The Call for Migrants to Sleep in Tents: A Policy at Odds with Human Rights and the Law

A recent statement from Reform UK’s newly elected Greater Lincolnshire mayor, Dame Andrea Jenkyns, has ignited widespread criticism and concern. She suggested that migrants should be housed in tents instead of hotels, arguing that such accommodations are “good enough for France” and should be acceptable in Britain. However, this argument misrepresents the reality of migrant camps in France and raises serious ethical, legal, and humanitarian concerns.

 

The Misrepresentation of Migrant Camps in France

Jenkyns’ claim that “tents are good enough for France” overlooks a crucial distinction: The migrants living in makeshift camps in France are primarily those passing through, not settling there. Many are in transit, hoping to reach the UK or other destinations, often due to France’s strict asylum policies or personal circumstances that push them onward.

French authorities frequently dismantle these informal camps, leaving migrants displaced again. This isn’t an established system of housing migrants; it’s an unfortunate reality for those stuck in limbo due to bureaucratic hurdles. By using this as a justification for tents in Britain, Reform UK misrepresents the situation in France—ignoring that the UK has legal obligations to provide stable, humane accommodations for asylum seekers.

 

The Ethical Implications

Housing vulnerable individuals—many of whom have fled war, persecution, and disaster—in tents is an affront to basic human dignity. The idea that Britain, a nation with a strong history of protecting human rights, should deliberately offer inadequate shelter contradicts the values of compassion and fairness that many citizens hold dear. Unlike temporary emergency accommodations used during crises, proposing tents as a long-term solution implies an intention to degrade living standards for migrants rather than to solve systemic inefficiencies.

 

The Legal Perspective

Under international law, including the 1951 Refugee Convention, the UK is obligated to ensure safe and humane conditions for asylum seekers. The European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) also outlines protections against degrading treatment, which could apply here. The UK’s Housing Act 1985 mandates that accommodations meet a minimum standard, which tents—subject to extreme weather and inadequate security—do not. If implemented, such a policy could spark legal challenges on human rights grounds, with courts ruling against government measures that fail to meet basic humanitarian standards.

 

The Misguided Push to Change Laws and International Agreements

In response to criticism, Reform UK has suggested altering domestic and international laws to allow harsher treatment of asylum seekers. This proposition is deeply flawed for several reasons.

First, the 1951 Refugee Convention, which the UK is a signatory to, sets binding obligations on how asylum seekers must be treated. Countries cannot simply rewrite international treaties unilaterally. Even if Britain were to withdraw, doing so would severely damage its global reputation, undermining its commitments to human rights and diplomacy.

Second, the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and UK domestic laws, such as the Housing Act 1985, mandate humane treatment and safe housing conditions. Reform UK’s suggestion ignores that even if laws were changed, denying adequate shelter could still be challenged in courts on human rights grounds, leading to legal battles and potential rulings against the government.

Finally, changing laws does not solve immigration challenges. The real solution lies in processing asylum claims more efficiently, improving housing infrastructure, and coordinating with international allies to establish fair and humane policies. Reform UK’s rhetoric, rather than addressing real structural issues, seeks to shift blame and weaken protections, setting a dangerous precedent for how Britain treats vulnerable populations.

 

The Political Context

Reform UK has built much of its platform around reducing immigration, but statements like Jenkyns’ reveal a more radical approach—one that dismisses practical and lawful methods in favor of performative toughness. While the UK faces legitimate challenges in processing asylum applications efficiently, targeting migrants by enforcing substandard living conditions does not resolve the issue. Instead, it shifts the conversation away from meaningful reform and toward punitive, divisive rhetoric.

 

Public Reaction

Unsurprisingly, the suggestion has drawn backlash from rights groups, legal experts, and members of the public. Organizations advocating for refugees have called the proposal cruel and impractical, citing health concerns, security risks, and moral obligations the UK holds. Meanwhile, some citizens who feel frustrated with the costs associated with migrant housing may welcome the idea—highlighting an ongoing struggle between humanitarian values and political discontent.

 

A Flawed Proposal That Does Not Solve the Problem

The UK government must tackle immigration issues through strategic, lawful measures—speeding up asylum processes, ensuring adequate funding for local councils, and working collaboratively with other nations. Reducing asylum seekers’ quality of life does not make immigration more manageable; it merely subjects vulnerable people to unnecessary hardship while eroding Britain’s moral standing.

The treatment of migrants reflects the nation’s values. Britain can either uphold its historic principles of fairness and human dignity or take a path toward dehumanization and controversy. The question is: Which future do we want?