A Secret Resettlement
In August 2021, Kabul fell, ending two decades of war in chaos. The world watched in horror as civilians clung to aircraft and passed infants over barbed wire. What followed was more than a humanitarian crisis - it may rank among Britain’s most costly and least transparent state failures.
In February 2022, under the previous government, a spreadsheet with personal details of around 18,700 ARAP and EGS applicants, many claiming to have worked with British military forces, was emailed outside official systems. This major security lapse, a serious intelligence and operational failure, briefly appeared online on 14 August 2023, when the previous government first became aware of it. Some media outlets, including The Telegraph, reported that over 25,000 individuals were affected, counting applicants, their family members, and other associated persons.
In response, the UK government launched a secret mass resettlement program under a super injunction - only recently lifted - so confidential that its existence couldn’t be reported for almost two years.
Presented as a moral duty and initiated under Rishi Sunak, then continued under Keir Starmer, the program was arguably a secret attempt to contain the fallout from this bureaucratic error using taxpayer money.
The Cost
The Afghanistan Response Route (ARR) — a covert evacuation pathway set up in April 2024 in response to the data leak — is believed to be one of the costliest immigration operations in British history, with its figures mired in controversy and contradiction.
Created by the previous government for individuals previously deemed ineligible for the Afghan Relocations and Assistance Policy (ARAP) but now assessed as facing the highest risk of Taliban reprisals due to the breach, the ARR was conceived as an emergency fix to the blunder that left potential former UK allies dangerously exposed. The scheme operates separately from ARAP — the main route for Afghans who worked alongside British forces — and from the Afghan Citizens Resettlement Scheme (ACRS), which targets a broader pool of vulnerable people.
Alongside smaller, little-publicised initiatives and family reunion routes, these programmes have brought roughly 36,000 Afghans to the UK since the withdrawal of international troops — a patchwork of overlapping schemes, each with its own remit, costs, and political baggage.
Beyond the financial burden of the resettlement itself, the government now faces a wave of legal claims from hundreds of Afghan nationals over the data breach, with many more expected to follow. These developments come amid mounting pressure on already overstretched national resources.
While billions are allocated to migrant housing and legal aid, over 6,000 British veterans remain homeless, and one in three children lives in poverty. Food bank use has soared to record highs, and more than 1.29 million households are waiting for social housing. Meanwhile, Afghan arrivals are housed immediately, usually in hotels.
While the economic cost is measurable, the cultural and security implications are more difficult to assess. Afghanistan is among the world’s most traditional and conservative societies. Yet the relocation program was implemented without serious public debate or a long-term integration plan.
Comparable European countries have already raised serious concerns about integration challenges linked to Afghan migrant populations. In multiple nations, authorities have reported a disproportionate number of sexual and violent crimes involving recent Afghan arrivals. While the specific figures vary, the trend has sparked public backlash, policy reviews, and growing political pressure, pointing to a broader pattern of integration failure across the continent. Even Pakistan and Iran, both Muslim-majority nations, have moved to deport over a million Afghans since 2023, citing crime, terrorism, and economic strain.
The UK, by contrast, has taken the opposite approach.
Compassion or Neglect?
Supporters call the relocation scheme an act of compassion, but critics see it as a betrayal of domestic priorities. During the war, British soldiers were told to overlook human rights abuses by Afghan commanders to avoid jeopardizing “nation-building.” Now, some of those same networks may benefit from the relocation program.
More broadly, concerns about fairness and loyalty are growing. Migrants receive immediate housing and support, while many British citizens struggle to make ends meet. A nation cannot thrive if its own people feel like strangers in their own land, nor if public resources are secretly redirected to cover up bureaucratic mistakes.
Whose interests does this serve, and whose country is this becoming?
Adam Starzynski
Journalist | Foreign Policy Analyst
