Independent readers are sceptical of Shabana Mahmood’s vow to suspend visas for countries that refuse to take back failed asylum seekers, with many warning the policy risks backfiring and harming the UK more than its targets.
Several noted that small boat arrivals are a fraction of overall migration, with legal visas driving far higher numbers.
Many highlighted the contradiction of targeting countries like India, Pakistan and Bangladesh, which supply essential NHS staff, warning that restrictions would harm the UK more than source countries.
Others said visa sanctions could pressure smaller, aid-dependent nations but rarely work against major powers, which can retaliate or ignore such threats.
There was also anger at Labour more generally, with critics accusing the party of pandering to Reform.
A minority did back Mahmood’s tough rhetoric, but many dismissed the policy as either a weak bluff or a punishment that would primarily damage Britain’s economy and care system.
Some readers called for even tougher measures, including forcing foreign governments to pay for the cost of appeals, welfare and repatriation, or housing migrants abroad until deportation.
Here’s what you had to say:
Small boat crossings won’t change the numbers
While it would be a visual signal that something is actually being done if the small boat crossings were to stop, it would make little difference to the migration figures since the UK issues vast numbers of visas for further education, skilled and low-skilled workers, many of whom remain after their visas expire, or falsely apply for asylum here, while only a few genuine refugees and asylum seekers can apply for a visa from overseas – creating the demand that allows criminals and economic migrants as well.
Hard to see how putting further visa restrictions on countries does anything to deter illegal migrants, but clearly damages further education providers and businesses reliant on cheap migrant labour. Why does Labour insist that more of the same will make a difference… Change?
Topsham1
Do visa bans make sense, or are they “utterly bizarre”, as some readers argue? Join the debate in the comments.
Self-inflicted punishment
Many of the same countries that are flagged for blocking or delaying deportations of illegal migrants are also major sources of legal migrants, especially in the UK healthcare sector.
India is by far the largest non-UK source of NHS doctors. Bangladesh and Pakistan also contribute significant numbers of both doctors and nurses. Nepal is a major supplier of care workers in both the NHS and private care homes.
So while the UK relies heavily on these countries to fill essential NHS and care jobs, they’re also among the worst when it comes to cooperating on returns of their nationals who’ve overstayed visas, had asylum claims rejected, or committed crimes.
The Home Secretary has now openly stated that visa routes, like healthcare work visas, could be restricted or suspended for countries that don’t take their citizens back after removal orders.
The UK threatening to suspend visas for doctors, nurses, or care workers from countries like India or Bangladesh is essentially a self-inflicted punishment. These countries don’t need the UK to take their deportees, but the UK does need their skilled workers to keep the NHS and care sector running.
So the logic becomes absurd: “If you don’t take back your overstayers, we’ll stop hiring your nurses.” That doesn’t hurt the source country much, it hurts UK hospitals and care homes. It’s a weak threat unless the UK is willing to take that economic and social hit, which it usually isn’t.
The US and EU have also tried similar leverage, like visa restrictions – but it rarely works when the other side holds the labour supply. In this case, the UK is effectively saying, “Do what we want or we’ll block the very people we desperately need,” which makes it look desperate and strategically incoherent.
EmiliaPortante
Countries should take full responsibility
This is a start but doesn’t nearly go far enough. Countries need to be compelled to assume full legal responsibility for their citizens when they arrive in a country illegally. If an Indian arrives in the UK illegally or overstays, the Indian government must assume responsibility by arranging and paying for their repatriation back to India. If the illegal appeals, the Indian government should fund that appeal, housing and welfare costs until that appeal is complete. If an illegal commits a crime in the UK he should be imprisoned in his home country.
It is utterly bizarre that the host nation has to pay these costs. If an illegal refuses to provide proof of citizenship then they should be jailed until they do.
saghia
We obsess about trivia
We had 43,000 asylum seekers arrive by small boats in the year to June 2025.
More than half will be found upon enquiry to have good claims and will be allowed to stay. The rest will be deported (and if we geared up the processing of claims, as we should, they will be deported more quickly).
