Rising Protests Over Immigration: London and Australia.

 

March for Australia

 Unite the Kingdom Protest March

Anti Immigration Protest, Australia

 Pauline Hansen

 Tommy Robinson

In September 2025, large protests against immigration have flared in major English-speaking democracies, most notably in London, UK, and across multiple capital cities in Australia. Although there are local differences, there are striking commonalities: political agitation, far-right mobilisation, counter-protests, and fears among migrant communities. This article reviews what happened in each country, the motivations and narratives involved, and what the broader implications might be.

London: “Unite the Kingdom” and a Major Far-Right Rally

What Happened

• On Saturday, 13 September 2025, over 100,000 people (some estimates around 110,000-150,000) marched in central London under the banner “Unite the Kingdom”, a march organised by far-right activist Tommy Robinson. 
• The stated aims included opposition to illegal migration, demands for stricter control over asylum, and calls for “free speech.” Many protesters carried British, English, and other nationalist flags (including Union Jack and St George’s Cross) and expressed criticism of the government. 
• Around 5,000 people showed up for a counter-protest, organised by groups including Stand Up to Racism. 
• Clashes occurred: protesters tried to breach police lines, attempted to enter “sterile zones” between the main protest and the counter-demonstrators, and violence was reported. At least 25 arrests were made; 26 police officers were injured (4 seriously). 

Background and Context

• The UK has been seeing a tense summer around migration: asylum seekers arriving in small boats, usage of hotels to accommodate migrants, and local protests near such accommodations. 
• The protest took place against a backdrop of growing public concern about immigration, which has overtaken economic issues in some polls. 
• With the far-right activist Tommy Robinson, known for his anti-Islam and anti-immigration stance, leading the march, many viewed it as another instance of the far-right gaining ground in public protest. Critics say that the rhetoric was explicitly or implicitly xenophobic and that the symbolism (flags, slogans) was intended to stoke identity politics. 

Reactions and Concerns

• Law enforcement: significantly more police deployed than maybe anticipated, using horses, cordons to try to keep order. 
• Civil society and counter-protests: anti-racism groups protested alongside, condemned what they saw as hate speech, fear-mongering, and the potential for violence. 

 

• Political risk: the government and opposition will likely feel pressure to respond to public sentiment on immigration, whether via policy, rhetoric, or border, asylum enforcement. Also risk of normalising certain far-right viewpoints if they’re seen as “mainstreaming” in large protests.

Australia: “March for Australia” and Parallel Movements

What Happened

• Across Australia’s state and territory capital cities, groups held rallies with anti-immigration or mass-immigration reduction themes. Protesters were draped in Australian flags; in many cases they marched under banners such as March for Australia. 
• Simultaneously, counter-protests or opposing demonstrations also took place; by Indigenous groups, pro-Palestinian activists, anti-racism groups, and others opposed to anti-immigration or anti-migrant narratives. 
• Police presence was heavy in many cities, especially where opposing groups could come into contact. There were concerns about clashes. Authorities separated demonstrators in central business districts in cities such as Melbourne. 

Concerns and Cases

• The Indian Australian community in particular has expressed anxiety, feeling targeted by anti-immigration rhetoric and negative political commentary. Reports of hate or discriminatory speech increasing, or suspicion that certain communities are being singled out. 
• Some protesters made or carried signs or chanted slogans with strong hostility. In Melbourne, there were scuffles and arrests associated with some protests. 
• Politically, some of the far-right movement argues that mainstream political parties have lost touch or failed to represent the views of citizens worried about immigration, rather than declaring themselves fully extremist. There’s talk among activists about forming more unified far-right platforms, although analysts say the movement is still fragmented. 

