Immigration policies in the UK and Turkiye — A comparative reflection

Immigration is a topic that frequently stirs emotions, debates and, most critically, policies that shape the lives of millions. When comparing the immigration policies of the United Kingdom and Turkiye, we are presented with a stark contrast in how two nations, each grappling with its own challenges, address the complexities of migration. The UK and Turkiye offer two different lenses through which we can examine the successes, failures and ethical considerations of modern immigration policies.

The UK: A fortress under construction

The United Kingdom, historically a beacon for immigrants due to its colonial past and economic opportunities, has increasingly adopted a more restrictive stance on immigration. Brexit, in particular, marked a seismic shift in the UK’s approach. The nation, once an advocate of the European Union’s free movement of people, has turned inward, implementing a points-based system that prioritises skilled workers over those deemed “unskilled”.

READ: Union accuses conservatives of leaving ‘legacy of structural racism’ in UK jobs market

This points-based system, lauded by some as a method to attract the “best and brightest”, raises significant ethical concerns. It is based on the premise that a person’s worth to a country is directly tied to their economic utility, a concept that reduces human beings to mere economic units. This approach fails to consider the rich, non-economic contributions that immigrants bring, including cultural diversity, innovation in less obvious sectors and the fundamental human right to seek a better life. Moreover, this system has led to labour shortages in essential sectors like healthcare and agriculture, where the so-called “unskilled” workers, many from the EU, once played a crucial role.

Brexit supporters often argue that the UK needed to “take back control” of its borders, a sentiment driven by fears of uncontrolled immigration. However, this rhetoric often disguises a deeper discomfort with the multiculturalism that immigration inevitably brings. The “hostile environment” policy, which seeks to make life as difficult as possible for undocumented immigrants, is a glaring example of how the UK’s immigration stance has veered into cruelty. This policy, which has led to wrongful deportations and denied basic services to long-term residents, showcases a lack of humanity in the pursuit of stringent border control.

While the UK’s approach may satisfy the demands of those who fear immigration’s impact on jobs, culture or public services, it ultimately fosters a society that values exclusion over inclusion. The drive to create a “fortress Britain” risks not only harming those who seek refuge or opportunity but also depriving the country of the rich benefits that immigration has historically brought.

Turkiye: A reluctant host or a humanitarian leader?

Turkiye presents a contrasting narrative. Geopolitically positioned as a gateway between Europe and Asia, Turkiye has found itself at the centre of one of the largest refugee crises in modern history. Hosting over 3.6 million Syrian refugees, Turkiye’s role has been both praised and criticised. On one hand, Turkiye’s policy of providing temporary protection to millions fleeing conflict is a commendable humanitarian gesture. On the other hand, the integration of these refugees into Turkish society remains fraught with challenges.

Turkiye’s approach to immigration is not just a matter of policy but of necessity. Unlike the UK, which can afford ‘to cherry-pick’ its immigrants, such as Ukrainian Extension Scheme , Turkiye has had to deal with the immediate reality of mass displacement. The country has provided a haven for millions, offering access to healthcare, education and employment, albeit under difficult circumstances. This contrasts sharply with the UK’s selective approach, highlighting Turkiye’s role as a frontline state in dealing with the consequences of regional instability.

However, Turkiye’s policies are not without flaws. The country has been criticised for its treatment of non-Syrian refugees and asylum seekers, who often find themselves in a legal limbo with limited access to rights and services. Additionally, the long-term presence of millions of refugees has strained Turkiye’s economy, leading to social tensions and growing xenophobia. The Turkish party leaders have been accused of using refugees as a bargaining chip in negotiations with the European Union, threatening to “open the floodgates” if certain demands are not met.

READ: Erdogan vows to punish ‘racists, fascists’ for attacking foreigners

Despite these issues, Turkiye’s response to the refugee crisis highlights a level of responsibility and resilience that is often missing in the UK’s more insular approach. While Turkiye’s policies may not be perfect, they reflect a commitment to humanitarian principles that are increasingly under threat in other parts of the world, including the UK.

The broader ethical landscape

When we compare the immigration policies of the UK and Turkiye, we must consider the broader ethical implications. The UK’s approach, rooted in exclusion and selectivity, reflects a broader trend in Western countries that prioritise national interest over global responsibility. The focus on “controlling” immigration often leads to policies that are not only restrictive but inhumane, as seen in the UK’s treatment of undocumented immigrants.

Turkiye, while facing its own challenges, offers a counter-narrative that emphasizes responsibility over restriction. Despite the strain on its resources and the social tensions that have arisen, Turkiye’s willingness to host millions of refugees demonstrates a level of global solidarity that is increasingly rare.

In a world where displacement is becoming more common due to conflict, climate change, and economic inequality, the ethical question is not just about how to manage immigration but how to address the root causes and responsibilities. The UK’s inward-looking policies may offer short-term political gains, but they risk long-term social and ethical costs. Meanwhile, Turkiye’s experience highlights the importance of global cooperation and shared responsibility.

Conclusion: The path forward

As the world becomes more interconnected, the need for fair, humane and responsible immigration policies is more urgent than ever. The UK and Turkiye offer two different paths—one of selective exclusion and the other of reluctant, but necessary, inclusion. The question for the future is which path will ultimately lead to a more just and equitable world. The UK would do well to learn from Turkiye’s example of resilience and responsibility, while Turkiye could benefit from refining its policies to better protect the rights of all migrants. Both nations must recognise that immigration is not just a policy issue but a fundamental human issue that demands “3 C Rules”:  ‘compassion, cooperation and courage’.

OPINION: The UK’s far-right riots are the violent spasms of a dying British society

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.