Immigration & integration: A debate on how can we consider it wisely

en invited Dr Krish Kandiah and Tim Dieppe to consider the question: "How can UK Christians respond in a Christlike way to issues of immigration and integration?"

Tim is Head of Public Policy at Christian Concern, the campaigning evangelical organisation and author of The Challenge of Islam: Understanding and Responding to Islam’s Increasing Influence in the UK (Wilberforce Publications 2025). Krish is the Director of the Sanctuary Foundation, which supports vulnerable individuals, families and children including refugees and those seeking asylum. He is a regular advisor to government on refugee resettlement and child welfare reform.

Krish Kandiah says...

Immigration is one of the most pressing issues of our age. Our newspapers are filled daily with images of small boats crossing the Channel, political debates about quotas and borders, and growing anxieties over what immigration means for our national identity.

While some Christians stress the importance of upholding laws and preserving religious freedoms, others point to passages where God’s people are repeatedly told to welcome the stranger and treat the outsider with compassion. Sometimes these two perspectives clash.

It is tempting to keep our heads down, to pick a side or go along with the majority view or the loudest voices. But when we default to silence, tribalism or convenience, we not only risk oversimplifying a deeply complex and morally significant issue, we also forfeit the opportunity to engage thoughtfully and faithfully with the challenges and speak meaningfully into the immigration debate.

I believe there are five core convictions to hold on to that can help us with redemptive, not reactive engagement in the public square in general, and on immigration issues in particular.

1. Christians should seek to influence government policy.
   
   We live in a pluralistic democracy, not a theocracy. That means Christians, like all citizens, have the right to bring their convictions to bear on public life. We should not expect special treatment, nor should we seek to impose our faith on others. At the same time, we recognise that our faith has much to contribute to the flourishing of all people and should shape our views and values on all subjects.
   
   When Christians speak into the immigration debate, it should always be in a way that reflects the character and message of Jesus – His wisdom, integrity and compassion. Our tone should be gracious, even when faced with hostility. Our content should be truthful, resisting exaggeration or distortion. And our purpose should be constructive – seeking the good of our neighbours and the flourishing of society.
   
   
2. Christians should challenge dehumanising and inaccurate rhetoric.
   
   Inaccurate and inflammatory language are poisoning the immigration debate. Politicians have described migrants as an “invasion” or a “flood”. Protests outside asylum accommodation have featured flags, chanting, bullying and aggressive behaviour. Some leading figures have suggested that migrants are inherently dangerous to women and children and have dismissed whole cultures as “backward” or worse. This kind of language not only dehumanises people made in God’s image, but stokes division, fear, and prejudice.
   
   Jesus was no stranger to cruel rhetoric. The sneer “Nazareth! Can anything good come from there?”, in John 1v46 for example, reflected the cultural prejudices of the day. God turns this narrow-minded judgmentalism on its head, by choosing precisely Nazareth as the hometown of the only truly good man who ever lived. Finding similarly powerful yet peaceable ways to confront prejudice is now the task of the church.
   
   
3. Christians should promote the freedom of religion.
   
   Religious liberty is central to the Christian vision of a just society. Following Christ involves a free and willing choice, and therefore we uphold a society where faiths are neither imposed nor prohibited and people of all faiths – or none – can believe, question or disbelieve without fear or recrimination. This means defending not only our own right to worship, but also standing up for the freedom of Jews, Muslims, atheists, and others, even when we profoundly disagree with their beliefs.
   
   Some Christians have made alarmist claims about Britain being “Islamified”, despite Muslims making up just 6% of the UK population. Similarly, appeals to “protect Britain’s Judeo-Christian heritage” also appear to convey anti-Islamic sentiment in immigration debates. But we do not need to fear Islam, nor stoke fear against Muslims. Our gospel is not fragile – the early church thrived in pluralistic and even hostile environments. Missionaries have long risked their lives to reach nations closed to the gospel – if now, by God’s providence, people from those same nations are arriving in our country, we should see not a threat, but an opportunity.
   