In 2024, Germany received the largest number of asylum applicants among EU countries (250,550), followed by Spain (166,145), Italy (158,605), and France (157,460).
In contrast, 948,000 legal migrants came to the UK in 2024.
We are all obsessing about trivia.
SteveHill
A bully’s tool
Visa sanctions “work” best against small, aid-dependent, poorer states with limited leverage of their own.
Countries like Cambodia, Eritrea, Guinea, Sierra Leone, or Gambia rely heavily on remittances and international goodwill, so when the UK, the US or EU squeezes visa access, it hits elites and ordinary families hard. That makes governments more likely to give in.
But against larger or strategically important countries – India, China, Nigeria, Turkey – it’s a different story.
They can push back, retaliate with their own restrictions, or simply ignore the pressure.
The US has tried threatening India with Section 243(d) sanctions for years over deportation issues, but New Delhi never really bent because the US values the relationship too much to escalate.
So yes, it can “work” in narrow cases, but it’s not a universal stick. It’s more like a bully’s tool for weaker states, not a serious lever against major powers.
Mollilie
Nothing will change while under ECHR
It is great rhetoric, but can she really do anything substantial? I fear not. For her to send people back, she should get over the impediments that would certainly be created by the leftists in her party and the industrial fraternity of immigration lawyers.
Till the ECHR has power over the UK, nothing will change. Cooper went, so will her replacement. They can clear out the entire department, nothing will change.
I remember how Jacqueline Smith, who is currently in the cabinet, hounded the Gurkhas, those brave men who fought for this country. None of the leftist bleeding hearts of today came to the help of those brave veterans. It required an actress, Joanna Lumley, to stand up and fight Gordon Brown’s government including Jacqui Smith to get justice for the Gurkhas. Labour is ever ready to be on the wrong side of the fence and of history. They have not changed – they will listen to their leftist core and do nothing on the boats, for as a party, they are not for the rights of the just.
Krispad
Starmer has no beliefs of his own
Starmer is no politician. He has no opinions or beliefs or policies of his own, so he has to try to ape whomever looks popular, in the hope that it might help his dismal unpopularity statistics. So he told his MPs to copy whatever Reform UK Ltd is doing, sing from the same hymn sheet so that #OneTermStarmer might have a chance of winning another election from his boss Netanyahu and the Jewish lobby who put him in power in the first place.
By aping Reform, he’ll find he loses millions of decent voters and thus helps Reform to win the next election, in which case dog help us all.
fenwoman
Sending refugees back to persecutors
So, for those seeking asylum because they are being persecuted in their home country, our solution is to hand them back to their persecutors. ~Well done Ms Mahmood.
Why do so many children of immigrants go into politics to do their best to ensure that no-one follows them to this benighted isle.
Bar7
The more, the merrier
It’s hard to believe we’ve continued to give out visas in countries which refuse to take their own citizens back!
For the last 25 years, the government’s true immigration policy has been simply: The more, the merrier.
Ian Robinson
Making threats like an empire
Is she related to Trump? Making threats against other countries as if they still have an empire? This is not about illegal migration, but about asylum seekers and refugees, both protected by international law that we are signatories to.
LadyCrumpsall
A solution to the boat problem
There’s nothing like pandering to the far right. The so-called “boat problem” could easily be resolved by allowing asylum applications to be made before refugees get to the UK. Only processing them in the UK forces refugees to find a route to the UK.
AAtheoriginal
We will be the ones who suffer
If visa arrangements are cut with countries not entering into a refugee return scheme, who suffers? We do. It means that not only will we refuse to give refuge to those fleeing war and persecution, but we won’t give visas to those workers that we desperately need.
Lils
Some of the comments have been edited for this article for brevity and clarity.
Want to share your views? Simply register your details below. Once registered, you can comment on the day’s top stories for a chance to be featured. Alternatively, click ‘log in’ or ‘register’ in the top right corner to sign in or sign up.
Make sure you adhere to our community guidelines, which can be found here. For a full guide on how to comment click here.
