UK: A place of refuge?

original reworking of a getty images photo of Jannik Sinner and Alexander Zverev with credit to the photographer Clive Brunskill ( because i was unable to embed the original photo)

While watching the Wimbledon’s men’s final between Jannik Sinner and Alexander Zverev I was struck by the fact that although a German national, Zverev's heritage is Russian and how different his parents acceptance as refugees from the communist regime of Russia must have been to the way that refugees fleeing similar oppression are being treated.

Britain has long presented itself as a nation willing to offer sanctuary to those fleeing persecution. Throughout history, successive governments have demonstrated both the administrative capacity and political will to welcome refugees when they were perceived as deserving. Seventeenth-century French Huguenots, nineteenth-century Russian political exiles, and those fleeing the Bolshevik Revolution after 1917 were received as victims of oppression whose skills and ideas enriched British society. During the Cold War, Soviet defectors, Hungarian refugees following the 1956 uprising, East Germans escaping communist rule, and many Iranians fleeing the Islamic Revolution and the Iran-Iraq War were similarly afforded protection. More recently, Britain created dedicated schemes to welcome Ukrainians displaced by Russia's invasion.

This history demonstrates that the British state is capable of responding rapidly and compassionately to humanitarian crises. Yet that generosity has not been extended equally. Refugees escaping wars, persecution, famine, or state collapse in many African, Middle Eastern, and Asian countries face increasingly restrictive immigration policies, prolonged asylum procedures, detention, and the threat of removal to third countries. Those arriving in small boats are frequently portrayed through the language of illegality and deterrence rather than humanitarian need.

The contrast raises difficult questions about whether Britain's immigration system values some lives more highly than others. While the government argues that these measures are necessary to deter irregular migration and maintain border security, the practical effect is that predominantly white European refugees have often benefited from bespoke entry routes and public sympathy, whereas many non-white asylum seekers encounter far greater legal and political barriers.

Viewed in this historical context, contemporary immigration policy and the fear mongering of a right-wing press appears to reflect more than administrative neutrality. The stark disparity in treatment suggests that race and geography influence who is regarded as a worthy refugee, reinforcing a hierarchy of belonging that is inherently racialised rather than genuinely universal in its commitment to human rights.

Recent immigration policies from all hues of government have created a UK that is no longer a place a refuge but a country that balances ethnicity and skill against need and the legitimate fear of persecution that many refugees hold with a series of increasingly difficult and inherently racist immigration policies.

Let’s hope that our next iteration of government officials can do better.