According to the Migrants’ Rights Network (MRN), public data sharing aimed at supporting immigration enforcement operations is seldom effective and functions primarily as a surveillance tool that discourages migrants from seeking essential public services.
In the UK, the Home Office employs 19 Immigration Compliance and Enforcement (ICE) teams to conduct frequent immigration raids intended to locate and remove undocumented migrants or individuals lacking the legal right to work. This report was released following the Labour government’s announcement of a significant increase in immigration enforcement and removal activities, which includes more detentions and deportations. It reveals how UK Immigration Enforcement leverages data from the public, law enforcement, government departments, and local authorities to facilitate these raids.
Public tip-offs alone generate around 60,000 intelligence reports annually for Immigration Enforcement. Additionally, there are data-sharing agreements between the Home Office and various government agencies, such as the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP), HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC), the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA), and the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC), as well as with financial institutions.
The MRN emphasizes that these data-sharing practices can have severe repercussions for individuals subjected to immigration enforcement, as they often find themselves barred from accessing crucial public services, including free secondary non-emergency health care and social benefits. Although data sharing related to raids declined following public outcry over the Windrush scandal and subsequent legal challenges, new agreements have been established since.
Among these agreements is a renewed arrangement with the financial sector, initiated in April 2023, which requires banks and building societies to conduct quarterly checks against the Home Office’s immigration database. Individuals flagged are subsequently reported for enforcement actions.
MRN stated, “Due to the predominance of ‘tip-offs’ as a catalyst for most immigration raids, the effectiveness of this data-sharing in identifying and removing undocumented migrants is highly questionable. Instead, such sharing serves primarily as a surveillance method for migrants and acts as a deterrent against them accessing essential services.”
Julia Tinsley-Kent, head of policy and communications at MRN and a co-author of the report, explained that the existing data-sharing mechanisms, combined with government messaging emphasizing strict enforcement, lead individuals to engage in “self-policing” out of fear of potential missteps within a hostile environment.
She highlighted the detrimental impact of data sharing from institutions meant to assist individuals, such as education and healthcare agencies. “This fear means individuals refrain from seeking medical care lest they be reported to the Home Office via the NHS. This environment prompts continuous self-vigilance. Access to health and safety should occur without the threat of ICE intervention.”
An anonymous member of the Anti Raids Network (ARN) characterized these data-sharing practices as extending the hostile environment into everyday life, making public services increasingly inaccessible for migrants.
The ARN member observed that many segments of the British public system are already difficult for migrants, particularly people of color, to navigate due to cultural barriers, structural racism, language issues, and past negative experiences. They added, “If individuals are aware, this knowledge further alienates them from these institutions. For recent arrivals unaware of these risks, it feels like stepping into a trap while merely seeking essential services.”
In response to the MRN report’s findings, the Home Office stated, “We make no apologies for sharing intelligence or data that aids us in combating criminal gangs that exploit vulnerable individuals in inhumane ways.” A spokesperson emphasized the importance of these actions in protecting vulnerable populations from exploitation and modern slavery.
Tinsley-Kent noted the psychological impact of data-sharing, which creates a fearful environment for affected individuals. Nevertheless, there remains insufficient clarity regarding the specific data exchanges between public entities and how these are linked to particular raiding operations. She reported challenges in acquiring this information through Freedom of Information requests, with many public bodies either lacking the data or claiming it was not in the public interest to disclose.
The report indicates a significant lack of information from educational bodies, such as Ofsted and the Office for Students, concerning their data-sharing arrangements with immigration agencies. Tinsley-Kent expressed concerns that understanding how immigration status is determined through surveillance may be obscured by confusing guidelines regarding pre-raid assessments conducted by authorities.
“In many instances, 10% of those targeted by raids are UK citizens,” she pointed out, mentioning a workplace raid where the business owner had never even heard of the targeted individual. It raises concerns about how surveillance informs judgments about immigration status, with the MRN report suggesting that racial profiling could play a significant role in these assessments.
The ARN organizer pointed out that many individuals facing immigration raids remain unaware of why they were targeted. They noted that the deeply searching surveillance tactics mean individuals may not know what led to a raid, raising concerns about systemic racial profiling in these operations.
Critics argue that immigration raids not only serve to exclude but disrupt the lives of migrants and their families, imposing a sense of terror that leads to increased fear and isolation. MRN highlighted that, despite the rise in deportations following the implementation of the Nationality and Borders Act in July 2022, only 9.17% of raids result in removal.
It can be argued, they state, that the objective of these raids goes beyond immediate removal, aiming instead to humiliate, racially subjugate, and harm migrants, functioning as a punitive measure outside traditional criminal systems. The MRN suggests framing immigration raids as a form of state-sanctioned kidnapping reinforces how governmental structures exert control over migrants.
The ARN organizer emphasized that terror as a component of the hostile environment is an intentional design meant to ensure that those coming to the UK for relief or security feel continually unsettled. The impact of being a migrant is a persistent feeling of vulnerability, where any interaction outside of trusted community spaces could potentially lead to reporting.
Furthermore, the MRN describes immigration raids as a continuation of colonial “divide and rule” tactics that deepen social divisions by encouraging communities to perceive each other as threats, fostering mistrust and the inclination to report on one another.
Tinsley-Kent argued that the dehumanization of migrants, reinforced by data-driven enforcement practices, enables the normalization of violence against them. “When individuals are reduced to mere numbers, it becomes easier to justify border policies, detention, and deportation,” she said, adding that the government’s numerical discourse around immigration raids and detention targets reflects a broader trend towards treating people as mere data points.
In a similar vein, a member of the ARN noted that the way language is used to describe migrants contributes to public perception and facilitates the violence directed at them. They pointed out that such tactics have been utilized by colonial powers for centuries to dehumanize groups targeted for oppression.
Petra Molnar, a Harvard faculty associate and author of “The Walls Have Eyes: Surviving Migration in the Age of Artificial Intelligence,” termed the data-sharing practices a “disturbing manifestation of migration surveillance and control,” driving further dehumanization and inciting panic over migration. “These surveillance-fueled raids in the UK are indicative of a global trend that undermines communities and violates the rights recognized by both international and domestic law for every person globally,” she stated.
Tinsley-Kent echoed this sentiment, indicating that the data-driven categorization of individuals is part of a broader pattern across Europe and the US that fosters an “international hostile environment,” particularly for individuals from the Global South. The overlapping practices of data collection and sharing internationally exacerbate the situation, creating a continuum of “racist deterrence” from the moment an individual crosses a border to their engagement with public services. “The pervasive spread of technology in everyday life illustrates how, time and again, racialized individuals bear the brunt of such measures,” she concluded.
