Hello. Welcome back to Conversations with
Stephen Kamugasa. This is the first episode
in our 2026 Citizenship and Civil Society
series. Today's guest is Lord Alf Dubs, a
British Labour life peer a former member
of parliament and a lifelong campaigner for
the rights of refugees. Lord Dubs is widely
known for successfully campaigning for an
amendment to the Immigration Act in 2016,
which compelled the UK government to relocate
a specified number of unaccompanied child
refugees from Europe to the UK. an effort
often referred to as the Dubs Amendment.
He remains an active and independent-minded
member of the House of Lords, continuing
to champion human rights, social justice,
and refugee policy. In this episode, we discuss
the topic, who are we now? Citizenship, Civil
Society, and the Multipolar New World Order.
Lord Alf Dubs, welcome.
Good morning, thank you. Thank you for inviting
me to join you.
Your first appearance on this podcast on
an episode titled Practise Hospitality, the
Strangers and Refugees, provided a powerful
exploration of the human stories behind the
refugee experience. Drawing upon your own
inspiring journey from being a stranger and
refugee to become a prominent advocate, you
highlighted the challenges and triumphs of
welcoming those seeking refuge. The conversation
focused on the importance of listening to
survivors' voices debunking common myths
and misconceptions surrounding refugees,
and sharing practical advice for communities
to create safe environments and make a positive
hospitable impact on the lives of newcomers.
Load dubs. In our previous conversation,
we focused on the individual act of practising
hospitality. Now, as we look at the new theme
of citizenship and civil society, what happens
when the hospitality of the individual runs
up against the official policies and structures
of a nation state? Does the machinery of
the modern state make it inherently difficult,
perhaps even radical, for an individual to
be truly hospitable today?
Well, I think what we have seen, certainly
in the UK, is that although there have been
hostile comments to immigrants and especially
to asylum seekers by government ministers,
I think that local communities have still
been pretty supportive. However, if government
say that, as in a previous government, a
conservative minister said that asylum seekers
are invaders, then it is harder for local
communities to be supportive. So there is
a tension going on. And I think in politics,
those of us that are supporting human rights
and the rights of asylum seekers and refugees,
we have to be aware that public opinion ought
to be on our side. And I think the most important
thing is to indicate to people what it is
that asylum seekers have gone through before
they fled for safety to Europe and in particular
to the UK. In other words, they've gone through
the most terrifying experiences. I was talking
to a Syrian boy some time ago who told me
that his father had been blown up by a bomb
in front of him in Aleppo, Damascus. A terrifying
thing to happen. Or people who fled Afghanistan.
These are terrible experiences. And I think
the more we understand in local communities
what people have been through, the more likely
it is that local communities will wish to
be supportive of newcomers.
Your story shows how a single Kindertransport
child became a British citizen, a politician,
and a lifelong advocate. Looking at the rise
of a multi-polar world order, Do you see
the concept of national citizenship as fundamentally
changing in this new global landscape? What
are the core responsibilities of a global
citizen versus a national citizen?
That's quite difficult. What we're finding,
certainly in many European countries, including
the UK, is that extremely right-wing political
parties are exploiting the issue of asylum
seekers, quite often dishonestly, exploiting
the issue in order to gain cheap political
votes. And so there is a tension already
between some of the political parties. Hungary
was always like that. We've seen it in Slovakia,
Austria, Germany, France, Italy. These are
real tensions which are affecting not just
individuals, but which are affecting the
way in which the politics is working in all
these countries. In the UK, the Reform Party,
which is very anti-asylum-seeking, anti-immigrant,
the Reform Party is, according to opinion
polls, doing pretty well. These are tensions
we've got here, and we've got tensions elsewhere.
The challenge to other politicians who believe
in human rights and democracy is to indicate
that that is not the way you want to go forward.
But it's difficult and we will have to see
in forthcoming elections how this works out.
But there's certainly a more difficult situation
in terms of national politics influencing
thinking about asylum seekers than we've
had before. I would say this though, that
there is a confusion deliberately fostered
by some of our popular newspapers, of confusion
between immigrants and the sound seekers.
Can I make that clear? There's nothing unworthy
about being an economic migrant. each country
can decide in terms of its own labour market
and other needs how many people to take.
And so we have shortage occupations here
and we make sure that people who come here
can fill those jobs. We can't fill them locally.
But that's very different from asylum seekers
who are protected by human rights agreements.
