TORY MP Katie Lam has triggered a political storm after suggesting that people who are legally living in Britain should be deported to make the country “culturally coherent”.
Her remarks, condemned as “racist” and “deeply dangerous”, have left the Conservative party divided and struggling to explain its own immigration policy.
Lam, the 34-year-old MP for Weald of Kent and a rising figure on the party’s right, made the comments in an interview with the Sunday Times on October 19.
She said, “A large number of people” with the right to stay in the UK should be told to “go home”, claiming this would leave behind a “mostly but not entirely culturally coherent group of people.”
The comments, widely condemned as racially charged, have caused deep unease within the Tory party. Several MPs complained to party whips, warning that such language could alienate moderate voters and fuel division.
“If we are using phrases like that, we need to explain what they mean,” one Tory MP told the Guardian. “Culturally coherent’ is either a dog-whistle or meaningless. And ‘go home’ is a phrase shouted by racists – we should never use it when talking about legal migration.”
Another senior Tory said Lam appeared to be positioning herself as a successor to shadow justice secretary Robert Jenrick on the party’s hard right. “She’s gone too far. There’s a line – but to her, it’s a dot,” the MP was quoted as saying.
Prime minister Sir Keir Starmer condemned Lam’s statement, calling it “deeply wrong and offensive”. He said: “People lawfully in this country – working in our schools, hospitals, running businesses – are our neighbours. For her to want to remove them for so-called cultural reasons shows how far the Conservative party has sunk.”
Across Britain, migrant communities expressed concern and many said Lam’s remarks reminded them of the “hostile environment” policies introduced under Theresa May, which wrongly targeted legal residents from the Windrush generation. Community groups said Lam’s comments could lead to further discrimination.
“These statements make people who have lived here for decades feel unwelcome again,” said a spokesperson for the South Asian Solidarity Network.
“It sends a message that no matter how much you contribute, you’ll never truly belong.”
The Indian Workers Association (Great Britain) issued a statement calling Lam’s comments “racist and dangerous”. The association said her words were “a direct attack on millions of migrants who have built their lives in Britain, contributed to its economy, and enriched its culture.”
Sital Singh Gill, general secretary of the IWA(GB), said: “Families who came here legally, work hard, pay taxes, and contribute to this nation are Britain. To tell them to ‘go home’ is not only racist, but a betrayal of the values Britain claims to stand for.”
He urged Tory leader Kemi Badenoch to discipline Lam, warning that silence from the leadership “would be seen as complicity”. Lam’s remarks also drew attention to confusion within the Tories about their own policy on indefinite leave to remain or ILR — the immigration status that allows people to live and work permanently in the UK.
Earlier this month, the Tories unveiled a draft immigration bill proposing that ILR could be revoked if people committed a crime, claimed benefits, or earned fewer than £38,700 for six months or more.
Critics said the plan would risk deporting thousands of legally settled residents and even splitting families.
When questioned about Lam’s interview, a spokesperson for Badenoch said her comments were “broadly in line with party policy” – a statement interpreted by some as endorsement and by others as a cautious rebuke.
However, shadow housing secretary James Cleverly appeared to contradict this position, telling Times Radio that “retrospective changes are not what we are talking about as our policy”. His comments directly conflict with the draft bill prepared by shadow home secretary Chris Philp, which explicitly includes a clause on “revocation of indefinite leave to remain in certain circumstances”.
Party officials have since struggled to clarify key details, such as whether the rule would apply to people on maternity leave or those earning below the threshold due to illness or part-time work. Questions also remain about whether a person could lose their ILR if a family member, such as a British-born spouse or child, claimed benefits.
Labour MP Anna Turley has written to Lam demanding urgent clarification. Turley, who chairs Labour’s policy review on immigration, said the proposals could “deport people who have played by the rules, who are lawfully in this country, and who are part of our communities”.
She said removing people’s right to stay after years of legal residence would “break up families and communities, undermine the rule of law, and trash our country’s reputation for fairness”.
The controversy also revived concerns about Britain’s political direction on migration. Commentator Kenan Malik warned in The Observer that Lam’s proposal to deport legal migrants was “a move straight from the Idi Amin playbook”, referring to the Ugandan dictator’s expulsion of Asian communities in 1972.
He argued that the Conservatives’ draft bill amounted to “retrospective erasure of legal status”, a step typically associated with authoritarian regimes.
“The brazen overturning of democratic norms is now being presented as sensible policy,” Malik wrote. “If we normalise deporting legal migrants, what’s to stop a future government targeting citizens of the wrong heritage?”
Some Tory MPs fear the issue is further pushing the party towards the far right, while others see it as an attempt to court Reform UK voters ahead of the next general election.
Lam, described as ambitious and outspoken, is often seen as an ally of Jenrick and Nick Timothy, both associated with the Tory party’s tougher stance on migration. Her critics, however, said she lacks political experience and has underestimated the outrage her remarks would cause.
The controversy comes at a time when the Tories are trying to redefine their post-election identity under Badenoch’s leadership. While some within the party are pushing for a harder line on migration, others fear it could further damage the party’s credibility after years of internal division and electoral decline.
