour: the inside story”, The Guardian, 24 March 2015: How immigration came to haunt Labour: the inside story | Immigration and asylum | The Guardian

[12] “Tony Blair considered sending asylum seekers to a camp on the Isle of Mull, documents reveal”, the Independent, 29 December 2023:  Tony Blair considered sending asylum seekers to a camp on the Isle of Mull, documents reveal | The Independent

[13] Nicholas Watt & Patrick Wintour, “How immigration came to haunt Labour: the inside story”, The Guardian, 24 March 2015: How immigration came to haunt Labour: the inside story | Immigration and asylum | The Guardian

[14] Explanatory memorandum to the statement of changes in the Immigration Rules, section 2.25, para. 5.7: Explanatory memorandum to the statement of changes in the Immigration Rules: HC 1691, 5 March 2026 (accessible) – GOV.UK

[15]Explanatory memorandum to the statement of changes in the Immigration Rules, section 2.25, para. 5.3: Explanatory memorandum to the statement of changes in the Immigration Rules: HC 1691, 5 March 2026 (accessible) – GOV.UK

[16]“Mahmood to stop study visas from four countries due to ‘abuse’” BBC News, 3 March 2026: Mahmood to stop study visas from four countries due to ‘abuse’ – BBC News

[17] “Mahmood to stop study visas from four countries due to ‘abuse’”, BBC News, 3 March 2026: Mahmood to stop study visas from four countries due to ‘abuse’ – BBC News

[18] See my earlier blog, New and Old Hostilities: New and old hostilities « Bob Mouncer’s blog

[19] “Six students challenge Home Office visa ban on four countries”, The Guardian, 23/3/2026: Six students challenge Home Office visa ban on four countries | Immigration and asylum | The Guardian