Home News

An Eritrean man is set to be deported to France under Sir Keir Starmer’s “one in, one out” scheme on Friday after a last-minute legal bid failed. The High Court ruling came just hours after the Home Office returned the first migrant under the deal. The Eritrean man, who has not been identified in court proceedings, is due to be deported at 6:15am on Friday. The man said he is a victim of trafficking, but the Home Office argued there was not enough evidence for him to qualify for modern slavery support. Siding with the Home Office, Mr Justice Sheldon said he did not accept the argument that the migrant “had been denied procedural fairness” due to the speed of his trafficking claim decision. “In my view, the secretary of state did have sufficient information to make the reconsideration decision,” he said on Thursday afternoon. Mr Justice Sheldon said it was open to the home secretary to conclude that the Eritrean’s account of his modern slavery “couldn’t reasonably be believed”. The judge said it was “clear” that the migrant would have the opportunity to submit a trafficking claim in France. A preliminary doctor’s report indicated that the asylum seeker could be a victim of trafficking because of the route that he took through Libya, Sonali Naik KC told the court on behalf of the migrant. The Eritrean has said that he was kidnapped and forced to work in Libya, the court heard. The Home Office said that France can consider claims from people who say they were trafficked outside of France. Home secretary Shabana Mahmood said that the first removal of a migrant to France on Thursday was ‘an important first step’ More

A group of 10 critically ill and injured children have been evacuated from Gaza to the UK for urgent NHS medical treatment, the government has announced.The children arrived in the UK along with their immediate families after first being evacuated from Gaza to Jordan. The government said it is now working to ensure families are given “appropriate support” during their stay.The evacuation of 10 children and 50 companions was coordinated by a cross-government taskforce over recent weeks and assisted by the World Health Organisation (WHO). Officials described it as a “complex humanitarian operation”.Their arrival comes as part of a scheme in which up to 300 young people will enter the UK for free medical care. More children will be arriving in the UK for care in the coming weeks. The malnutrition indicator in Gaza has ‘exceeded the famine threshold’, according to Ted Chaiban, Unicef’s deputy executive director for humanitarian action and supply operations More

Donald Trump is returning to Britain – and this time, the welcome could not be grander. The US president will be hosted by King Charles III and Queen Camilla for a two-day state visit, complete with a lavish banquet, carriage procession and even a Red Arrows flypast. The Prince and Princess of Wales will take a leading role in the programme, while Sir Keir Starmer will greet Trump at Chequers on the final day for bilateral talks.Downing Street has hailed the visit as a “historic opportunity” to cement ties with Washington. Palace insiders have stressed that the pomp and pageantry on display is no more than the customary treatment afforded to heads of state. Yet the decision to extend an unprecedented second state visit to Trump has split opinion sharply.Protests are already planned across the country, with campaigners accusing the government of legitimising a leader they say has fuelled division, weakened democratic norms and dismissed the urgency of climate change. For them, rolling out the red carpet for a convicted criminal diminishes Britain’s values and international standing.Others argue that diplomacy requires pragmatism. Whatever one thinks of Trump personally, they say, he remains president of the United States – a critical ally for trade, defence and global security. With tensions rising across Europe and the Middle East, some believe the UK can ill afford to alienate Washington, however controversial its leader.In our July poll, readers were clear: 76 per cent said Britain should not legitimise Trump with a state visit, while just 11 per cent felt it was good diplomacy. A further 8 per cent said the visit was acceptable, but the pomp was unnecessary.So where do you stand? Is hosting Trump smart statecraft – or a diplomatic disaster waiting to happen?Share your thoughts in the comments – we’ll feature the most compelling responses in the coming days. More

Sir Keir Starmer says the country should never surrender its flag to become a symbol of “violence, fear and division” following a huge protest organised by Tommy Robinson, as the backlash grows over Elon Musk’s remarks at the rally.In his first comments since more than 110,000 people joined the march in central London on Saturday, the prime minister also stated the government “will not stand” for assaults on police officers, after 26 were injured, four seriously.The demonstration, organised under the banner “Unite the Kingdom”, saw Whitehall filled with union flags and St George’s flags as the tens of thousands of protesters listened to speakers, including Mr Musk, who appeared on screens through a video link.But there was condemnation after clashes broke out between some protesters and police, as well as outcry over the Tesla and X owner, who called for the dissolution of parliament, while encouraging Britons to “fight back or die” over the “destruction of Britain” caused by “massive uncontrolled migration”.In a statement shared on social media on Sunday, Sir Keir wrote: “People have a right to peaceful protest. It is core to our country’s values.Keir Starmer has rejected the country’s flag being used as a symbol of ‘violence, fear and division’ More

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 numbersWhile 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?Topsham1Do visa bans make sense, or are they “utterly bizarre”, as some readers argue? Join the debate in the comments.Self-inflicted punishmentMany 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.EmiliaPortanteCountries should take full responsibilityThis 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.saghiaWe obsess about triviaWe 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.SteveHillA bully’s toolVisa 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.MollilieNothing will change while under ECHRIt 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.KrispadStarmer has no beliefs of his ownStarmer 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.fenwomanSending refugees back to persecutorsSo, 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.Bar7The more, the merrierIt’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 RobinsonMaking threats like an empireIs 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.LadyCrumpsallA solution to the boat problemThere’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.AAtheoriginalWe will be the ones who sufferIf 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.LilsSome 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. More

