Labour Party’s Secret Struggles on Immigration Exposed

Key Takeaways

• Labour Party traditionally shifted between openness and restrictions, often tightening controls under electoral or public pressure.
• Keir Starmer’s leadership emphasizes tougher immigration enforcement, focusing on deportations and echoing rhetoric of right-wing parties.
• Internal Labour debates continue over balancing border control with inclusion, impacting British workers and migrant communities.

The Labour Party’s approach to immigration has always been shaped by a mix of values and real-life pressures. From its beginnings in the early 1900s up to the present day, the party has shifted views and policies, trying to balance its ideals with the changing feelings of the British public and the needs of British workers. As reported by VisaVerge.com, it is clear that while some in the party have always advocated for welcoming newcomers, Labour’s leaders have often chosen stricter controls, especially during uncertain times. This has led to a long-running debate inside the party, with each new leader adding a different tone to the conversation.

Early to Mid-20th Century: Balancing Values and Limits

During the early 20th century, the Labour Party was caught between two main ideas. On one hand, party members drew on British traditions and socialist beliefs that opposed discrimination. On the other, they looked for ways to protect jobs and living standards for British workers. This was especially the case when Labour held power. Examples from this period include Labour’s attitudes toward Jewish migrants arriving before and after World War I. While Labour often spoke out against unfair, anti-immigrant laws like the 1905 and 1919 Aliens Acts, the party also accepted some restrictions—especially when governing and facing growing public concern about the economy or public order.

After World War II, immigration from former British colonies increased. Many people came from the Caribbean, South Asia, and Africa – a change that led to tensions and new fears for some. At first, Labour opposed new controls and condemned racism. But as worries about national identity and race relations grew, party leaders began to accept certain limits. They argued that these were needed for social unity and stability.

– Labour’s support for some immigration controls was often explained as necessary to keep the country peaceful and avoid social tension.
– Party leaders did not usually use openly negative language, but their decisions to tighten controls showed a desire to calm public nerves and keep the peace.
– The main goal was to make sure British workers did not feel threatened by sudden changes caused by more migrants arriving.

This early pattern—starting with openness and fair treatment, but moving to tighter control—would repeat in many ways in later decades.

Late 20th Century: Change Under Blair and After

Tony Blair became Prime Minister in 1997, leading the Labour Party through deep changes in how the country managed immigration. During Blair’s time in office, the United Kingdom joined other European Union members in opening its doors to new arrivals from Eastern Europe. This was important for British workers and employers alike, as many new workers arrived to fill needed roles and support the growing economy.

However, Blair’s government also showed a willingness to restrict other areas:

• The Labour administration toughened rules around asylum for refugees and expanded measures to handle security concerns.
• The government was very aware of public fears about changes in local communities and the pressure on schools, hospitals, and housing.
• While speaking about the economic benefits of new arrivals, Blair still underlined the need for newcomers to adjust to British society and customs.

Ed Miliband, who followed Blair, offered a mix of both sides. He recognized that Labour had made some mistakes with past migration policies, but he also tried to promote fair rules. Still, critics said his approach was unclear and did not offer a simple solution.

Jeremy Corbyn, from the party’s left, tried to refocus Labour on being more welcoming and humane in immigration matters. However, this shift was not without problems. Many inside the party worried that being too open could put off voters who wanted stricter controls to protect jobs, services, and the feeling of national unity. The struggle between these viewpoints remained common in many party debates.

Current Period: Starmer Era and Calls for Tougher Controls

Under Keir Starmer, who became Labour’s leader in the 2020s, the party has moved toward a much stricter approach on immigration. This shift comes after the Brexit vote, which made public feelings about migration even stronger, and as Labour faces new challenges from right-wing parties like Reform UK.

Key changes in Labour’s current tone and goals include:

• Pledging to lower the overall number of people coming to live and work in the United Kingdom.
• Promising more funding and action to remove those who are in the country without permission.
• Supporting police and border staff as they target people living and working here without proper documentation.
• Backing plans to increase the number of spaces in immigration detention centers and, in some cases, keeping Conservative policies.

Labour’s current leaders often highlight the number of deportations or removals as a sign of their effectiveness. They now speak about migration controls using language similar to that of right-wing parties, focusing on “getting control” rather than stressing the benefits that some migration brings.

In public statements, Starmer has promised to “fix” what he describes as broken Conservative policies. He uses examples such as failed removals or high numbers of arrivals to argue that Labour can manage the system better and keep communities safe. Critics, including some Labour MPs, say this language risks making the debate less open and could harm relations between different groups in society.

Ongoing Political Pressures

One reason for the harder tone on immigration is a sense of electoral risk. Labour leaders worry about losing voters to parties who campaign strongly against migration. Some of Starmer’s allies believe the party must be firm on borders to avoid attack from far-right and populist rivals.

• Recent remarks from Labour MPs suggest that being seen as tough on migration is viewed as a “necessary” tactic to protect Labour’s voter base from the right.
• In these moments, the party often chooses stricter controls, even if this means moving away from more inclusive ideas debated behind closed doors.

This resembles older patterns that go back decades. Labour has a history of shifting positions based on changing public moods—often tightening controls when feeling political pressure, especially if the jobs, pay, or welfare of British workers seem at risk.

