A policy of mass deporting legal immigrants was once solely the preserve of fringe racist groups such as the National Front in Britain. Now it is the position not only of Nigel Farage’s Reform UK, which leads the nation’s polls, but also the Conservatives, the governing party for 14 of the past 15 years. The mainstreaming of such xenophobic radicalism does nothing for Britain’s reputation as a bastion of reliability, tolerance and decency.
Katie Lam, a former Goldman Sachs Group Inc vice president who became a member of the British Parliament for the Conservative opposition last year, caused a furor after telling the Sunday Times there were a large number of people in the country “who came here legally, but in effect shouldn’t have been able to” and that they would need to “go home.”
Lam, a shadow home office minister, said their departures would leave a “culturally coherent” group of people.
Her comments were broadly in line with Conservative policy, the Guardian reported on Wednesday last year, citing party leader Kemi Badenoch’s spokesperson.
Retroactively changing the rules on people in the UK legally undermines long-established principles of fairness and predictability, and would not be cost-free. Such caprice would send a bad signal to the high-skilled, high-value migrants that Britain still needs to attract. Combined with anti-immigrant rhetoric, it might persuade them that other destinations are a better bet. Politicians should speak on such issues carefully and with moderation.
The backdrop is a surge in small-boat arrivals across the English Channel since British Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s Labour government came to power last year, along with figures showing legal migration peaked at a yearly net influx of 906,000 under the preceding Conservative administration. This has elevated immigration to the No. 1 concern of voters, overshadowing a flatlining economy. Parties have sought to outdo each other this year in looking tough. The Conservatives in February proposed to double to 10 years the time needed to attain settled status, known in Britain as indefinite leave to remain, or ILR; Labour matched that in May; Farage now promises to scrap ILR altogether.
The rash of attention to ILR reflects a belief that too many lower-earning migrants and their dependents arrived in the wave that followed the UK’s exit from the EU, and they would become a burden on the welfare state once they are eligible for benefits (usually after five years under current rules). However, projections about the future economic contributions or costs of migrants are highly uncertain. Legal migrants are not destitute spongers; they have paid thousands of dollars in visa fees to be here. In my case, visa fees and associated costs for my spouse and one dependent have totaled about ￡15,000 (US$19,825) so far, after our decision to move from Hong Kong three years ago. ILR would cost another ￡6,000, if we are eligible to apply by then.
Imagine the reaction of migrants who, having stumped up the cash on the promise of a five-year pathway, are now being told they can double what they have already put in as part of Labour’s proposal — or, under Farage’s plan, just keep paying for visa renewals indefinitely until a Reform government deigns to grant them citizenship (if ever). On the plus side, a depleted Treasury might net an extra few billion pounds, based on the more than 1 million post-Brexit migrants who had become eligible for ILR over the coming years.
Lam’s views are not new. A video posted on the conservativehome.com Web site in July shows her pouring colored beads representing migrants into overflowing glass jars.
“Most of these people didn’t come to work and are paying no tax,” Lam says, before stating, without evidence or attribution, that if post-2021 migrants gain ILR, “it’s going to cost us hundreds of billions of pounds.”
Her Sunday Times interview helped draw attention to an immigration bill the Conservatives introduced in May, which would revoke ILR for anyone whose income falls below ￡38,700 for six months or more (that is higher than the UK median wage) — or if they or their dependents have received any form of “social protection” (including pensions, an entitlement that is earned). With the Conservatives in opposition, the bill has zero chance of becoming law — but it is draconian.
A belated backlash has arrived, including from people in Lam’s own party. With Labour compromised by having played to the same anti-immigrant gallery, it was left to Liberal Democrats leader Ed Davey to claim the moral mantle.
Such rhetoric from a member of the Conservative front bench was “deeply concerning and unpatriotic,” Davey wrote to Badenoch. “This shows just how far your party has moved away from the fundamental values of decency, tolerance and respect for the rule of law that the vast majority of people in our country hold dear.”
Lam, 34, is from a family that fled Nazi Germany for England. In her interview she described debating immigration as a teenager with her 90-year-old grandfather, whose extended family included Holocaust victims and who favored open borders. The international rules-based order was “based on the idea that everyone would want to be nice to each other postwar,” she told the Sunday Times. The reality was this was “not true” and people would exploit that generosity unless we stand up for ourselves.
Another interpretation might be that the postwar system reflected a knowledge that, once governments start to separate out certain groups of people and look at them as unworthy of the rights and protections afforded to others, it can lead quickly to a very dark place. Britain should not go there.
Matthew Brooker is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering business and infrastructure. Formerly, he was an editor for Bloomberg News and the South China Morning Post. This column reflects the personal views of the author and does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.
On Sunday, 13 new urgent care centers (UCC) officially began operations across the six special municipalities. The purpose of the centers — which are open from 8am to midnight on Sundays and national holidays — is to reduce congestion in hospital emergency rooms, especially during the nine-day Lunar New Year holiday next year. It remains to be seen how effective these centers would be. For one, it is difficult for people to judge for themselves whether their condition warrants visiting a major hospital or a UCC — long-term public education and health promotions are necessary. Second, many emergency departments acknowledge
US President Donald Trump’s seemingly throwaway “Taiwan is Taiwan” statement has been appearing in headlines all over the media. Although it appears to have been made in passing, the comment nevertheless reveals something about Trump’s views and his understanding of Taiwan’s situation. In line with the Taiwan Relations Act, the US and Taiwan enjoy unofficial, but close economic, cultural and national defense ties. They lack official diplomatic relations, but maintain a partnership based on shared democratic values and strategic alignment. Excluding China, Taiwan maintains a level of diplomatic relations, official or otherwise, with many nations worldwide. It can be said that
Victory in conflict requires mastery of two “balances”: First, the balance of power, and second, the balance of error, or making sure that you do not make the most mistakes, thus helping your enemy’s victory. The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has made a decisive and potentially fatal error by making an enemy of the Jewish Nation, centered today in the State of Israel but historically one of the great civilizations extending back at least 3,000 years. Mind you, no Israeli leader has ever publicly declared that “China is our enemy,” but on October 28, 2025, self-described Chinese People’s Armed Police (PAP) propaganda
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) made the astonishing assertion during an interview with Germany’s Deutsche Welle, published on Friday last week, that Russian President Vladimir Putin is not a dictator. She also essentially absolved Putin of blame for initiating the war in Ukraine. Commentators have since listed the reasons that Cheng’s assertion was not only absurd, but bordered on dangerous. Her claim is certainly absurd to the extent that there is no need to discuss the substance of it: It would be far more useful to assess what drove her to make the point and stick so
RSS