Plans to introduce digital ID cards as part of the government’s efforts to tackle illegal migration have sparked sharp debate among Independent readers, dividing opinion almost evenly.A recent poll of our community found 50 per cent in favour of the move, arguing the cards could help reduce benefit fraud, close loopholes exploited by gangs and limit illegal working, which many see as a key “pull factor” behind Channel crossings. Some pointed to systems already in place across Europe, saying the UK was lagging behind in adopting modern safeguards.But 44 per cent opposed the idea, warning it would undermine privacy and civil liberties. Several readers described it as the first step towards a “dystopian nightmare”, forcing ordinary people to prove their identity to go about daily life. They argued that digital IDs would not stop small boat crossings and would instead punish law-abiding citizens.Many comments revealed a deep scepticism about whether the government’s focus on ID cards addresses the real drivers of migration. Others saw it as another example of politicians reaching for headline policies without tackling root causes.Here’s what you had to say:ID cards abroad work well and protect freedomsI’ve lived and worked overseas where ID cards are mandatory and civil liberties seem much better protected than in the UK. We already have a national insurance number and most carry a photo driving licence, or most of the older generation carry a photo bus pass. Of course, those looking to exploit workers who have to accept low cash-in-hand wages will cry foul, but if we truly want to sort the problem out, put effort into processing asylum claims quickly, set up an official route to enter the UK to apply for asylum, and allow them to work whilst their claims are processed, not bottled up in “cages” to act as bait for all the self-styled “patriots”. ifonlyitwastrueID cards make life easierI would like to have an ID card in the UK, not to stop illegal migration but because it would make my life so much easier. Living in Belgium it is compulsory to carry ID and I can use it for everything – healthcare, banking, taxes, travel. It is invaluable. Dealing with banks and government in the UK is so tedious… I have already had to pay twice to prove my ID when buying a house. I have to remember multiple sets of passwords to phone the bank, and on and on. I don’t get why people are so happy to give every aspect of their lives to Google and the like, but not have an ID. ThoughtIsFreeGet involved in the debate a leave a comment below.A right, not an obligationI have had a Portuguese National ID Card since I was a child and really don’t see how I could have done most things without it. It contains my Citizen ID number, my Social Security number, and also my Fiscal number in case I work self-employed or start a company. It’s like everything about you on a single card. It allows me to travel all the EU and EEA without the need for a passport or limitations, even entering or leaving the UK under the EU Withdrawal Agreement. It is a right to have a National ID Card, not an obligation. Basically, I was never forced to have it, nor to renew it, but everything would have been harder without it. CacoNo downsideI honestly do not know what the big deal is about carrying an ID card. I live in Europe and have had one since Brexit was implemented. The only times I’m asked to show it are for legal purposes (registering residence, now also at passport control as I’m not under the EU 90/180 rule), something major at the bank (account change etc.), or things like large purchases or signing a credit agreement. I can’t think of other circumstances when I’ve been asked to present it. The whole scaremongering around the police state ‘tracking you’ with it is frankly a load of blox. Way more convenient than a passport, accepted everywhere in the EU as ID. I don’t see a downside. nicksbNone of their businessUnder no circumstances would I carry an ID card in peacetime. I will strongly defend my Article 8 rights to privacy (Human Rights Act). This is why I first got a VPN and why I use emails from outside the UK. I’m law-abiding and have no criminal record, so why should I, and every other British citizen, be treated as a suspect all the time? The LINOs, first under Blair and now under Starmer, seem to want to track everybody all the time, and it’s none of their business. LadyCrumpsallIssue of trustIf they are simply used to reduce crime and prevent fraud, I have no problem with them. But they could easily be used to monitor movements or track behaviour. And data could be sold to commercial interests. Frankly, there’s now an issue of trust between citizens and government, and many will be unhappy with identity cards for the reasons listed. MusilRemoving hassleStandard ID cards would make it much easier. At the moment everyone asks for something different – usually two forms of ID, each with different lists and requirements. It’s such a hassle. AjamesDigital ID is a tool for controlDigital ID is a solution in search of a problem. Countries that have it are countries like China, Vietnam and North Korea. The reason it has to be digital rather than physical is because everything will be linked – your bank account, your medical records, your ability to travel, what you can and cannot buy. In China it is tied to your “social credit score”. They want to introduce it so they can control you. Your freedom to make choices is the “problem” they want to solve.GaryGlassID cards would help the elderlyMy elderly mother, frail and bed-bound, has neither a driving licence nor a passport. She has no legal ‘photo ID’ should she need to consult a legal professional that requires identification. An ID card would be ideal.MsRuthlessNI numbers are issued at birth. What seems to be suggested is some form of ‘document’ that everyone has to carry so that the Gestapo can make their famous “papers” demand of anyone they fancy. The reality is that we live in a far more dystopian country than imagined by Orwell in his 1984. He hadn’t imagined two-way TVs so small that all citizens could be compelled to carry one with them. The weakness with Big Brother’s technology was that it could only monitor a few people at a time. Today’s AI means that everyone’s activities can be monitored continuously. The modern dictator has no need of ID cards. LordNelson3Who’s to say that the state will not go adrift?Liberty lies in the inefficiency of the state and its bureaucrats. Of course, if the state is largely benevolent then ID cards are not a serious problem, but if the state goes adrift then ID cards pose a severe threat to civil rights simply because the instruments of the state will be more efficient. Who’s to say that the state will not go adrift? We can see an example abroad right now. Do you trust Farage? tohuA retrograde stepI’m vehemently against the idea of introducing digital ID cards for anyone in the UK. In my view, it would be a retrograde step and a huge infringement of our civil rights. Do we really wish to have a “Big Brother” state in this country? In addition, I doubt very much that widespread fraud and illegal migration would be successfully curbed by such draconian measures. In my experience of life, human beings will often find loopholes around any obstacles put in their way. JanetCWhat’s not to like?Many European countries have had them for years without any bother. It saves carrying a lot of information around in various formats. What is not to like about it? And whether it would help with the migration issue is merely coincidental. That should not be the reason to introduce them. 49ninerWe already have enough IDIn my opinion, no. We all have a National Insurance Number (NIC), an NHS Number. Many have a photo card driving licence or another form of photo ID. These are more than enough to prove our identity, in my opinion. DisgustedOfMiddleEnglandID won’t stop fraud or illegal migrationMost fraud involves people being persuaded to transfer money to others, and it’s not really possible to see how any ID system could change that. It’s also really hard to see how such a system could reduce “illegal” migration. The people who give work without checking legal status will no doubt continue to do so. YorkshiremanHandmaid’s Tale trickThe Government wants digital ID cards – ones they can update at will, without even telling you. And of course it would be an everything card: no need for a separate driving licence, or senior citizen’s bus pass. That is all fine until the Government does a Handmaid’s Tale trick and decides to revoke the rights of some group it doesn’t like. It could do that at the touch of a keyboard in Whitehall. It could change your sex, or remove your NHS number, or make you ineligible to vote, or revoke your driving licence. No thank you. RachaelPKeep it physical, not digitalI’m happy to have an ID card as long as it’s a physical card (like my driving licence) because my phone is so old I just couldn’t have an electronic version on it. Some might say update my phone, but as it’s not broken and I can use it to call, I see no need to replace it. Rafpi1964A written constitution would offer protectionThe UK should draw up a written constitution that can only be changed after a general election on the issue, provided there then is a bicameral double two-thirds majority to change it. Enshrine the obligations and rights of the state and of the people in the constitution. That way the rights of the people will be protected and the roll-out of an ID card cannot threaten those rights. Real EuropeanSome of the comments have been edited for this article for brevity and clarity.The debate isn’t over. Simply register your details and leave a comment below with your views.Make sure you adhere to our community guidelines, which can be found here. For a full guide on how to comment click here. More

