UK's Labour’s Immigration White Paper: Reviewed

Ananya Kumar-Banerjee is a Legal Trainee on the Border Justice Team at the European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights. Ananya has a GDL (Distinction) and graduated from Oxford (MSt, World Literatures in English) and Yale (BA, Ethnicity, Race & Migration).  

On May 12, 2025, the UK Labour government presented a new immigration white paper. This post analyses some of the white paper’s proposals and language in the context of Britain’s colonial history. It argues the spectre of the illegal migrant is used to obscure the systemic exploitation facing people on the move.  

In the white paper, Labour argues a series measures are needed to prevent “abuse” of the system, end the “problem” of low-skilled migration while also protecting against exploitation of overseas workers. Measures proposed include raising the degree level required for skilled worker visas, converting the 5-year route for settlement into a 10-year route, ending social care visas for overseas workers and requiring visa sponsoring schools take extra steps to ensure student visa compliance. Together, Labour argues these measures will solve the economic and employment crisis facing the country and prevent illegal activity by migrants. I argue that these policies perpetuate an extractive colonial relationship with migrants and will force them into the informal labour market, with no immediate benefits for British workers. It uses the language of criminality to obscure the nation’s past. Britain’s current reliance on exploited labour forces, and the scapegoating of these populations as illegal, is far from new. Instead of shifting the status quo, these changes will create the conditions for further exploitation by forcing workers into the informal market.  

The white paper’s language betrays a refusal to engage with Britain’s colonial legacy. It encourages readers to think of current migration as unprecedented and thus the source of contemporary problems. The white paper uses words like “management”, “control”, and “distortion” to this end. In fact, the British labour market’s current reliance on overseas labour replicates a centuries-old dynamic that relies on exploitable labour force from the Global South. The use of criminal language localises the “problem” of immigration to the contemporary period.  

The “Problem” of Low-Skilled Migration 

Moving away from headline-grabbing Channel crossings, Labour faults “lower-skilled migration” for the problems in the immigration system. The paper argues that arrival of “lower-skilled migrants” who take up lower-skilled jobs has unfairly “added extra demand to our public services and our housing supply…adding to pressure on key services” (para. 3). They state that “migration (has) soared while the proportion of UK residents in work fell” (para. 32). In doing so, they blame reliance on migrant labour for low British employment. The solutions proposed would together limit the number of working visas offered, and supposedly return these jobs to British workers. They fail to note that many of these jobs, including in social care, are defined by low pay, precarity and general exploitation. Perhaps this is why they are taken up by non-EU born workers. 

Trade Union survey statistics show that many care workers come from countries like Nigeria, Zimbabwe, and India. Those pursuing formal settlement in the UK in recent years are likewise overrepresented by those from previously colonised places. As Nadine El-Enany explains, countries had their wealth extracted from them, and this wealth was used to build critical British infrastructure. Scholars like Achiume have argued the colonial relationship between those previously colonised and Britain entitles them to settlement in the UK. Under this lens, migrants coming from countries that had their wealth extracted to produce British welfare resources should be entitled to access such resources. They are not a “problem” to be solved.  

Abuse and Exploitation  

The white paper rightly notes that some universities charge migrants high fees for little more than an entrance visa, offering them little in terms of education. This points to a broader trend, as most universities are reliant on high fees from international students. The white paper fails to explore the complexities of this reliance, or to consider how failing to educate those seeking education is predatory. Instead, it accuses individuals on student visas of “abuse and misuse [of] the system” and encourages institutions to “protect” the UK’s migration system (para. 155). It suggests that instituting a new system to ensure that schools are actively promoting migrant compliance with visa restrictions. At no point does the white paper consider if the institutions unintentionally created, or even invited, the current lack of compliance. Without question, migrants are faulted.  

In the same breath, Labour positions itself as a humanitarian figure, stepping in to prevent exploitation of migrant workers. It suggests that limiting the number of visas for migrant labourers will prevent “widespread labour exploitation” (para. 5). Although these policies will certainly limit the number of skilled worker visas issued, they will not prevent exploitation. A key reason behind high net migration numbers is that international students are staying in the UK after their studies. Under the new rules, they will simply enter the informal market after their education, where they will be even more vulnerable to exploitation. At no point does Labour turn the spotlight on the employers who are exploiting migrant labourers. This focus suggests the party’s interest lies not in limiting exploitation, but in finding new ways to blame migrants for their woes.  

Language 

In addition to its substance, the white paper’s language is concerning. The paper suggests that the “scale, pace and mix of migration...[has] put increased pressure on public services, public finances and the housing market” (para.32). The problems go beyond this. The white paper links “economic migration” with the failure to train a domestic workforce, imputing a causational relationship. Furthermore, they assert that unregulated and “uncontrolled” migration is to blame for the “undermine[d] productivity and per capita growth” (para. 34).   

Both forewords by the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary argue migrant labour has “distorted” the labour market. They assert that there is a crisis of management at the UK’s borders, that migration has “exploded” (p.3). Cumulatively, this language positions the current situation as unprecedented and turns a blind eye to Britain’s past. 

Instead, the country’s history is cast in a more palatable light. Home Sec. Yvette Cooper characterises Britain as a “trading nation” populated by people who have historically “travelled overseas to live and work” (p.4). In so doing, she omits a key detail: the goods being traded were often people, and the working was extractive colonial exploitation. Even recent British travellers retrace the steps of their extractive predecessors, replicating the same relations of inequality.  

The fact that people have been moving between Britain and its (previous) colonies for years, precisely because they are labourers, suggests that the current situation cannot reasonably be described as a “distortion” (para. 45). If such migration is not unprecedented, the problems must lie elsewhere. With no simple, innocent answer available, this white paper doubles down on a false story about the exceptional character of migrant participation in the UK.  

The white paper does get at a kernel of truth: immigration is, in a way, “always the lever that gets pulled whenever labour market problems emerge” (para. 55). The white paper implies that decreasing immigration will be a panacea for Britain’s economic problems. The measures proposed, however, focus on punishing migrants that the British economy was built to exploit. Labour’s effort to provide a false narrative about the relationship between overseas workers and the British economy may be politically convenient, but only affirms racist rhetoric.  

The white paper fails to explain how creating more informal and vulnerable workers will make precarious, low-paid jobs accessible (or appealing) for working-class British people. For workers who have long filled a key gap in the UK economy, this is a reminder that any contributions they make do not change their precarious relationship with settlement. As before, they will have to prove they deserve this exceptional status, often by accepting their exploitation as a condition. It will only get harder to do so under the proposed policies, which demand a 10-year greater commitment from such overseas workers, while conveniently blaming them for many of Britain’s economic issues. 

 
Any comments about this post? Get in touch with us! Send us an email, or find us on LinkedIn and BlueSky.