“Patriotic” Justification and Social Cohesion

Through much of its history, Labour has justified tighter controls by referring to the country’s interests, or “patriotism.” Rather than openly blaming newcomers, party leaders often say they want to avoid problems that could hurt unity and security for all, especially the most vulnerable British workers. The main arguments include:

• Making sure public services can handle new arrivals.
• Protecting job opportunities and pay conditions for the British workforce.
• Preventing “community tensions” that could lead to unrest or division.

Critics, both inside and outside Labour, point out that this approach can sometimes blur the line between responsible planning and responding to anti-immigrant feeling. They warn that using the language of “control” and “protection” can sometimes make it harder for new arrivals to feel welcome.

Examples Across Labour Party Leadership

The internal debate and public struggle over immigration have always depended on who is leading Labour:

• In the early and mid-1900s, leaders tried to find a balance between not supporting racist laws and still putting limits on who could come to the country.
• After World War II, with many people arriving from the Commonwealth, Labour leaders first spoke out against limits but soon accepted the need for controls as society changed.
• Tony Blair combined an open approach toward new workers from Europe with tougher rules for those seeking asylum and more emphasis on security.
• Ed Miliband’s middle-of-the-road stance tried to learn from the past and find common ground but often left key questions unanswered.
• Jeremy Corbyn leaned toward humanitarian and progressive policies, creating hope among some and worry among others about Labour being seen as weak on border controls.
• Keir Starmer now underscores control, enforcement, and public order much more strongly than any Labour leader in recent memory.

This summary shows that the party has never settled on a single, long-lasting approach. Past choices by different leaders have influenced how Labour is viewed by the public and how it competes with other parties.

Table of Labour Party Immigration Shifts

Here’s a plain summary of how Labour’s immigration stance has evolved:

Immediate and Long-term Impacts

Labour Party choices on immigration have real effects on British workers, newcomers, and society as a whole:

• British workers often look to Labour to protect job opportunities, wages, and public services. The party’s strict approach, especially today, is billed as a way to do this.
• Migrant groups and their supporters say tough controls risk making it harder for newcomers to settle and contribute. They warn that too much focus on enforcement over support can harm social unity.
• Employers who rely on new arrivals to fill staff shortages must watch closely, as changes in policy could affect who is available to hire.
• The overall public debate about what kind of country the United Kingdom should be—a more open society or a more closed one—is shaped in large part by how the Labour Party responds to changing times.

Looking ahead, it is possible that Labour’s attitude could change yet again if public opinion shifts. However, if the party continues to feel threatened by the strength of right-wing rivals and high-profile crises at the border, it is likely to keep its focus on restrictions and enforcement rather than bold new programs to support newcomers.

Controversies and Different Views

Not everyone inside Labour agrees with the current direction. Some MPs and activists worry that sounding like the far-right will drive away voters who care about fairness and inclusion. Others argue that without tougher controls, the party will lose key seats to rivals.

Outside groups such as refugee supporters, unions, churches, and others remind Labour leaders of the need to balance security with compassion. They ask the party to remember the benefits that past generations of migrants have brought—helping to build important parts of the economy, health, and culture.

Resources and Where to Learn More

If you want to understand the official policies and rules that guide immigration in the United Kingdom, you can find detailed, up-to-date information on the UK Government guidance page about immigration rules.

You can also read further commentary and analysis on the Labour Party’s position and the wider immigration debate at sources like the Migration Observatory at Oxford University and other respected research groups.

Summary

In the end, the statement that the Labour Party has “historically had anti-migrant stances” is supported by a long record of shifting views, political claims, and policy changes. Even though there have always been party members who spoke out for openness and fairness, decisions made in office have often put border controls first—especially when British workers’ interests, public services, or party election chances seemed at risk.

What happens next will depend on future events, elections, and social changes. For now, the Labour Party’s position on immigration is shaped by rising public pressure, tough competition from right-wing groups, and the tricky task of balancing tradition, fairness, and the promise to protect those living and working in the United Kingdom. Whatever path Labour takes, it will continue to shape the national conversation about who can call the United Kingdom home, and what it means to be a part of British society.

Learn Today

Asylum → Legal protection granted to people fleeing persecution, allowing them to stay in another country and not face return.
Deportation → Forcibly removing a person from a country because they are present without legal permission or have violated immigration laws.
Detention Center → A facility where individuals are held while authorities determine their immigration status or arrange possible removal.
Net Migration → The difference between the number of people entering and leaving a country to live there, used in policy debates.
Commonwealth → A group of former British colonies whose citizens have historically migrated to the UK, especially after World War II.

This Article in a Nutshell

The Labour Party’s immigration stance has changed repeatedly, swinging from openness to restriction. Historical patterns persist, especially under Starmer, as electoral pressures grow. Current policies focus on enforcement and control, affecting both British workers and migrants. Internal debates reflect tensions between social justice ideals and the realities of public opinion.
— By VisaVerge.com

Read more:

• Immigration Policies Limit NCAA NIL Deals for International Student-Athletes
• Arizona Governor Hobbs blocks hospitals from checking immigration status
• American Children Deported After Immigration Arrests on the Hi-Line
• Block Club Chicago sues ICE over Chicago immigration arrest records
• Understanding the June 2025 Visa Bulletin: A Guide to U.S. Immigration Policies