10/2/2025 Who gets to tell the story? The problem with Channel 4's 'go back to where you came from'Read Now TV series, films, books and podcasts, have an amazing power to influence audiences, make them question the world we live in, and change perceptions. Maybe this is because, through these mediums we can be told stories about real human beings, which cut through attention-grabbing headlines and soulless statistics. Stories help us relate to people, feel empathy and sometime even help us to see the world in a different light. This is why I was intrigued by Channel 4’s new series ‘Go Back To Where You Came From’, which is billed as a series challenging how British people feel about asylum seekers and migration. The 4-part series follows six Brits with views about immigration from both sides of the divide – some highly sympathetic, and some highly critical (and unashamedly racist) – as they travel along routes frequently taken by refugees to reach the UK. In the first episode, we watch the Brits as they start their travels in either Raqqa, Syria or Mogadishu, Somalia. Having watched the first episode of the series last week, I came away feeling saddened and frustrated. After the second episode aired yesterday, I want to explain why: Considering that immigration is one of the most divisive and discussed topics in the UK at the moment, there has been a complete absence of voices from migrants themselves in mainstream media. As a result, there is very little to challenge and question the constant dehumanising rhetoric we hear and read in news-cycles and in statements from politicians. How incredible would it be if Channel 4 had given this platform to migrants themselves, to share their stories, perspectives and opinions. Sadly, Channel 4 decided to focus on the perspective of British tourists (albeit tourists giddy with glee at insulting the places they were visiting). Perhaps Channel 4 felt that using Brits to tell the story would be the only way to get the British public interested and reach the viewing figures that could actually have an impact on public discourse. Perhaps they think that Brits think they can only relate to fellow Brits? And, realistically, maybe they are right? But by creating this series Channel 4 are giving credence to that attitude – when I think they should be challenging it. As we follow the Brits on their journey, it makes uncomfortable, voyeuristic viewing. While episode one some moments when the Brits sat down and talked with the residents of Mogadishu and Raqqa, these moments were rare and the focus remained on the Brits. A large amount of the episode was spent from inside armoured 4x4 vehicles as the Brits ogled at their surroundings. This episode did very little to amplify voices of migrants themselves, and rather continued to recycle the same ‘us vs them’ narrative that we are constantly faced with in mainstream media. Episode two, which aired last night, was much the same. Although there was slightly less time spent inside armoured vehicles, the focus remained unchanged—more gawking at their surroundings, more condescending descriptions of refugee camps, and only a handful of conversations with refugees themselves. These interactions felt secondary at best, and at worst, like a token gesture to create the illusion of balance. I would say to anyone who watched the first two episodes, to keep watching, let’s see how it unfolds. But also, to seek out films, series, books and podcasts that tell stories of migration from the perspectives of the migrants and refugees themselves – of their experiences, opinions and hopes for the future. Watch and listen to them, and tell your friends and family about them. I strongly feel that it is these stories, from the people who have actually faced migration themselves, have the power to shift perceptions and make a huge change. Below I have listed some places to start looking: Films: • The Story of Souleymane (2024) directed by Boris Lojkine • Flee (2021) directed by Jonas Poher Rasmussen • The Swimmers (2022) directed by Sally El Hosaini • Limbo (2020) directed by Ben Sharrock Documentaries: • Eye Investigations Dark Waters: Africa’s Deadliest Migration Route (2024). An investigation by BBC Eye Africa reporter Mame Cheikh Mbaye • For Sama, directed by Waad Al-Kateeb and Edward Watts Explore the London Migration Film Festival past programmes for lots more films and documentaries: https://www.migrationcollective.com/lmff-2024 Books: • Little Warrior by Giuseppe Catozzela • The Refugees by Viet Thanh Nguyen • The Last Girl by Nadia Murad • The Beekeeper of Alleppo by Christy Lefteri • Asylum Speakers book, collated by Jaz O’Hara There are lots more books suggested by the International Rescue Committee in this article: https://www.rescue.org/uk/article/12-essential-books-about-refugee-experiences Podcasts: • Refugee Stories, produced by Jessica Stone • Asylum Speakers podcast, produced by Jaz O’Hara • UNHCR Forced to Flee, produced by Waqas Chughtai and Barney Thompson AuthorElla Tritton, Caseworker Last week, the Labour government introduced the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill. While the repeal of the Safety of Rwanda Act and elements of the Illegal Migration Act (IMA) is a necessary and welcome step, this Bill fails to address the issues at the heart of the UK’s asylum system. In fact, it entrenches many of the same harmful policies introduced by the previous government.