They're protected by the 1951 Geneva Convention
and so they come here or ought to come here
with human rights protections. And so And
although, of all the immigrants, the asylum
seekers are a smallish proportion, it's being
built up in the papers as if they represented
everybody in the country. And it's not so,
but these are serious misconceptions which
affect the way in which we can put over more
sensible human rights-based policies.
Given your tireless work on behalf of child
refugees, which is often a battle against
government policy, How do you define the
moral duty of a citizen in a democracy? Is
it primarily to obey the law or is it to
continually push that law towards a more
just and humane outcome?
Well, I don't think there's a conflict between
the two, if I've understood you correctly.
It seems to me that in a democracy we have
whatever the status quo is, and then citizens
have the right as politicians have the right
on their behalf to argue for change. And
that is quite legitimate. And those changes
can reflect both the practical details of
policy, as well as to argue about attitudes
and understanding. But I don't think there
needs to be a conflict. I think citizens
have the right to speak out and let their
voice be heard and let their influence be
heard. And it's up to politicians to be sensitive
to those voices.
When we started planning this podcast in
2025, I reached out to Antony Lowenstein,
who is known for his critical stance on the
Israeli government's treatment of Palestinians
and the impact of the global military industrial
complex. Antony Lowenstein is the author
of the Palestine Laboratory. how Israel exports
the technology of occupation around the world,
which won the prestigious Walkley Book Award
for long-form journalism. His question is
as follows. Considering current and proposed
shifts in the UK's immigration and asylum
policies, such as potential increases in
visa renewal fees, stricter English language
requirements, and extended paths to permanent
settlement. What specific social, economic,
and political consequences could such changes
have on the UK's demographic makeup and international
standing in the coming years?
Well, I'm not sure I've quite understood
that, but certainly there are changes in
our population, in the demography. One has
to walk around London to see that it's a
great thing. We're a multicultural city,
as are increasingly other cities in Europe
and some in North America. But there's also
the need to get the public to accept this.
And there is a need for people coming here.
I think people coming here should be helped
to learn English. I think not to speak the
language of a country weakens one's position.
It shouldn't be a precondition for people
coming here, but it should be something which
we should encourage people to do when they
get here. because having people living in
Britain who don't speak a word of English
is not very healthy for democracy, and above
all it weakens the position of people in
terms of achieving their rights. So I think
language is an important aspect. In many
contexts, work and the right to work, which
is not given to asylum seekers until they're
given their status here, it means they can
go for quite a long time without being allowed
to work, which is It's very depressing in
terms of policy. But I think when people
can get to work, because work will tend to
be a cross-community type workforce usually,
and therefore they'll acquire English. And
of course, the next generation of children
here will learn English at school. And so
I'm hoping that the generation ahead, the
tendency for some, immigrants to stick to
their own language rather than English will
be lessened because the children at school
will have to engage with their fellow schoolmates.
So there are changes happening. I think the
question is how well we can manage those
changes. It's easier to manage those changes
if there's a supportive government. More
difficult if if there's a feeling that the
government is a bit hostile. I should say,
by the way, when you called it the Dubs Amendment
for child refugees, I didn't call it that.
I would not be so pompous as to call it after
my own name. That was done by the media,
and unfortunately it stuck. But can I also
say that any campaigning I've done on behalf
of refugees or child refugees has been done
with a lot of other people. I tend to get
more publicity for all sorts of reasons,
which you understand, but there's been a
lot of support. It hasn't been a solo effort
by me, it's been a collective effort, collabouratively
working with other people to achieve the
maximum political impact.
Lord Dubs, Antony Lowenstein earlier raised
the international consequences of our increasingly
strict immigration policies. To consider
the domestic side, which you've kindly touched
upon, of the same coin, Dr. Maria Chamberlain,
who joined our genocide series in 2024 with
her podcast, Genocide, why it is important
to bear witness, recently wrote to me about
the unnatural way refugees are currently
housed in the UK. She argues that confining
people to hotels and hostels while denying
them the right to work risks creating alien
tribes and exacerbating the very social tensions
we have witnessed in Scotland. In the spirit
of nurturing a healthy civil society? Should
the government abandon this institutional
model in favour of community-led approaches,
such as volunteer-hosted housing and immediate
work permits, so that diversity becomes a
source of strength rather than division?
Well, I think certainly diversity should
be seen as a social strength, and I agree
with that. Oh, I'm not sure I followed the
point about Scotland. I wasn't aware that
things were that different in Scotland. If
anything, the Scots have been a little bit
more welcoming of newcomers than parts of
England. But as I say, I think London in
England has been more supportive of newcomers
than some parts of the country where there
are fewer non-white faces, to put it that
way. I think we have tensions in our society.
