The Power to Exclude: Are the Refugees and Migrants Going to be Mis(treated)under the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill 2025?

This paper examines the implications of the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill on the treatment of refugees and migrants in the UK. It provides a critical analysis of the practical measures introduced by the 2025 Bill and addresses concerns regarding potential mistreatment and exclusionary practices. It argues that: 1) the Bill’s primary objects of preventing organised immigration crimes and reducing irregular migration to the UK carry the risk of mistreating refugees owing to the UK’s recent tendency of conflating the concept of ‘refugee’ with political euphemism of ‘irregular migration’- a designation that includes both economic and political migrants; and 2) the Bill will minimise the UK’s role and involvement in refugee protection and maximise its political expediencies that will further dilute the legal conceptualisation of refugeehood and severely compromise their legal protection regime. To substantiate these arguments, two examples are used. First, the Bill establishes several new criminal offenses that introduce punitive measures, alongside granting additional powers to immigration officials. Second, it fails to repeal certain provisions of the Illegal Migration Act 2023, which maintain expanded detention powers, and the cap on safe and legal entry routes. In conclusion, this paper underscores the necessity of balancing national security with humanitarian obligations, advocating for a more equitable approach to immigration that respects the rights and dignity of all individuals seeking refuge. The significance of this paper lies in exploring the intricacies associated with the legislative verbiage as a tool for the exclusion of refugees from the UK so that they could better align with international law and respond more humanely to the refugee crisis as the consequences otherwise could create an unsafe global society where the dignity and moral claims of refugees are subordinated to legalisms.