This Bill retains the expands detention powers introduced by the IMA as well as the weakened protections for survivors of modern slavery. It also continues to render asylum and human rights claims automatically inadmissible from people fleeing countries such as Albania, Georgia, and India. Instead of delivering real reform, it doubles down on a system designed to punish and exclude. The government is prioritising border enforcement over human lives. With this new Bill people seeking safety will face even greater criminalisation, with increased surveillance, phone seizures, expanded data access, and harsher penalties. Those who attempt to assist asylum seekers face up to 14 years in prison. Yet, despite all these punitive measures, the government has offered no safe routes for people fleeing war and persecution to seek refuge in the UK. There are no new humanitarian visas, no improved resettlement schemes, and no meaningful commitments to international protection. There is as well no expansion of the existing family reunion rules. Instead, the focus remains on so-called deterrence, detention, and deportation, showing no sign of change since the previous Conservative government. The refusal to repeal barriers preventing victims of trafficking from accessing support and the continued detention of children further exposes this Bill for what it truly is: an extension of the Hostile Environment under a different name. Whether a Labour or Conservative government, the obsession with militarising the border and criminalising those fleeing persecution, whilst steadfastly refusing to acknowledge why people take dangerous journeys, means nothing substantive will change. More lives will be lost and people in need will continue being exploited, both in the UK and on their journeys here. This approach is not only inhumane, but fundamentally counterproductive. The government cannot claim to be fixing the asylum system while making it even more dangerous and inaccessible. Until there is a real commitment to safe routes, fair asylum processes, and respect for international law, this Bill will only serve to create more suffering and more chaos. The Daily Mail claims about refugees and family reunion visas are misleading and harmful. Their most recent headline – “At least 50 relatives of asylum seekers are joining them in Britain every day with the numbers trebling in a year, figures reveal” – is purposefully written to stoke fear. In reality, family reunion visas are incredibly difficult to obtain. But instead of acknowledging this, the Mail chooses to spin the numbers in a way that fuels anti-migrant hysteria. At RAMFEL, we work closely with refugees and their families, and our experience and research show a very different picture. So, here’s what you really need to know. Myth 1: "Asylum seekers bring over 50 relatives a day" The Reality: Refugee family reunion visas are very restrictive. These visas only allow spouses and children to reunite with someone already granted refugee status. Many applications are refused despite meeting these criteria. For other family members, such as minor siblings or parents of minor children, there are no safe routes to the UK. The UK, alongside Switzerland, is the only European country that does not even allow refugee children to sponsor their parents. Without safe routes for family reunification, many have no choice but to embark on dangerous journeys and the UK government’s own research confirms that family ties are what primarily drives refugees to seek sanctuary in the UK. Refugees face extreme difficulties bringing their families to safety because:
Myth 2: ‘“The UK is swarmed with refugees” The Reality: Just 1% of the refugees who have been displaced across the world make the UK their home. They make up around 0.6% of the UK population. And, based on the number of asylum applications per capita, the UK currently ranks 20th in Europe. The number of refugees has increased across all European countries, not just the UK. This is due to huge humanitarian disasters and wars across the world, which the UK and its European neighbours are invariably at least partly responsible for. Myth 3: “Illegal immigrants." The Reality: Politicians routinely refer to refugees as ‘illegal’, but seeking asylum is a legal right under international human rights law. It is also recognised that those fleeing war and persecution often won’t have passports or visas to the country in which they seek protection. Consequently, they will need to enter irregularly and then formally claim asylum. Former Home Secretary Suella Braverman admitted herself that this was the way to submit an asylum claim in the UK. It is practically impossible to seek refuge in the UK via a so-called “safe and legal route”. The family reunion visa system for refugees is riddled with barriers, meaning most people who qualify for a family reunion visa can’t access them. So, what’s the truth? Our 2024 report, Safe Routes to Nowhere, highlights the systemic failings in the UK’s family reunion system:
Our Call to Action We urge the government to:
Families living in war zones deserve a chance to live together in safety, without further risking their lives to do so. It’s time for right wing publications to stop the dangerous rhetoric and address the real issues with compassion and humanity. AuthorLayla, Advocacy Officer Last Thursday, we delivered our petition to No. 10 Downing Street and to Home Secretary Yvette Cooper, calling for an end to the use of hotels as asylum accommodation. With over 500 signatures, it sends a clear message that the current system is failing families and urgent change is needed. For too many asylum seekers, what was meant to be temporary accommodation has turned into long-term confinement in unsanitary conditions. Families have shared stories of cramped rooms overrun with rats, and inedible food. These are not the promised safe spaces but degrading, inhumane conditions that no one should be subjected to. Children, in particular, have suffered the most—enduring poor living conditions that have caused infections, stomach problems, and declining mental health, all while falling behind academically. Saba, our client and a mother of 2 young children described the struggles of having a new born in a hotel, with no space for a cot and no access to a fridge to store breast milk. Worse still, hotels housing asylum seekers became targets of far-right hate last summer, endangering already vulnerable people. Families who fled war and persecution to find safety were met instead with hostility and threats, fearing for their lives in the very places meant to protect them. Let’s be clear: asylum seekers don’t benefit from hotel stays. They don’t want to be in hotels. They would much rather live in homes where they can cook their own food, clean for themselves, and can become part of society. They want to be self-sufficient—working, studying, and building their futures. Yet, they remain stuck in these demeaning settings, prevented from working and forced to rely on a broken system. The only true beneficiaries of hotel accommodation are the private contractors. Companies like Clearsprings and Serco make enormous profits from this misery, bagging multi-million-pound government contracts without delivering safe, sustainable housing. Meanwhile, the taxpayer foots an eye-watering bill—£145 per night per person—funding an inefficient, harmful system. The anger and frustration around these costs should not be aimed at asylum seekers but at those profiting from their suffering. We welcome Yvette Cooper’s announcement that some hotels will be served closure notices. However, this should just be the beginning. The 2026 contractual break clause offers a crucial opportunity to end the reliance on hotels and instead invest in community-based solutions. Local dispersal housing would provide asylum seekers with safe, stable accommodation while significantly reducing costs and fostering integration into society. We must ensure that families receive targeted support to rebuild their lives in stable environments.
Thank you to everyone who signed the petition, shared their stories, and stood with us. Together, we’ll keep pushing to ensure the government fulfils its promise to end hotel accommodation. UPDATE: SECTION 3C LEAVE AND HOW TO PROVE IT
What is section 3C leave? If you make an in-time application to extend your limited leave to remain, your leave (and the conditions attached to it, such as your right to work or right to claim public funds) is extended automatically under section 3C of the Immigration Act 1971, until the application and any appeal is decided. However, the Home Office does not routinely provide people with proof of that. That has caused people on section 3C leave real difficulties if they are asked by employers or landlords for example, for proof of their status or their right to work or rent, and they are unable to do so. The RAMFEL & Adjei case establishes that people on section 3C leave have a right to digital proof of their status, so that they can demonstrate that they have this status and these rights to others, including their employers, landlords, the DWP, the DVLA and so on. The judgment by Mr Justice Cavanagh on 7 June 2024 gave the reasons for that. You can read that judgment here. On 27 June 2024 the court made an order declaring that the SSHD’s failure to do this was unlawful. That should have meant that the Home Office has to put that right. However, the Home Office applied for permission to appeal against the judgment to the Court of Appeal and asked the Court to pause (or ‘stay’) the requirement to roll out digital status to everyone on section 3C leave straight away. The Court of Appeal granted their request on 2 September 2024 – the order is here. The appeal is likely to be heard by the Court of Appeal in summer 2025. What does this mean for you? Even though there is a ‘stay’ is in place, if you are a person on section 3C leave who is suffering or likely to suffer hardship as a result of not being able to prove your immigration status or right to work, rent and so on, you should still ask the Home Office for a digital way to prove your status. The Home Office should still consider that request, even while they are appealing against the judgment. How can I obtain this proof? There is no proper process set up by the Home Office to do this. We suggest that individuals make requests for digital proof of their 3C leave status to the Home Office by either:
We also recommend that you set up a UKVI account and apply for an eVisa if you have not done so already – you can find more information about how to do that on our website here. Having the account and eVisa all set up may speed things up if the Home Office does decide to give you digital proof of section 3C leave. If you do not get a prompt reply, you can also consider asking your MP to get involved. If you do not receive a positive response and you are concerned about the impact of being unable to prove your section 3C leave status, you can contact RAMFEL or the lawyers at Bhatt Murphy solicitors who represented RAMFEL and Ms Adjei to see if they can help: RAMFEL – [email protected] Janet Farrell – [email protected] Fiona O’Brien – [email protected] We are dismayed by Labour’s decision to merge and eventually close the already extremely limited safe pathways to the UK for Afghans fleeing Taliban rule. Defence Secretary John Healey’s claim that this will “ensure value for money for the taxpayer” is an appalling dismissal of the UK’s responsibility to those who risked their lives to support British interests.