   
4. Christians should practise what we preach.
   
   For many Christians, engaging in political debate has become synonymous with criticism. However, the church should be known not just for what we are against – but for what we are for. We should be known not just for what we say – but for what we do. A reputation for criticising from the sidelines, for stoking division and for refusing to cross the road to help those with the wrong ethnic or religious credentials rightly diminishes our influence. Our public voice carries more weight when our private and personal practice has integrity.
   
   If we wish to see a recovery of Christian influence and attendance, then let the church do what it has always done best – showcase the transformative power of the gospel in bringing people of different backgrounds together – Jew and Gentile, slave and free, rich and poor, immigrant and local. Let us lead the way in offering hospitality, friendship, and practical support to newcomers and outcasts in our communities. Compassion is contagious and when the church is leading the way, the government has to listen.
   
   
5. Christians should offer a taste of the coming kingdom.
   
   The threat to national identity, the strain on public resources and the increased pressure for jobs and housing have all been blamed on migration, even though net migration only accounts for 0.6% of the population. It is easy to blame migration, and criticise government policy. It is harder – but better – to campaign for systems that are fair, efficient, robust and humane. It is harder – but better – to help create solutions in housing, healthcare and public services.
   
   Throughout history, Christians have not only shaped public values but also helped build public institutions and public services. Even today in charities, churches and community groups, Christians are on the front line, building community sponsorship schemes, housing initiatives, language support, foodbanks, debt advice centres, and rehabilitation programmes. When we demonstrate these workable, hope-filled solutions to some of societies biggest problems, we offer a taste of the coming kingdom.

Conclusion

These five convictions help me as I try to speak with truth and grace, show integrity and initiative, and follow a Saviour who was once a refugee Himself. I believe there is a way forward in the immigration debate that upholds secure borders while also extending compassionate welcome and bearing faithful gospel witness.

There are currently around 120 million displaced people worldwide. Most remain in their own countries but some, driven by war, persecution or poverty, are forced to cross borders. Many of those who come to the UK do so because of family ties, language, or cultural links rooted in Britain’s imperial past.

As the world’s fourth-largest economy, the UK should shoulder its share of global responsibility by expanding humanitarian resettlement routes. At present, outside of Ukraine and Hong Kong, there are virtually no legal pathways to seek asylum here. That vacuum pushes desperate people into the arms of traffickers, fuelling dangerous small-boat crossings across the Channel.

When the United States introduced a legal “parole” route for specific nationalities, irregular arrivals dropped sharply, undermining the smugglers’ business model. A similar approach in the UK could reduce exploitation while providing legitimate sanctuary for those most in need.

But this is only the beginning. The deeper challenge lies not merely in fixing immigration policy, but in confronting the wider brokenness of our society – its spiritual emptiness, relational fractures, and economic inequalities. These, too, cry out for justice, compassion, and gospel hope.

Tim Dieppe responds...

I am in broad agreement with Krish’s five convictions. I would add, however, that freedom of religion should not extend to allowing polygamy, or sharia courts, or forcing school children to wear the hijab, or selling the kind of fundamentalist literature banned in Saudi Arabia, or creating no-go zones for non-Muslims, or forcing a teacher into hiding for showing a cartoon, or displaying antisemitic slogans, or arresting Christians who criticise Islam, or turning a blind eye to the activities of grooming gangs, or criminalising someone who burns a Qur’an in protest, etc. Neither should we be giving Islam special status by defining Islamophobia so as to effectively silence legitimate criticism of Islam. The ability to critique Islam is absolutely essential for evangelism, let alone free speech more generally.

Contrary to Krish’s point, it is not dehumanising to say that some cultures are worse than others. I am surprised that Krish appears to accept cultural relativism. Other things being equal, a culture with sharia law is objectively worse than a culture with laws based on the Bible. A Christian culture is better for everyone, including non-Christians. Furthermore, in order to have any meaningful integration there needs to be an agreed set of values and culture that people can assimilate into. Christianity historically provided this moral and cultural framework for Britain, and Christians should advocate that it can do so again.