Can I just go back to the point you asked
me about? You mentioned Gaza in the previous
question, which I don't think I answered.
I am shocked by what has been happening.
I was shocked by October the 7th, and I'm
shocked by the Israeli government in murdering
so many Palestinians in Gaza. And this is
absolutely no way forward. And we have to
use the maximum influence we have. It's very
difficult, given the American position of
being very supportive of the Israeli government.
I think the Israeli government must be seen
to be guilty of war crimes. for some of the
things that have happened. And I find all
that very shocking. But however, we've got
to be careful how we respond in terms of
individuals, because there are people from
Gaza who need medical help. and if they can't
get it in the region then i think we should
be supportive and give them medical help
here what we don't want because the palestinians
are wanted is that we have large numbers
of people from gaza coming here and then
staying here permanently because the palestinians
don't want don't want their territory to
be denuded of Palestinians. They don't want
any further ethnic cleansing. So we've got
to be careful that anybody coming to the
UK as a Palestinian, unless it is for family
union purposes—a child, for example, with
parents who've been killed, who've got relatives
in the UK—unless it's for that, we've got
to be very careful that we don't have permanent
movement of population of Palestinians to
the UK. But that's a specific example. And
I think on the whole, we've got to be more
welcoming of people who need medical help
here. Some countries are doing better than
we are, and we've got to get on with it.
In an interview with The Standard published
on September 25th, 2025, You expressed regret
over your party's decision to adopt a more
stringent immigration policy. You voiced
hope that this shift is merely temporary
and that the party will soon return to the
compassionate stance it has historically
upheld. You attributed the change to mounting
political pressure from opposition parties.
If the current immigration policy is a response
to mounting political pressure, as you suggest,
doesn't that indicate a fundamental split
within the British idea of who are we now?
What does it mean for the future of active
citizenship when one of the UK's major parties
feels compelled to adopt a policy that runs
contrary to its own historical values and
arguably the values of a significant portion
of civil society.
I think that's a difficult one. Look, I'd
hoped that a Labour government would follow
the policies that Labour had in opposition
and be more sympathetic, particularly to
asylum seekers. That's a matter of both a
national response and also encouraging positive
responses at a local level. I was sorry that
our government began adopting a hard-line
approach, or a harder-line approach. But
it's an unstable situation in terms of government
policy, because the government is still looking
at some aspects of policy like family union,
and we hope to hear more from the government
before too long. So it's not absolutely stable.
But I think I think, unfortunately, some
of this has been under pressure of the Reform
Party. There is, I'm afraid, because of the
way politics is playing out here, more hostility
to asylum seekers, as there is or has been
for some time in many European countries
that I mentioned. I think we're facing a
real challenge And I hope very much that
we can revert to a sense of policy. Of course,
nobody likes people crossing the channel
in boats with traffickers charging large
sums. I mean, that is awful. It is so dangerous.
and it's not the way for a sensible policy.
And of course the newspapers make an awful
lot of people coming by boat, even if they're
a small proportion of the total people coming
in, if you include economic migrants coming
for jobs. So I think we have real tensions
here, as there are in other European countries,
and indeed in North America, as to how we
deal with what is a volatile situation. But
I'm hoping very much that we will revert
to the more humane, compassionate approach
that has characterised Britain's way of dealing
with these things in the past.
On May 16th 2025, you, along with Sir Jacob
Rees-Mogg, published a piece in the Financial
Times titled Alf Dubs and Jacob Rees-Mogg.
citizenship stripping is fundamentally un-British.
This is what you wrote and I quote. Nevertheless,
both of us believe that British citizenship
should confer the same inalienable rights
on all those who hold it, on those of mixed
heritage, on those whose ancestors were here
before the Norman conquest, and on those
who took the oath of citizenship today. we
reject as fundamentally racist the argument
that those born British who hold dual citizenship
can be deprived of their British passport
while those with no foreign heritage cannot.
In other words, we believe that once British,
always and equally British. You and Sir Jacob
contended that the British citizenship should
guarantee the same inalienable rights to
all, irrespective of heritage. Yet the cases
of Shamima Begum and Alaa Abdul-Fattah reveal
a troubling reality. The state appears to
treat some citizenships as more conditional
than others. Does the refusal to repatriate
or protect such individuals mark the quiet
abandonment of the principle, once British,
always British. And in a multipolar world
where rivals scrutinise our conduct, does
this perception of tiered citizenship erode
the UK's moral authority to champion the
rule of law abroad?
