Afghan women may be offered "safe route" to resettle in the UK as refugees

[IwantToRetire]

Shabana Mahmood has announced the reopening of a scheme to resettle refugees in the UK, as she hopes that offering "safe and legal" routes will deter small boat crossings.

The home secretary said the UK wants to "live up to our international obligations" by helping those who are fleeing war and persecution, but the process must be "capped and controlled".

The Home Office said the UK Resettlement Scheme (UKRS) will reopen immediately and expects that around 25% of arrivals will be Afghan women and girls and Palestinians.

The Home Office expects arrivals to increase to the "low thousands" as levels of illegal migration fall.

A cap will be set for each year although details of the number have yet to be provided.

People arriving in Britain under the safe and legal routes will be be put on a five-year path to permanent settlement.

Full article https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c5vgyj8k3dzgo

Have you read the report? (We are talking about this report aren't we? https://www.unhcr.org/uk/sites/uk/files/2026-03/asylum_interviews_in_the_uk_-_unhcr_audit_findings_and_recommendations.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com )

"Quality scores are now at their lowest recorded levels, with figures published the year ending September 2024 indicating that “Decision Quality” in asylum claims stood at only 52%. This is a decrease from previous years"

Were you expecting a massive uptick in quality after July 2024?

The report covers a period when both the Conservatives and Labour were in government.

The oppression of women is entirely an afghan invention, the Taliban wouldn’t have been able to rule without the consent of afghan men. No-one is forced to marry a child or engage in bacha bazi. The only way we could have guaranteed basic rights for afghan women would have been permanent occupation.

Ah, so just like Cameron's policy way back in 2015 - that Labour screamed was racist, and refused to support.

Though I suppose they've already nicked a load of other Tory policies they screamed were racist and refused to support, like housing asylum seekers in military bases, so why not this one too.

I would ok with taking solely afghan woman and children but the reality is I think everything the Labour government is doing in regards to asylum currently is going to just push Reform towards an electoral victory.

I have zero interest in taking men from any country where chid marriage is permissible (including Gaza) or where there are high rates of violence towards women etc. Palestinians in Denmark turned out to be extremely criminal. I’m happy to take known peace activists (genuine ones) but honestly I seriously doubt our states ability to vet properly. The Palestinian militant who arrived on a small boat and liked to threaten jews and incite violence is now out and living in a HMO, he should have been removed from the country which we just don’t do. I would be a lot more understanding if we deported anyone who committed a crime but we simply don’t. We hand them a british passport instead.

Do you think political parties shouldn’t review and amend policies? Really?

@Notonmyland "An American soldier noted on entering Germany as victory was declared that it'd been full of Nazis and suddenly there were none."

My Dad (who was a medic in the allied forces) said exactly the same thing. Even when he arrived at Bergen-Belsen concentration camp, apparently there wasn't a single Nazi amongst those in charge. Strange that isn't it. Not.

No. They are very different countries with different issues. Personally I support Afghani women coming, but I note the interesting posts about family addons, which if male is not good, but I dont support Palestinians coming here at all. As a pp said we have a long established Jewish population who need support.

Sure. There are far right agitators muddying the waters, and also far left agitators doing the same.

Another issue where it's hard to get clear and reliable info that isn't politically motivated.

Do you think it's morally acceptable for a political party to deliberately cause huge damage to the country by repeatedly and consistently blocking every policy the government suggests to control immigration whilst in opposition, and then as soon as they slither their way into power (at least in part because they prevented the Tories from implementing many of their ideas so people were fed up of having an entirely ineffective government) they immediately go back to all the policies they blocked, and implement them themselves. Really?

It looks like they kept a list of all the best ideas that they prevented, and are now literally going down that list one-by-one. We're obviously at Theresa May's 'death tax' now. Where might we be if they'd all been implemented the first time they were proposed? And what the hell is the point of a Labour government if we're just getting decade-old Tory policies?

Or do you believe Labour genuinely believed the policies to be wrong when they shouted them down, and only now years later they suddenly see they were actually great ideas after all? Which means not only are they entirely incompetent, but that they should be offering a very loud apology to the Conservatives for hamstringing them and an even louder admission that they were right all along, and Labour were just too stupid to realise it.

But pp is making a very good point. How reliable are background checks on someone from an entirely different culture?

Same.

Yeah the reality is even where there are laws if the prevailing culture is that no-one does anything then no it won’t show up. The report in Gaza includes rape of wives, exchanging a girl for a bag of flour, gang rape of a child with disabilities and so on, plus honour killings aren’t unusual, the women themselves say there is no recourse to any authorities. It makes for depressing reading. I’m fine with female refugees as long as there is zero and I mean zero chance of them being joined by males. Theres no point in even going over everything in Afghanistan, there are zero circumstances in which a woman will not be blamed for her owm rape or abuse.

For most of the previous 14 years the Tories had a majority. The opposition couldn't block anything. The Tories have an innate problem when it comes to controlling immigration, as their big business backers largely support a libertarian approach to migration but their many of their more grassroots supporters don't. They end up trying to square a circle that is hard to do. The Labour Party has similar challenges, but from different directions.

