Kemi Badenoch: Asylum Seekers Working Illegally Should Be Deported Immediately

(EPPING) Kemi Badenoch, leader of the Conservative Party, has renewed her call to deport asylum seekers who work in Britain illegally “on the next plane home,” sharpening a national fight over border control after an alleged assault in an Epping asylum hotel triggered fresh anger in parts of Essex. In a series of August statements, Badenoch said the priority is to “deport all foreign criminals and illegal arrivals and put our women’s and girls’ safety first,” and pledged tougher steps if her party returns to government.

The Labour government says it is pursuing a managed approach focused on returns deals and faster removals. Ministers point to a “one in, one out” returns arrangement with France and an expanded “deport now, appeal later” scheme that now covers 23 countries, allowing many appeals to be heard by video link after removal. Conservative leaders, including Kemi Badenoch, argue these measures are not enough and push for immediate removal of illegal arrivals and any asylum seekers found working without permission, with no right to stay in the UK while appeals are pending.

Badenoch has also floated dedicated “camps” to house asylum seekers instead of using hotels or community sites, saying this would ease pressure on towns and improve control and policing. Her supporters say Epping’s recent incident shows why stronger steps are needed. Critics, including refugee groups, say such talk fuels fear and may increase the risk of vigilante behavior against migrants in local areas.

Policy clash after Epping incident

The alleged assault in Epping has become a flashpoint for wider anger over how the Home Office places asylum seekers in hotels and how quickly the state removes people found breaking immigration rules. Community voices are split.

• Some residents want faster removals and stricter checks around accommodation sites.
• Others, along with advocacy groups, warn that broad blame aimed at all asylum seekers is unfair and dangerous.

Conservative messaging has hardened in recent weeks, with party figures calling 2025 the “worst year on record” for illegal immigration and citing more than 50,000 small boat crossings since Labour took office in 2024.

Labour’s response centers on:
– enforcement through returns deals and
– quicker removals for offenders, while
– keeping core due process.

The government also notes it has widened the use of remote appeals to speed case resolution from abroad, even as the courts remain open for legal challenges.

Advocacy organisations strongly oppose the camp model and the push for rapid deportations. They warn that harsh policies often:
– push people underground,
– increase the danger of exploitation—especially for women in poverty who may be forced into unsafe work, and
– inflame tensions in towns like Epping.

They call for dignity, community-based housing, and a clear path for people seeking protection to rebuild their lives in peace.

Under current law and policy, asylum seekers who work illegally can face removal. The difference today is how and when removals happen, and whether a person can appeal from inside the UK. Labour’s “deport now, appeal later” approach extends exteriorised appeals to a wider group, but still recognises the right to an appeal. Badenoch’s proposals would go further by making immediate removal the norm for illegal arrivals and those caught working illegally, shifting most appeals outside the country.

Legal, operational, and community implications

If Badenoch’s plan is carried out, several practical changes would follow quickly:

• More detention space or new camp-style facilities would be needed to hold people awaiting removal.
• Appeals would occur from abroad as a default, likely increasing the number of video-link hearings and adding case-management pressure on the courts.
• Rapid removals could trigger urgent legal challenges on human rights grounds, testing the UK’s commitments under the Refugee Convention and related international treaties.

Experts caution that strict measures alone will not solve long-standing problems in the asylum system, such as:
– large backlogs and
– limited removal capacity.

Some analysts note that any new camp system—or third-country processing plans, like earlier proposals linked to Rwanda—would have far less capacity than the flow of new arrivals, making such ideas more symbolic than practical at national scale. According to analysis by VisaVerge.com, the gap between proposed capacity and real-world arrivals suggests enforcement aims would collide with basic logistics unless removals and case decisions speed up dramatically.

The political heat around this topic has grown alongside other law-and-order debates. The government’s early release of 26,000 prisoners since taking office is being used by Badenoch to argue Labour has lost control, not only of borders but of public safety. Labour rejects that claim and says it is balancing public protection with a realistic approach to removals, supported by returns cooperation with France and tougher rules for offenders covered by the expanded 23-country scheme.

While Epping is one local example, it illustrates the tensions that many towns feel when hotels house large groups of new arrivals. Police and council leaders often face a hard task:
– keeping the peace,
– responding to incidents swiftly, and
– sharing facts with the public while avoiding broad blame.

Refugee groups urge careful language from national leaders, saying heated talk can create an “incendiary atmosphere” that leads to harassment and attacks.

For people in the asylum system, the stakes are personal and high. A worker caught in illegal employment under Badenoch’s approach could face immediate detention and removal, with any appeal heard only after they leave the UK. Under the current policy, removal is still possible, but procedural safeguards—including legal advice and the ability to present evidence—are more likely to happen before or during removal, even as remote appeals expand.

How the process would differ under the Conservative plan

Here is how the process would differ if the Conservative plan were adopted:

1. Identification of illegal work by an asylum seeker.
2. Immediate detention with removal started at once.
3. Deportation to the country of origin or a “safe third country,” with appeals heard from abroad.
4. Use of camps or similar facilities to house people awaiting removal rather than hotels.

By contrast, the current approach:
– keeps removal powers in place but
– preserves more in-country steps, even with broader use of video appeals.

International cooperation and local impact

Beyond policy mechanics, the UK’s relations with France and other partners would be tested. A drive for faster removals at greater scale would require sustained cooperation on returns and transit permissions. Any breakdowns could leave more people in limbo in facilities around towns like Epping, compounding local pressure and costs.

Important resources for people seeking official guidance:
– Home Office guidance: https://www.gov.uk/claim-asylum
– Support organisations: Refugee Council and Refugee Action (both offer help navigating the system and oppose mass detention and the camp model)

With a national election on the horizon, both sides see political risks. If arrivals remain high and incidents continue to stir local anger, Badenoch’s tougher stance may find wider support. If removals increase under Labour without major disorder, ministers may argue their approach works without expanding camps or banning most in-country appeals.

Either way, Epping’s recent events have put real people—residents and asylum seekers—at the centre of a debate that will shape UK policy long after the headlines move on.