Krish appears not to believe that there is any pressing need to limit the numbers crossing our borders. If the government asked you to accommodate an immigrant in your home, you might agree to do so. While being welcoming and hospitable, you would naturally insist that the guest follows some basic rules about how to behave in your home. If you were asked to accommodate ten immigrants, I suspect most readers would argue that they do not have capacity for this. In a similar way, any nation has a finite capacity to absorb immigrants. The use of hotels to accommodate immigrants at considerable expense to the taxpayer betrays the current lack of capacity to handle the vast numbers of immigrants we are currently attempting to absorb. Then there are all the associated costs of education, health care, social care, and policing, with knock-on effects for the existing resident population. Almost all commentators agree that we need to cut today’s excessive levels of immigration.

God has set the boundaries of the nations (Acts 17v26). Israel’s borders are described in remarkable detail in Joshua 13–19. Even the New Jerusalem has walls and gates (Rev. 21v12-14)! These boundaries are important. A government’s primary responsibility is to protect its citizens. This necessarily means limiting who can and cannot cross the border. This the government has failed to do for many years. Christians should join with others in calling for the government to properly control our borders for the good of the country, while at the same time loving, welcoming, evangelising and having compassion for all immigrants in our local communities.

Tim Dieppe says...

Houston, we have a problem. Ten years ago the government commissioned Dame Louise Casey to conduct an independent review into opportunity and integration. I was very struck by her comment that “none of the 800 or more people that we met, not any of the 200+ written submissions to the review, said there wasn’t a problem to solve”.

Earlier that year, Trevor Phillips, former head of the Equalities and Human Rights Commission, wrote in The Sunday Times: “For centuries we have managed to absorb people of many different backgrounds; Britain has changed them and they have changed us, both almost always for the better. But the integration of Muslims will probably be the hardest task we’ve ever faced. It will mean abandoning the milk-and-water multiculturalism still so beloved of many, and adopting a far more muscular approach to integration.”

Both Casey and Phillips singled out Muslims as a special case. They are right to do so. We do not have immigrants from Ukraine, Hong Kong, Nigeria, South Korea or a host of other countries setting up a parallel legal system (sharia courts), or seeking to restrict free speech about their beliefs (by defining Islamophobia), or advocating polygamy, or supporting terrorist organisations (Isis, Hamas), let alone committing acts of terrorism. I am not saying that all or even most Muslims do these things, but it is only Muslim immigrants who are influencing our society in these ways.

At last year’s general election, both Labour and Conservatives promised to cut immigration in their manifestos, not just Reform. Polling this year shows that immigration is now the top issue that voters are concerned about. How should Christians respond to this growing challenge in our nation?

Evangelistic opportunity

Christians can see the immigration of Muslims to Britain as a fantastic evangelistic opportunity! It can be very difficult or even dangerous to be a missionary in an Islamic country, so it’s great that they are coming here where we can freely preach the gospel to them!

I co-wrote Questions to Ask Your Muslim Friends with Beth Peltola precisely because of this opportunity and in order to empower and equip Christians to have these gospel conversations. We do still (just about!) have free speech in this country which means that we can freely preach that Muhammad is a false prophet and that Islam is a false religion. Muslim immigrants are often disillusioned by what they have experienced of Islam in their counties of origin. This is a great opening for the gospel, and many churches are now seeing growing numbers of converts from Islam amongst migrant communities.

The duty to love the stranger

Alongside evangelism is the Christian duty to love your neighbour which, as Jesus illustrated with the parable of the Good Samaritan, clearly includes immigrants or foreigners. All Christians should show love and compassion to immigrants no matter how they got here or where they are from. Churches too, should seek to be welcoming to immigrants and perhaps offer practical help with navigating the laws of the land or helping with genuine asylum claims. Christian Concern has provided legal help of this nature to Christian converts from Islamic countries where they would be at serious risk of persecution.

