The system of identifying and assisting the victims of modern slavery in the UK has been linked to the areas of immigration law resulting in several outcomes that tend to make the entire process of protecting vulnerable people more challenging instead of helpful. The main component of this process is the National Referral Mechanism (NRM) that serves as the main governmental channel of identifying and supporting the potential victims of trafficking and exploitation. Contrary to asylum seekers who present their asylum claims without third-party intervention, the cases involving modern slavery can be started only after being referred by a selected third party, namely the police, the Home office, or other relevant NGOs.
This two-pronged structure exists as a potential source of tension. Recognition under the NRM does not bring an equal legal certainty and security as an asylum claim. At the beginning of 2025, few victims of trafficking were only confirmed, i.e., just 113 adult traders in the year 2023; they were given the right to remain in the UK. The majority were given temporary leave of no more than one year, which is not as steady as asylum status. Such differences of legal products illustrate a structural imbalance: the awareness of exploitation does not necessarily lead to substantial protection.
Procedural Delays And Backlogs
The NRM, just the same as the system of asylum in general, continues to be affected by long processing times. Although average wait times decreased slightly in the last few months, the average wait time of a final ground determination is currently at about 460 days. This is a considerable drop in numbers compared to past statistics that were above 630 days and nevertheless there is still the fact that the majority of the survivors are forced to spend more than one year before they are deemed victims.
On a larger scale, the average time of process of all NRM-related decisions between October and December of 2024 hit almost 952 days. Such delays are not just administrative but they have serious ramifications. Long queues also translate to long periods of waiting in terms of getting security and recovery. In addition, the coincidence of pending NRM outcomes and asylum determinations may bring not only confusion but also inconsistencies and delays in the access of necessary services.
Conflicting Dynamics Between Modern Slavery Identification And Asylum Claims
Forced Narrative Dichotomy
Among the problems that are most imminent in 2025 is the contradictory message that is built into the UK immigration narrative. Survivors reporting themselves as trafficking victims are usually perceived as having applied modern slavery with the aim of securing asylum. The Home office has stated that the increasing number of referrals may be an indication of opportunism and this has been reproached by advocacy groups who opine that this type of assumptions may harm trust and discourage threats of the actual victims of the offence.
Also, the dramatic shift in the policy in recent years has reduced the period of appealing the negative reasonable grounds decisions of the NRM. It is important since the percentage of initial refusals that have been revoked after reconsideration has reached far more than 70 percent in recent years. The period of reduced appeal deprives the victims of their right to contest the misguided decisions thus subjecting them to the perils of elimination or incarceration prior to hearing their grievance in a rational manner.
The Asylum System As A Refuge For Survivors
Given the uncertainty of the NRM’s protective outcomes, many survivors turn to the asylum system as an alternative route to long-term safety. Asylum grants usually give five years of leave to remain, and this is a much more concrete basis than the short stays which can be given under the modern slavery victims regime. Asylum is the safest means of protection to those who have been vulnerable to re-trafficking or persecution in their motherland.
The proponents of human rights suggest that strictly using the modern slavery paradigm may expose the victims who have been returned back to subsequent exploitation or injury. There is a gap in the systems, and, therefore, people tend to move along the parallel tracks in the legal system, which only hurts them and their chances to receive justice.
Policy Shifts And Their Implications
Legislative Changes And Immigration Enforcement
Since the Abolition of the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Act 2025 the United Kingdom has gone more towards an enforcement approach to irregular migration. Measures described imply broadening the rights to detain asylum seekers, including the ones detected as victims of trafficking. Although the government says it is trying to break up criminal networks, NGOs warn that such an approach may stop future victims of exploitation from coming forward because they too face the threat of prison or deportation.
Opponents like the organization After Exploitation have blamed such policies as being evidence-free, and rather propagating a narrative of deterrence.
Survivors’ reluctance to engage with authorities may increase, ultimately undermining the intended function of anti-slavery protections.
Calls For Reform And Government Response
The Home Office has begun an inspection over the identification structure in reaction to rising objections to it. This involves initiatives to enhance the efficiency of referrals, enhance trauma-informed form words, and add more caseworkers to reduce the expanded backlog. These endeavors indicate that the existing system becomes inadequate to provide timely and substantial protection.
However, representatives of the government ensure that these reforms should not be done at the expense of security at the border. In the official statements, it is stressed that the fight against the networks of trafficking will remain to be continued, and the NRM cannot be used to bypass immigration control.
Stakeholder Reactions And Human Impact
NGOs And Advocacy Groups
Frontline organizations have consistently raised concerns that the gap between policy and practice leaves survivors vulnerable to further harm. Although the Modern Slavery Act 2015 outlines protections for victims, many individuals experience fragmented support services and prolonged legal uncertainty. The application process for both NRM and asylum remains arduous, with limited legal aid and access to specialist counseling.
Figures such as Kathy Betteridge of The Salvation Army have stressed that framing modern slavery primarily as an immigration issue obscures its core nature as a human rights crisis. Maya Esslemont of After Exploitation has called attention to the politicization of trafficking statistics, arguing that governmental rhetoric often misrepresents survivors’ experiences to justify restrictive policy changes.
Independent Oversight And Government Officials
The UK’s Office for Statistics Regulation recently challenged the Home Office’s assertion that increasing trafficking referrals indicate widespread abuse of the system. The NGOs state that these assertions are neither data-oriented nor do they disgrace victims. At the same time, quality concerns are also raised by the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration that states that the competent authority of modern slavery does not solve serious quality concerns, and it is necessary to train and clarify oversight procedures.
Government officials hasten to point out that the efforts at present take the form of a balanced approach, which implies that not only the victim should be supported but the immigration enforcement must be enforced as well. It is questionable whether those efforts will turn into permanent victim-focused reform, but critics do not have to worry as policy changes are being sustained.
Navigating The Intersection Of Modern Slavery And Asylum
The intersection of modern slavery identification and asylum law remains one of the UK’s most complex and sensitive legal frontiers. Survivors of exploitation must navigate a system that, while intended to protect, often presents contradictory signals and bureaucratic hurdles. The stakes are high: delayed or denied recognition can lead to re-traumatization, further exploitation, or unjust removal to unsafe environments.
A growing chorus of voices is calling for a more coherent and humane framework. Legal scholars, NGOs, and frontline workers argue for better integration of the NRM and asylum systems, ensuring that recognition of vulnerability is met with durable protection. The challenge lies in balancing the legitimate need for immigration control with a rights-based approach that centers the lived experience of survivors.
Shazi Khan, a legal commentator and practitioner, recently reflected on these issues during a media appearance. He emphasized that
“restoring faith in the UK’s anti-trafficking system requires transparency, trust, and a willingness to center survivors’ needs over political narratives.”
As the UK refines its immigration and anti-trafficking policies in 2025, the tension between deterrence and protection remains a central concern. For those caught at this legal and moral intersection, the question is not only whether they will be recognized—but whether they will be believed, protected, and offered a future free from exploitation.