Can We Maintain them all Without Conflict?
In the ideal world imagined by human rights frameworks, every person is equal. Every person is deserving of safety, dignity, and opportunity, regardless of where they were born. This principle is noble, and it forms the moral backbone of modern democracies and international agreements. However, what happens when these ideals collide with the practical duties of government, especially its first and most sacred obligation to protect the safety and stability of its people?
The tension between universal human rights and national security and sovereignty is one of the defining moral and political challenges of our age. Nowhere is that conflict more visible than in the debate around borders, migration, and asylum.
The Universal Promise and the National Reality
Human rights, by definition, apply to all people. The right not to be tortured, to a fair hearing, to seek asylum, to be free from persecution, the right to free speech and many more are not supposed to depend on nationality, income, or legal status.
However, states are not abstract moral entities. They are tasked with preserving the integrity and functionality of the societies they govern. That includes protecting borders, managing public services, and ensuring that law, order, and social cohesion are maintained equally and fairly.
When these two imperatives clash, and they do, often, neither one can simply be dismissed, both are legitimate, yet, the modern world increasingly forces societies to choose.
The Core Conflict
Consider the following scenario:
- A person crosses a national border illegally. They claim asylum, but they have no documents and cannot prove where they are from.
- The receiving country has a legal obligation under international law to assess their claim fairly. They also have a moral obligation not to return the person to a place where they may face harm.
- But at the same time, the state has a responsibility to control its borders, allocate resources fairly, and maintain public trust in its systems.
This is the collision point. Uphold the human rights of the individual, and you may be seen as weakening border control. Enforce immigration controls rigidly, and you may end up violating human rights.
The Illusion of Easy Answers
Both the right and left often offer simplistic answers.
- The right is often accused of, “Close the borders. Deport first, ask questions later. National security comes first.”
- Whilst the left leaves people thinking they mean, “No borders, no nations, only people. All are welcome, no matter what.”
Neither approach works and politicians or the media misreporting for person gain hardly helps. The former often leads to cruelty, legal breaches, and international condemnation. The latter, though well-intentioned, undermines the very concept of a managed society and can cause real strain on communities and systems.
A Realistic Middle Ground
A functioning society must be able to control who enters and who stays, but it must do so within a framework that respects human dignity and international obligations.
This means:
- Having clear, transparent asylum processes that are fast, fair, and rigorous.
- Creating safe legal routes so that desperate people aren’t forced into the hands of smugglers.
- Ensuring deportation procedures are humane, lawful, and only used when all other avenues are exhausted.
- Maintaining public order and cohesion by managing migration levels in line with national capacity.
- Honouring our international commitments to refugees and human rights treaties.
It’s about managing borders with humility, honesty, integrity and humanity, not abandoning the concept of rights, but neither pretending they exist in a vacuum.
Why This Matters Politically
Many governments today exploit this tension for political gain, using migration crises to whip up fear, justify authoritarian measures, or distract from internal failings. However, citizens of most countries also feel a very real and understandable anxiety.
- Can our services cope?
- Are the rules being followed?
- Is the system fair?
When people see chaos or injustice, whether its small boats arriving unchecked, or vulnerable people locked up indefinitely, they lose trust. That loss of trust can be fatal to both the rule of law and to the idea of human rights.
Reframing the Debate
We need a new conversation, one that moves beyond tribal politics and asks the real questions.
- How can we design systems that are both just and secure?
- How do we ensure rights are meaningful but not abused?
- How can we educate the public about the realities of migration and asylum, without condescension or propaganda?
There are answers, but they require political will, institutional integrity, and public honesty.
Our Position – Rights and Borders Can Coexist
Our political movement believes in real human rights, not as slogans, but as living principles. But we also believe that rights without order are fragile. That a society without borders is not a society, and that safety within our society is a right too.
We will:
- Uphold the dignity of every human being, regardless of origin.
- Ensure that asylum seekers are treated fairly and humanely.
- Defend the right of our society to manage who enters and on what terms.
- Build transparent, humane systems that make sense, morally and practically.
The Line We Must Walk
Human rights and national security should not be enemies, they should be supportive partners. However, like all partnerships, the balance requires care, clarity, and courage. We will not abandon our ideals, but neither will we abandon our responsibilities.
We believe Britain can, and must, be both safe and just. That means facing the hard questions head-on and building a system where rights are protected without surrendering the integrity of the society they serve.
It won’t be easy, but it is possible, and, vitally, it is necessary.