(MENAFN- Gulf Times) In a long-awaited white paper, Britain's Labour Party government has just proposed the most sweeping rethink of the country's asylum system in a generation. In doing so, it joins the German Christian Democrats and the European Union more broadly in embracing a new, stricter position.
Typically, attempts to deal with migration have moved through three distinct phases: denying the problem; mimicking far-right language and policies; and finally, adapting and finding ways to fight far-right forces on their own turf.
When the Labour Party elected Keir Starmer as its leader in 2020, it was stuck in the first phase. It entered the second phase this summer, when Starmer warned that Britain risked becoming an“island of strangers.” By mimicking the populist Reform UK party's language, however, Starmer was effectively saying:“Reform is right, but vote for us.”
Perhaps having recognised the error, Labour may be moving into the third phase. For example, it has begun to attack Reform's idea of abolishing migrants' indefinite leave to remain (permanent residence) as a measure that would rip apart communities by deporting people who have lived in the country for decades, raised children, and played an integral part in society and the economy. While the Labour white paper does still have a foot in phase-two thinking, the party can move fully into phase three by emulating other centre-left parties that have successfully redefined the debate on migration.
Consider Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen's approach in Denmark. The media have focused on the shock value of immigration authorities ripping jewellery away from refugees as they enter the country. But the real lesson is how Frederiksen has shifted the terms of the debate: from a contest over who can be the cruellest to migrants to a competition over who can best maintain the Danish welfare state.
Frederiksen's genius lay in decoupling the debate on migration from the debate about race. She accepted that many of the refugees fleeing to Denmark have genuine asylum claims, and that the country has a duty to help them.
But she also acknowledged that Denmark's contributory welfare state could not sustain an uncontrolled influx of people who would be unable to contribute to its upkeep for many years. Thus, her response included tightening the country's borders, providing financial aid to help refugees outside of Denmark, and doing more to integrate those already in the country.
Similarly, under Magdalena Andersson's leadership, the Swedish Social Democrats have focused on integration. Because Sweden took in the greatest number of asylum seekers per capita during the 2015 refugee crisis, its demographic makeup has changed more than that of any other European country (with the number of people with a foreign background increasing from 13% to 28% over the past 30 years). Following a surge in support for the far-right Sweden Democrats in the 2022 elections, the centre-right government has acted firmly to close the country's borders, making Sweden one of the only developed countries to experience negative net migration.
But it is the Social Democrats, now in the opposition, who have done the most to reframe the country's immigration debate. Their spokesperson on the issue, Lawen Redar, sees border control and integration as two sides of the same coin.
Every country has a right to decide who it allows in, she acknowledges; but the government also has a duty to ensure that everyone who is already in the country becomes a valued member of the community. Thus, the party's strategy amounts to“secure borders, active integration, and no racism.”
As a second-generation immigrant herself (with an Iranian-Kurdish mother and an Iraqi-Kurdish father), Redar has launched a movement to end the problem of“parallel societies,” ghettos of migrants who are excluded from the labour market and thus susceptible to criminality and poverty. Her solution is to make the Swedish language compulsory, to empower the state to decide where new immigrants live, and to reorient the education system toward making people feel Swedish“in their hearts” rather than just on paper.
It is clear in her language how much Redar loves Sweden. By developing an inclusive patriotism, she has been able to reclaim the flag from the Sweden Democrats, who, like many far-right parties (and US Vice-President J D Vance), define national identity strictly in blood-and-soil terms.
Back in Britain, the Starmer government seems to have determined, correctly, that voters will not care about any of its other policies unless it can show that it is serious about securing the borders and stopping the arrival of small boats on its shores. But unless it anchors its response in a broader, authentic centre-left strategy, its policies will look merely opportunistic.
To be convincing, Starmer needs to combine his tough approach to borders with three other pillars. First, he can point out that border security requires international co-operation, not the isolationism that Reform advocates. That means working with the French to stop small boats, and using aid as a tool to facilitate returns when appropriate (a goal undercut by the government's decision to slash development spending).
Second, Labour should stress that patriotism isn't about ethnic purity, but integration. That is how you instil a sense of pride in all the country's inhabitants. This could mean finding ways to celebrate the national story; developing policies on language, housing, and education; and creating a path to citizenship for the 35% of National Health Service doctors and 25% of care workers who have a non-British nationality.
Third, Labour's immigration policy should help build an economy that works for its own workers. There must be legal pathways to migration for skilled workers like doctors, care workers, and computer engineers. But these must be coupled with labour-market protections, a minimum wage to ensure that new migration doesn't drive down working-class earnings, and education and apprenticeships to give indigenous Britons the chance to fill already available jobs. Reform's agenda offers none of this.
The asylum debate should be seen not as a necessary evil, but as a political opportunity for a government, like Starmer's, that is seeking direction. If done right, the issue offers a chance to go on the offensive and challenge Reform on its own turf. But doing it right requires the government to ensure that its newfound toughness serves a broader, authentically progressive agenda. - Project Syndicate

• Mark Leonard, Director of the European Council on Foreign Relations, is the author of The Age of Unpeace: How Connectivity Causes Conflict.

MENAFN23112025000067011011ID1110386407