Welcome to the United Kingdom, where history seems to be repeating itself. Immigrants are once again facing protests, harassment and attacks. Thankfully, unlike the Southall riots of 1979, there have been no murders. Yet.
Just as in 1979, the far-right recently marched across London under the guise of protesting illegal immigration, though in reality it was a racist rally. Communities rallied against it, just as Southall residents confronted the National Front decades ago.
The government’s response today mirrors the past. During the Southall riots, Prime Minister James Callaghan and the Home Secretary refused to intervene to block a controversial far-right meeting, despite calls from the Ealing Labour Party and the Commission for Racial Equality. Similarly, Keir Starmer has upheld the right to peaceful protest, even amid mounting tensions.
Victims bear the brunt while communities rally
But what about the victims? The Sikh woman raped on the day of the protest, classified by police as a racially aggravated assault did not deserve what happened to her. Sikh men marched through the streets of Birmingham demanding justice for her in a move of showing support and solidarity. But why must communities repeatedly rally to protect victims from within their own ranks? Why should families suffer simply because of the colour of their skin while trying to make an honest living in a country that is, and always has been, part of their history?
Similarly, Bheem Kohli, the elderly man killed after being stamped on by a 15-year-old attacker; and the six-year-old girl shoved and having her hair pulled simply for being Indian made the nation uncomfortable, but there are many such stories in the public domain.
In one such incident, Mandira’s Kitchen in Guildford faced immigration check where officials hopped fences, made accusations and what not, almost as if they came with the preconceived notion. The restaurant’s owner wrote on Instagram, "I’ve never noticed the colour of my skin or that of my team. But on Wednesday, I did."
While she appreciated the support she received from the community following the incident, she also saw dismissive comments online: “They were just doing their job,” “Why be upset if you have nothing to hide,” and “How many illegals did they find?”
The answer: none. Every member of her team is legally employed, paying taxes, and fully compliant.
While immigration checks are necessary, this visit went far beyond that. Eleven officers arrived in convoy, separating staff, accusing them of dishonesty, and asking intrusive personal questions, one about an 11-year-old child, another about the last university assignment submitted, all based on a tip-off.
The law requires reasonable grounds and proportionality. What the team faced was neither. "It was humiliation," she wrote. "Guilty until proven innocent, simply because some of my team happen to be brown."
In another incident, Sophia Choudry was repeatedly called her the P-word on 7 September during a journey from Paddington to Maidenhead by teenagers. She reported the abuse to police before the children got off at Hayes and Harlington in west London.
A video Sophia posted on TikTok showing the incident has been viewed two million times. She said she had not heard the racial slur directed at her in 25 years. Realising she was filming, the children tried to cover their faces, while some passengers criticised her for recording the abuse. One passenger reportedly responded, “so what?” after she explained what had happened.
Sophia said she activated the passenger alarm to try to prevent the children from fleeing. “I was shocked and angry about the children’s reaction, but the adults’ reactions are what broke me and brought me to tears,” she told Asian Voice.
Despite reporting the incident, she was not met by police, the British Transport Police (BTP) initially closed the investigation, citing a “lack of identifiable suspects.” The case was only reopened after media frenzy, and an officer was assigned.
But there has been a silver lining in all this mess, Sophia further shared, “I feel deeply torn by all the hatred that’s swirling lately. It’s easy to let fear dominate our hearts, especially when racism is on the rise. But from firsthand experience, I can say with my hand on my heart: the love and support I’ve received has vastly outweighed the negativity. Strangers have messaged me, shown up for me, spoken words of kindness. That’s what I keep reminding myself, the world is also full of good people, and because of that, I refuse to live in fear.
“We are all witnessing the rise of extreme right-wing sentiment across the country. Reform’s policies are fuelling division and fear, from targeting immigrants and asylum seekers to threatening our human rights obligations under the EU. Politicians, including our own government, are now pandering to this shift out of fear of losing power.
“These are scary times. But if hatred is rising, so must our compassion, courage, and clarity.”
Fears of a surveillance state
Amid a surge of racial hostility and attacks on immigrants, the UK government has unveiled the BritCard, a mandatory digital ID system announced by Prime Minister Keir Starmer on 26 September 2025. All adults will be required to carry it by the end of this Parliament in 2029. Stored on smartphones, it is pitched as a tool to verify the right to work and access public services, with ministers claiming it could recoup £500 million annually from the £8 billion shadow economy.
But critics warn it risks turning law-abiding migrants into suspects in their own country. Most undocumented workers operate in cash-based, informal jobs, meaning the BritCard will do little to stop illegal labour while creating new hurdles for legally residing communities. Already anxious, marginalised populations now face an added layer of surveillance and control.
Public outrage has been swift. A parliamentary petition opposing the cards skyrocketed past 2.5 million signatures in days, forcing a debate, while protesters gathered outside the Labour Party Conference in Liverpool, denouncing not just the BritCard but Starmer’s leadership.
It is common knowledge that an international student pays £20,000–£25,000 in tuition fees, on top of which they have to show proof of sufficient funds to live here. An ILR (Indefinite Leave to Remain) application cost £2,000, more for partner and family. It’s a constant cycle of paying and striving.
Yet, unless you have a job, pay taxes, pay NHS surcharges or are a dependent of someone who does, you cannot qualify for ILR. So why target paid roles that are filled by migrants because local workers aren’t qualified?
On top of this, Labour plans to tighten immigration rules, demanding foreign nationals prove “good citizenship” through volunteering, a spotless record, English proficiency, and economic contribution. Why should one pay so much money, maintain a lifestyle good enough to stay and still always keep proving themselves worthy, while the government offers little concrete support to protect those at the heart of the storm?
A cybersecurity time bomb?
Another factor is security. Storing vast amounts of personal data in one place is a hacker’s dream. We already have passports, driving licences, and other identity checks—why create a single point of failure?
Lisa Ventura MBE FCIIS, Chief Executive and Founder of the AI and Cyber Security Association, told Asian Voice, “The government's mandatory digital ID scheme is a double-edged sword that needs serious scrutiny from the cyber security community. While I understand the political pressures driving this decision, let’s be honest about what we’re creating here: a centralised honeypot of personal data irresistible to cyber criminals and state-sponsored threat actors.”
She warned that databases holding biometric data, nationality status, and millions of personal identifiers will become “crown jewels” for attackers, with breaches carrying irreversible consequences.
Ventura also stressed the human toll. “This system is explicitly framed as immigration enforcement, which positions it as targeted surveillance rather than a universal benefit. Legal immigrants and ethnic minorities will face constant scrutiny. The Windrush scandal already showed us how such documentation demands can destroy lives”, she said.
She acknowledged potential benefits, such as device-based storage and strong encryption,0020but argued these will only work if vulnerable groups are consulted.
“Trust requires transparency and consent, not mandatory surveillance dressed up as modernisation,” she said.