Well, in fact, it's a coincidence, but it
was only yesterday that I again raised in
Parliament the issue of Shemima Begum. Now
look, I've met some of the families, and
I think the government is quite wrong. It
was the previous government that started
it, endorsed by the Labour government, that
a woman who was, in her case, 15 years old,
she was probably trafficked to Syria to join
ISIS, She's lost three children who died.
She's had her citizenship taken away on the
spurious grounds that she's a Bangladeshi.
Well, she's never been to Bangladesh in her
life, and the Bangladeshi government are
not prepared to have her back anyway. So
we're left with a person who's had her British
citizenship taken away. She was born here,
had her British citizenship taken away. and
who is stuck in a detention center in northern
Syria, where there's now fighting going on,
with no prospect of ever getting out. In
other words, suffering a life sentence. I
think this is a terrible example of how one
should not strip people of their citizenship.
I don't know whether there might be some
cases sometime when if we're dealing with
an avowed terrorist, that we may have to
look at that. I'm just not sure in my own
mind about that. But I think certainly in
her case, yes, she was trafficked. Yes, she
supported ISIS. And in the camps, she has
not renounced some of her motives for leaving
school in East London and going there with
two other friends who are now dead. But I
think I think it's very difficult for her
to announce her links with the terrorism
in the Middle East when she's surrounded
by people who may be a threat to her. I think
that's not a fair way of judging her. And
she has made it clear that if she has committed
criminal offenses, she's happy to face the
British courts. And that is what the government
should do. Other countries have taken people
from those detention centers. And if we don't
do it, with all the fighting going on, they're
in even more danger. But that is, of course,
an extreme case. But I think taking away
people's citizenship like that, as a fairly
arbitrary decision by a government minister,
is not a healthy way forward. And it seems
to me it's quite wrong. There may be instances
where somebody has really been behaving in
a very damaging way to this country, and,
for example, committing treason in a time
of war. But I'm just not sure in my own mind
whether there should be We should have this
citizenship stripping, and certainly not
when the other citizenship of the person
is one that they can't seek refuge in, like
in the case of Shamima Begum. I'm sorry,
that's a slightly confused answer. Clearly,
I believe Shamima Begum and other people
there should be allowed to come back to Britain
They were born here, they were brought up
here, they were educated here, for all intents
and purposes they're British, and they have
no identity with any other country, even
if ostensibly for historical reasons they
have a passport or theoretical citizenship,
in this case of Bangladesh. So I think we
should be very careful before we take anybody's
citizenship away, because it can have awful
consequences for the rights of that individual.
The title of our podcast is, Who Are We Now?
Citizenship, Civil Society, and the Multipolar
New World Order. On December 4th, 2025, the
Trump administration published its 33-page
national security strategy. the US national
security strategy was that Europe is at risk
of civilizational erasure, attributing this
threat in part to ongoing immigration and
social policies. Civilization erasure is
language that many see as mainstreaming of
great replacement theories. As a survivor
of the 1930s, an era also obsessed with civilization
purity, what is your visceral reaction to
seeing this language in an official White
House document? Is this the ultimate multipolar
threat, not a war of weapons, but a war on
the very idea of a shared humanity?
I think there are real dangers in the way
language is used. And if we go back to the
1930s, the Holocaust started with words of
hostility by one by people in one country
towards the minority in that country. In
this case, Jews or LGBT people or Romans
and so on. And I think there are real dangers
if we use language like you've quoted about
North America, which encourages such hostility
because it poisons local communities. After
all, our job is to help people who've come
to our countries to integrate and make their
way in life with the same rights as anybody
else. And that should be the benchmark, not
a way of saying to people, you shouldn't
be here, picking them up off the street,
as they seem to be doing in parts of the
States, and removing them. I think it's very
difficult. Now, there are a lot of people
in the States who've come without visas and
so on. I understand that. But even so, treating
people like that, there have been some years
in their jobs and so on is really not acceptable.
Can I just go back to the earlier question
about Jacob Rees-Mogg? The reason why Jacob
Rees-Mogg and I did that joint thing in the
Financial Times was because we thought that
if two individuals whose political views
are so far apart as mine from Jacob Rees-Mogg
an agreed position about Shamim Begum and
other people who lost their citizenship then
that at least ought to send a sort of message
which we hoped would have some influence
on government thinking. So far that's not
the case but we'll have to see. The government
are using and apply to my question yesterday
in Parliament, the government are using an
appeal to the European Court of Human Rights
as a way of saying the issue is sub judice.