Immigration policy

The thornier question is what a Christian approach to immigration policy should be? It is important first to differentiate between the duties of Christian individuals, the duties of churches, and the duties of governments. While Christian individuals are called to love their enemies and forgive those who sin against them, governments are called to administer justice and to defend their citizens from external aggressors. While the state can, and should, punish wrongdoers (Rom. 13v4), individual Christians, or churches, should never take justice into their own hands. In a similar fashion, while individual Christians, and churches, should love and welcome all immigrants we come across, the state can and should seek to limit the numbers and types of people entering the country.

Maintaining borders

It is interesting to note that the Israelites requested permission to pass through Edom in their travels after the Exodus (Num. 20v16-21). They respected the border by both asking permission and by turning away when permission was refused. There is evidence that ancient nations at the time constructed forts to control their borders. Border integrity concerns are hardly new!

Having a border is, in fact, a defining characteristic of a nation. Acts 17v26 implies that it is God Himself who sets the “allotted periods and boundaries” of the various nations. And what are borders for, if not to set limits on who may and who may not enter the country?

Resident aliens and foreigners

Eminent Egyptologist and Hebrew scholar, James Hoffmeier, argues in The Immigration Crisis that Biblical law distinguishes between resident aliens (those with rights to live in the land) and foreigners who are temporary visitors. The word for resident alien is “Ger”, and the most common word for foreigners is “Nekhar”. Where the Israelites are commanded to love the stranger, it is “Ger” that is usually used (Lev. 19v34). All citizens had to obey the same law, whatever their origin (Ex.12v49; Lev.18v26; Lev.24v22). This implies that resident aliens have the same legal rights as native-born citizens of Israel. Such rights did not apply, however, to foreigners. Gleaning rights, which might be equivalent to social benefits today, were given to the poor and the resident aliens (Lev. 19v9-10) (both of whom had to work quite hard to get them, see Ruth 2 v7;17), but not to foreigners. A resident alien could formally adopt the religion of the Israelites, get circumcised, and participate in the Passover (Ex.12v48). Foreigners, though, were not permitted to participate (Ex. 12v 43). Hoffmeier suggests that we can see here the seeds of a policy which distinguishes between legal and illegal immigrants and treats them differently. There is a lot for Christians on both sides of the political spectrum to learn from these Biblical principles.

Conclusion

Everyone, it seems, agrees that we have a problem with immigration and integration. Christians can look to the Bible to inform both our individual responses and questions of government policy. The Bible has radical ideas that conform to neither left-wing nor right-wing simplistic ideologies. This is an opportunity for Christians to speak into a debate with compassion and conviction demonstrating the enduring relevance of Biblical principles.

Krish Kandiah responds...

I’d like to thank Tim for outlining his position when it comes to the challenges of immigration and the way Christians and churches should respond. I commend his focus on evangelistic opportunity and the Biblical call to love the stranger, and I agree wholeheartedly with his statement “All Christians should show love and compassion to immigrants no matter how they got here or where they are from.”

I wish I could end my response with that sentiment and a plea to unite the church behind it. I must however raise serious concerns about how Tim’s article frames Muslim immigrants. This is not a minor point – the way we speak about Muslims matters greatly, both for public truth and for Christian witness.

We must be cautious not to mislead people with exaggerated claims – such as the assertion that Muslims are “setting up a parallel legal system” in the UK. In England, there is one legal system: English law. Sharia councils and Muslim arbitration tribunals operate voluntarily under the same framework that also allows Jewish Beth Din courts and Catholic canon law tribunals. They have no authority in criminal law or over anyone who doesn’t choose to submit to them. Referencing “sharia courts” has become a common tactic in certain media outlets to stoke fear. It is often accompanied – as in Tim’s article – by suggesting Muslim immigrants are influencing society by restricting free speech, advocating polygamy, or supporting terrorist organisations. This is misleading and unhelpful, heightening suspicion and reinforcing harmful stereotypes.