As the government looks for new ways to tackle illegal migration, Sir Keir Starmer is considering the rollout of digital ID cards.The prime minister has not said whether the cards would be compulsory, but has confirmed that ministers are examining how the technology could be used to limit illegal working – one of the so-called “pull factors” drawing people across the Channel in small boats.Similar systems are already in place across Europe. Estonia issues every citizen with a digital ID number, while France argues that the UK’s lack of such checks makes it easier for asylum seekers to enter the shadow economy. Supporters, including the Tony Blair Institute, claim a national scheme would prevent benefit fraud, close loopholes exploited by gangs, and make it harder to forge documents.But critics warn the policy risks creating a “dystopian nightmare”, with campaigners such as Big Brother Watch saying ordinary people would be forced to prove their identity simply to go about daily life. They argue digital IDs would not stop small boat crossings and would instead punish law-abiding citizens.So, is a national digital ID card the answer? Would it help tackle illegal migration and fraud, or does it threaten to erode civil liberties and privacy?We want to hear from you. Share your thoughts in the comments and vote in the poll below – we’ll feature the most compelling responses in the coming days. More

Millions of parents in the UK will be able to access 30 hours of free childcare a week from Monday as a government-backed scheme is expanded.Working parents of children between nine months and four years old are now eligible for the full 30 hours. This is up from 30 hours for just three- to four-year-olds and 15 hours for all other children.The government said the scheme will save working parents an average of £7,500 a year in childcare fees.Education secretary Bridget Phillipson said: “Giving every child the best start in life is my number one priority, which is why we are delivering on our commitment to provide hundreds of thousands of children with 30 hours of government-funded early education. “Whether it’s to save up to £7,500 a year, support parents to get back to work or reduce the pressure on grandparents who so often have to step in, the benefits are widespread.”Millions of parents in the UK will be able to access 30 hours of free childcare a week from Monday More