I just mention that because the pressure
on the government will continue. But to go
back to the main part of your question, yes,
I think using hostile language is dangerous
because it leads to further an escalation
of hostility, and communities become more
divided. I'm afraid we're now seeing far
more divided communities than there have
been before. It's got worse. I think it's
got worse in the United States, it's got
worse here, it's got worse in many European
countries.
Lord Dubs, we have covered the vast landscape
of global power, the erosion of norms, and
the very meaning of the British passport.
you have seen the best and the worst of the
20th and 21st centuries. Given everything
we've discussed today, what is it that keeps
you awake at night?
Well, I think it's a challenge to see whether
anything an individual can do is right and
effective. I think sometimes, how can I collabourate
more effectively with colleagues and NGOs
and so on to make a more positive impact?
So I think it's a challenge as to whether
one is being in politics, whether one is
being effective enough, whether one is doing
the right thing, and whether there's anything
more one can do. And there really always
is more one can do, so I sort of lie awake.
I sleep quite well, so I don't lie awake
too long, but I do think about these things.
I think about them pretty constantly, really,
as to what it is that we in politics can
do better on this whole issue of human rights
and asylum seekers. and citizenship and the
rights of individuals in our societies. One
of the things which we haven't touched on
yet is, of course, that I think we need more
international collabouration. We need to
set in Europe far more of a joint approach
to asylum seekers to reflect best practice
rather than each country doing its own thing.
I think we'll do better if we work together
and have a more agreed approach, made more
difficult by the extreme right-wing parties
to which I referred earlier. Nevertheless,
I think the ideal aim would be that Europe
should have a sensible and, as much as possible,
an agreed approach consistent with the European
Convention on Human Rights and consistent
with the Geneva Convention.
Just one little clarification. There was
a question about Should the government abandon
the institutional model in favor of community-led
approaches such as volunteer-hosted housing
and immediate work permits so that diversity
becomes a source of strength rather than
division? Could you talk a little bit about
volunteer-hosted housing? Because I know
you're a patron of a small charity, Refugees
at Home. that does something to that effect?
I think there is a scheme which the present
government is keen on, which is good, which
is community sponsorship, where at a local
level communities will sponsor asylum seekers,
refugees, families particularly, sponsor
them and give them local support. It's a
good model, but unfortunately with housing
shortages and so on, it's not too easy to
achieve. But certainly I'm looking both at
a humane, compassionate policy by central
government, as well as humane and compassionate
responses locally. People have been put in
hotels because, frankly, the backlog of decisions
about asylum claims means there are people
whose asylum claims have not yet been settled.
that should happen quicker. But the government
is trying to speed up on that, and that should
happen quicker. Then we won't have people
in hotels, and people can go into the local
communities, which is where they will get
the best support. So the answer is, I hope
that the government's policy of getting people
out of hotels will happen very soon. But
there is a difficulty. If 1,800 people arrive
in a boat in Dover, from France, they've
got to be put somewhere. They can't just
be left in the street. And it's better that
they're in hotels, that they're nowhere.
But in anything other than the short term,
the policy should, I believe, be not to have
people in hotels, to have a quicker determination
of asylum claims, and give them a chance
to, as it were, make their way in local communities.
Lord Aftabs, thank you very much for being
a guest on this podcast.
Well, thank you for inviting me. What are
you going to do with the podcast?
Well, it's going to be published and we share
it widely and see the kind of response we
get because this year's theme is citizenship
and civil society.
Okay, well, thank you for letting me take
part in this. I appreciate your questions
and it's an honour to be asked to take part
in this. Thank you. Thank you.
This podcast was brought to you by the Kamugasa
Challenge in partnership with Democracy in
Africa. Democracy in Africa is a platform
dedicated to building a bridge between academics,
policymakers, practitioners, and citizens.
The second episode in the Citizenship and
Civil Society series is entitled, From Fragmentation
to Flourishing, Rebuilding Democracy Through
Engaged Citizenship and Civil Society. An
interview with Liz Webster, founder and leading
voice behind Save British Farming, also known
as Save British Food, a grassroots movement
championing the interests of UK farmers,
consumers, and the wider food production
industry. The podcast will go live on April
13th, 2026. If you enjoyed this podcast,
please click the share button in your app
to send this episode to a friend. Thank you
very much for taking the time to listen to
this podcast. Until next time, goodbye. Thank
you.