I'm not a particular fan of tribal objections to policies on the basis of "the other people like this so we can't", but to pretend this is unique to the Labour Party is ridiculous. You provide a good example of this Theresa May's 'death tax' (I think actually hers was 'dementia tax') was arguably Gordon Brown's 'death tax', opposed by the Tories. (and initially proposed by one A Burnham). So yes, imagine where we would be had that been implemented when first proposed. Of course, they are not in actual fact exactly the same as times, circumstances and the philosophies behind them change.

Running late so not had time to check but I think in the early part of the thread, I said something that maybe it was like the Ukraine scheme.

But not sure that it is. The Ukraine scheme was, and still is?, about offering shelter during a time of war. The intention being that should there be a peaceful resolution, the Ukrainian families in the UK would return to Ukraine.

Not sure that this is the same, but maybe. Has anyone checked.

ie is it offering temporary shelter with the intention that should, if ever, the situation in their home countries be less hostile, they would return home?

What is to stop the women bringing their husbands and families? In which case does this mean the entire population of Afghanistan can claim asylum? I am not sure how they will pick and choose.

Absolutely no because they will then bring their extend family.
Just /no.

As said upthread, the family re-unifcation scheme has been suspended.

I am posting this info from AI as much of this thread seems to be based on tabloid headlines!

So to fact check myself

Unlike the temporary visa routes established for Ukrainian families, the re-opened UKRS places accepted refugees—including the prioritised vulnerable Afghan women and girls and Palestinian refugees—on a clear five-year pathway to permanent residence (Indefinite Leave to Remain). Once permanent settlement is granted, individuals become fully eligible to apply for British citizenship under standard UK immigration rules.

Plus re family members

... the dedicated refugee family reunion pathway has been suspended, meaning women arriving under the UKRS cannot currently use it to bring family members over. 1]

The Home Office temporarily suspended the dedicated Refugee Family Reunion (RFR) route. The suspension remains a major subject of criticism from groups like the Refugee Council following Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood's re-opening of the UK Resettlement Scheme. 1, 2, 3]

How family reunification stands for women arriving under the scheme:

• The Core Free Route is Closed: Under normal circumstances, resettled refugees could sponsor immediate family members (spouses and dependent children under 18) to join them in the UK for free, without needing to meet any income or language benchmarks. This specific pathway is locked to new applications. 1, 2, 3]
• The "Standard" Migration Alternative: If a woman resettled under the UKRS wants to bring family members over during the suspension, they must apply under standard UK family visa rules (Appendix FM). This imposes severe barriers, requiring the sponsor to meet a minimum income threshold of at least £29,000 per year, prove they have adequate independent accommodation, and show that applicants meet basic English language requirements. 1, 2, 3]
• The Path Forward: The government has indicated that the suspension was designed to allow a complete policy overhaul to prevent strain on local housing authorities. Stricter, revised refugee family reunion rules are expected to be unveiled.

While the refugee family reunification route is suspended, there is still scope to apply for a family visa. I am also not convinced that Labour will be tough enough not to allow families of refugee women to join them eventually. I suppose I don’t trust them not to water this down once they are under pressure from backbenchers, lobbyists and constituents.

Well yes, there should have been an immediate uptick. I seem to remember Keir Starmer stating that their work was urgent.

Interestingly, in another quality initiative conducted by the UK Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration in August/September 2025, findings showed that 78.7% of grant decisions across all decision-making units contained insufficient evidence on which to make a decision and were therefore likely to be incorrect.

Plus re family members
... the dedicated refugee family reunion pathway has been suspended, meaning women arriving under the UKRS cannot currently use it to bring family members over.

If I understand correctly, this only applies to women who travel alone and might want to bring their family members over later, but there is the option of bringing their husbands with them straight away:

The Home Office has specifically clarified that family units will be allowed to come to the UK together. If a woman is identified by the UN Refugee Agency (UNHCR) as highly vulnerable and selected for resettlement, her husband and dependent children are processed as part of her immediate household.
^^
The temporary suspension of the Refugee Family Reunion pathway (which was paused by the government in September 2025) only impacts people who are already in the UK and trying to apply to bring their relatives over from abroad later on.

This

As posted up thread

If a woman resettled under the UKRS wants to bring family members over during the suspension, they must apply under standard UK family visa rules (Appendix FM).

This imposes severe barriers, requiring the sponsor to meet a minimum income threshold of at least £29,000 per year, prove they have adequate independent accommodation, and show that applicants meet basic English language requirements.

I’m very honest in that I don’t object to schemes to bring over more Afghan women and girls, but not male family members unless sons and very young. And I don’t really care what anyone thinks about that.

In total support. Very happy to support afghani women and girls, but hadn't really realised until this thread, that that could mean male family members being able to join. No. We have enough issues with men and their attitude without adding to that. I live in Kent, will never vote Reform, but the cost to my county from this unwanted illegal immigration is not ok. That cost includes social services, education, health, police, immigration, housing. That impact damages current Kent residents, regardless of their ethnicity, nationality, age or disability.