Just as we have campaigns and laws against antisemitism and racism to protect Jewish and Black communities, so it is only right that we have campaigns against Islamophobia to protect Muslims from hate crimes and discrimination. Challenging prejudice is not censorship. Christians should understand this well: protections against religious discrimination help us too. Neither are polygamy and extremism confined to Muslim communities. Forms of polygamy have existed in Mormonism and other groups, and sadly terrorism has been carried out by individuals across a range of ideologies. Most British Muslims are horrified by the brutal actions of ISIS or Hamas – just as most Christians are horrified when Russian Orthodox priests bless missiles fired on Ukraine, or when they consider that most German Christians supported the Nazis, or that Rwanda’s genocide was committed in a country that was 90% Christian. I don’t like it when others assume that I am complicit in these atrocities because I am a Christian. By the same logic, we must not tar all Muslims with the crimes of extremists.

In recent years, we’ve seen a troubling rise in the scapegoating of immigrants in general and Muslims in particular in public discourse. This doesn’t just distort reality; it dehumanises people, fuels division, and paves the way for policies and actions that cause untold harm. We must be vigilant in recognising and calling out these narratives, especially when they begin to seep into our churches. Let us instead work together to ensure that fear, suspicion and political pressure do not undermine our mission to welcome the stranger, no matter how they got here, where they are from – or what they believe.

Krish & Tim conclude...

We would like to thank en for inviting us to engage in this way. We have both found this a valuable exchange of views which has been helpful for us – and also hopefully for our readers!

We agree that this is an important topic for Christians to engage with, and we are both committed to engaging thoughtfully and respectfully in pursuit of applying Biblical principles to this significant topic. There is substantial common ground between us. We agree on the duties of both individual Christians and churches to welcome, love, show compassion and be hospitable towards immigrants wherever they are from. We both see immigration as providing an evangelistic opportunity for the church. We also agree on Krish’s five convictions on the role of the church.

In post-debate interaction we found that we also agree that border control is both necessary and legitimate, and that the government has a duty to limit who can and who cannot enter the country in a fair and compassionate manner. However, while Tim thinks that current levels of immigration are unsustainably high, Krish believes that we have a global responsibility to welcome genuine refugees.

We also agree that it is entirely legitimate to criticise cultural practices and to state that some cultural practices are objectively better than others based on Biblical standards of righteousness. Tim would be more willing to say that some cultures are overall better than others, whereas Krish believes that all cultures are a complex mix of beauty and brokenness.

Tim is very concerned about the increasing influence of Islam on our culture whereas Krish feels this is exaggerated, and could lead to spreading a dehumanising fear of Muslim immigrants. In particular, Tim thinks that defining ‘Islamophobia’ will pose a serious threat to free speech in relation to Islam, whereas Krish thinks this is needed to protect Muslims from discrimination. Tim would want to see all immigrants assimilating into a broadly Christian culture, whereas Krish would rather advocate for diversity, mutual understanding and goodwill over assimilation. Both of us believe our respective positions would best forward opportunities for gospel witness.

We agree that the Bible has a lot to say on this complex issue and we strive to apply Biblical principles to all our thinking on this topic. Immigration and integration are hot topics in our contemporary political scene. Christians should seek to engage in this topic with principled compassion. While there may be some disagreement on the vexed topic of public policy, all Christians should agree with us on the duties of individual Christians and churches to love and welcome all immigrants in our communities.

Your views

How would you answer the question "How can UK Christians respond in a Christlike way to issues of immigration and integration?"? Get in touch*! Tell us your thoughts after reading Krish & Tim's debate: editor@e-n.org.uk

*We welcome letters, tags on social media and emails. Publication does not indicate endorsement of any views contained in them. Please keep them to under 200 words if possible. If published in the newspaper, all correspondence may be abbreviated for space.