Many people relying on these schemes worked directly with British forces and institutions—as interpreters, contractors, and in other critical roles. These people stood by the UK, often at great personal cost. To now abandon them as they face escalating threats under a worsening Taliban regime is not only a betrayal but a deeply shameful disregard for human lives. The deteriorating conditions in Afghanistan, particularly for women and girls, make this decision unconscionable. With no other safe routes in place, closing these pathways will leave countless people in life-threatening situations and with no option but to take dangerous journeys in search of safety. Afghans are already the top nationality arriving in the UK by boat, as these schemes are so restrictive. Further restricting these pathways will only result in even more Afghans risking their lives to make these dangerous crossings. While those who supported the UK deserve sanctuary, it must be emphasised that everyone fleeing danger has a right to safety. The UK has a moral duty to provide protection, especially given its significant role in destabilising Afghanistan. Human lives must always come before cost-saving measures. And this government must recognise that with no safe routes to the UK, people seeking safety will have no choice but to risk their lives seeking sanctuary. It has been a hard year, with lots of upsetting and disturbing events. We want to thank our supporters for standing with refugees and migrants, despite the way the media and politicians have dehumanised these people.
We changed so many lives this year:
In early 2025, we’ll take our petition, which reached 500 signatures straight to No.10 Downing Street. We want to send a message to the British Government: hotels are not safe or supportive places for asylum seekers, especially for children. In 2025, we are going to make the government listen. 11/12/2024 Our statement on the UK governments decision to pause processing asylum applications for Syrians.Read Now Many Syrians are celebrating the end of an authoritarian regime, but the country remains deeply unstable – it’s infrastructure is in ruins, armed groups control large territories, and many still live in fear. Past failures in Libya and Iraq show the danger of western governments prematurely declaring a country safe. We must learn from this.
Over 6,000 Syrians are waiting for their asylum applications to be processed in the UK, many for months or even years. Freezing these claims leaves them in limbo, prolonging their fear and uncertainty. Behind each application is an individual or family seeking safety, carrying scars and trauma that cannot simply vanish in a day. The reasons for fleeing Syria are complex, involving not only the Assad regime but also sectarian militias, illegal occupation and foreign exploitation of Syrian resources. We urge the UK government to resume processing Syrian asylum claims immediately. Syrians, Kurds and other ethnic and religious minority groups deserve compassion and protection, not indefinite uncertainty in a system meant to safeguard their lives. This blog post is written by Ella M, who came across our petition calling for the end of use of hotels as accommodation for asylum seekers. We asked her why she immediately wanted to support the call, here is her response:
During my second year at university in 2017-18, my mum was made redundant. Overnight, we found ourselves homeless, with no choice but to move into hotel accommodation. This experience has stayed with me ever since, and it’s why the petition to end the use of hotels for asylum seekers resonates deeply with me. I know what it’s like to live in such conditions and how deeply it affects you. We stayed in that hotel for a year and one month. Most of the people there were families like mine, waiting for permanent housing, but a few were asylum seekers. Although our situations were different, we all faced the same struggles. Living in a hotel is no way to raise a family. There was constant disruption from antisocial behaviour by other occupants, and we were often moved around, making it impossible to find stability or to feel safe. For us, understanding the system gave us a slight advantage—we knew how to push back when things weren’t right. But I think about asylum seekers, people who are new to the country, with no knowledge of how things work and often with no support. They have no choice but to follow what the authorities tell them, with no one to turn to for guidance. Living in that hotel, my family never had the comfort or peace needed to build a home. My two sisters and I shared a small room, cramped and difficult to live in. The hotel was right next to my sister’s secondary school, but that didn’t make it any easier. We had no control over what we ate—most days, we cooked in a rice cooker, but because facilities were limited, we often relied on free pizza from Domino's, using vouchers to get by. At the time, my mum’s redundancy had left us with very little income, making everything even harder. There was no freedom and no sense of comfort. And that was just for a little over a year. I can’t imagine what it must be like for asylum seekers, trapped in these hotels for years, with even fewer resources and less support. No one should have to live like that. This is why I support RAMFEL’s call to end the use of hotels for asylum seekers. Families, children, and individuals need safe, stable homes to rebuild their lives. Everyone deserves that basic right. Join Manuela and sign our petition to call for the end of hotels! ![]() Saturday marked 100 days since Labour assumed power, ending 14 years of Conservative rule. The immigration and asylum system is a mess, following years of chronic mismanagement and a determination to pursue ever more cruel and punitive measures no matter the harm caused to the individuals affected and the broader public. To fix this, Labour will have to be ambitious and recalibrate entirely the way a British government addresses immigration, viewing it not as a problem or source of fear but recognising it as a societal good that continues to be influenced by Britain’s colonial past. This was not going to happen overnight, but the day after Labour’s seismic victory we proposed six quick fixes for their first 100 days in power. Here’s our scorecard on how they’ve done. 1. Introduce a fee waiver for the bereaved partner concession Grade: A Though it took longer than we would have liked, on 9 September Minister for Migration and Citizenship, Seema Malhotra, announced that a fee waiver would be introduced. This came into force on 9 October, meaning grieving widows will no longer be priced out of permanent immigration status to which they are entitled. This should have been a given, and thankfully Labour did not disappoint. 2. Start processing asylum claims again Grade: C Labour immediately scrapped the Conservative’s cash for humans Rwanda deal. They then confirmed that they would begin processing claims of the 90,000 people earmarked for deportation to Rwanda, and whose claims the previous government effectively paused indefinitely. This was a good start. Reports have though since surfaced that it may take 3 years to clear the asylum backlog. Labour have pledged to recruit more decision-makers to speed things up, and this is encouraging. However, speed cannot come at the expense of quality, and the government must ensure that everyone’s claim is assessed thoroughly and fairly. Worryingly, in September Keir Starmer visited Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni. She said Starmer showed "great interest" in Italy’s deal with Albania, which will see asylum seekers sent to the latter whilst their claims are considered. This is seriously concerning. 3. Give people on 3C leave proof of their status Grade: F In June, the High Court ruled that the government’s failure to provide digital proof of status to people on 3C leave was unlawful. Though the Conservatives sought permission to appeal, this was refused. We hoped Labour would abandon this appeal and start giving people digital proof of their 3C leave status. This would massively reduce the risk of such people being wrongly classified as lacking immigration status by employers, the DWP, universities/colleges and landlords. Regrettably, Labour has instead appealed to the Court of Appeal. The government does not dispute that tens of thousands of people on 3C leave suffer detriment each year through being unable to prove their status. Even if the government’s failure to provide proof of status is ultimately deemed lawful, it still doesn’t mean it’s right. Labour’s approach here is extremely disappointing, and suggests that like their predecessors they have not learned from the Windrush scandal. 4. Commit to simplifying and expanding the family reunion process Grade: D- 52 people have died attempting to cross the Channel in 2024. There has though been no indication that Labour is prioritising creating more safe routes. Their focus has instead been on increased securitization and militarization of the border. This will push desperate people to take even more dangerous routes in search of safety and family reunification. It’s difficult to find anything positive to say about Labour’s approach to safe routes, but to their credit, they have started referring to “irregular” rather than “illegal” immigration. Another very small silver lining is the introduction of new guidance on when people in conflict zones with no visa application centre (VAC) can defer enrolment of their biometrics. We have yet to see whether this will result in any change in practice, with our report, Safe Routes to Nowhere, evidencing how the previous government encouraged unaccompanied children to undertake dangerous and irregular border crossings to attend VACs in neighbouring countries. 5. Commission a review of the no recourse to public funds (NRPF) policy Grade: F So far, Labour has said nothing in relation to the NRPF policy. This policy ruins families’ lives and needs scrapping. 6. Grant refugees the right to work whilst their claims are processed Grade: F Home Secretary Yvette Cooper has said far more about punishing and penalising those working without immigration status, and those employing them, than expanding rights to work for those going through the asylum process. Considering Labour now recognise that it will take years to clear the backlog, this is particularly disappointing. Verdict First, the positives. Labour scrapped the Rwanda plan, started processing asylum claims again and introduced a fee waiver for the bereaved partner concession. These are quick and welcome fixes. However, a vision for more systemic and broader change has been sorely lacking, with yet more focus on so-called deterrence than creating safe routes. There has also been limited if any discussion about the hostile environment and the associated harm caused, such as the NRPF policy and the continued association of a lack of documents with a lack of status. Unless this changes, the immigration system will continue causing immense harm to those living it, and public money will be wasted on cruel and ultimately counter-productive measures. |
Details
Archives
February 2025
Categories |