Similarities and Differences Between the UK and Australia

Similarities

1. Far-Right Mobilisation: Both protests involve far-right organisers or figures or at least messaging and imagery that far-right activists are building on or aligning with, in particular nationalist identities, “put your country first,” anti-immigration, suspicion of migrants and asylum seekers.
2. National Identity, Flags and Symbolism: In both countries, protests have featured national flags and appeals to national culture, often in ways that suggest immigration is a threat to that identity.
3. Counter-Protests and Tensions: In both the UK and Australia, there has been organized opposition: anti-racism groups, migrant community organisations, Indigenous groups (in Australia), etc. Also, law enforcement has had to deploy significant resources to manage the risk of confrontation.
4. Community Fears and Impacts on Migrants: Migrant communities in both countries report fear, concern about rising hostility, feeling targeted. There are concerns about hate speech, discrimination, being scapegoats.
5. Political Pressure: In both settings, immigration has become a potent political issue. Protests are both an expression of public sentiment, and likely to influence political debate, media narratives, and possibly policy.

Differences

1. Scale and Focus: The London protest appears very large (100,000+), and very centred around far-right leader Tommy Robinson. In Australia, the “March for Australia” protests have been large but more dispersed, with a wider variety of participants (some explicitly far-right, some more “concerned citizens”) and more local variance. 
2. Historical and Social Contexts: Australia has a distinct dynamic involving Indigenous sovereignty, race, and settlement history, which interacts with immigration debates differently than in the UK. Also, Australia’s migration rates, visa systems, geography (island continent), etc., create particular kinds of stress, especially in housing, infrastructure, cultural integration concerns.
3. Political Structure and Party System: In the UK, there is a more immediately visible far-right fringe (Robinson, Reform UK, etc.) that has held protests. In Australia, while there are far-right and nationalist figures (e.g. Pauline Hanson, One Nation, etc.), analysts say the movement remains more fractured, less institutionally strong, though gaining in visibility. 
4. Media and Misinformation: In Australia there have been controversies about overestimating attendance, misrepresenting the nature of protests, or inflaming fears among particular communities. For example, claims about numbers in Sydney and Brisbane amplified by social media or external actors. 

Drivers Behind These Protests

To understand why these protests, have momentum now, several overlapping factors are relevant.

1. Migration Pressure and Asylum Seekers: In the UK, arrivals via small boats and backlog in asylum have placed both political and public pressure. In Australia, there is public concern about the scale of immigration, pressure on housing, infrastructure, cost of living, and how migrants impact services. These are sometimes legitimate concerns but can also be leveraged by far-right activists.
2. Economic Stress: Rising housing cost, inflation, cost of living, and perceived competition in housing, jobs, public services can make immigration a flashpoint. People feeling insecure economically may be more open to anti-immigration rhetoric.
3. Cultural Anxiety and Identity Politics: Fears about cultural change, national identity, loss of “traditional” values or culture, or being outnumbered, these fears are often stoked by symbolic acts (flags, language, religious or cultural difference).
4. Political Vacuum or Disaffection: Where mainstream parties are perceived as not listening, or being ineffective on immigration and control of borders, far-right actors can claim to represent “the people” against elites. Disinformation or exaggerated claims can fill gaps in public understanding.

 

5. Media and Social Media Amplification: The spread of provocative images, misinformation, exaggeration of numbers or threats, symbolic moments (videos, chants, speeches) can help galvanise support. Also, external influence (foreign or international far-right figures) can cross-pollinate ideas.
6. Global Trends: These aren’t isolated. Far-right, anti-immigration sentiment is growing globally, in Western Europe, North America, etc. Australia and the UK are part of that broader trend.

Risks and Consequences

While public protest is a component of democratic expression, these movements carry risks and externalities.

• Social Polarisation: These protests deepen divides: between immigrants and native-born populations; between those who see immigration as necessary and moral, and those who see it as a problem. Counter-protests often heighten tensions.
• Risk of Violence: As seen in London (clashes with police, injuries to officers), and in some Australian cities, the risk of violence or disorder is real, especially when protesters or counter-protesters attempt to breach police lines or incite confrontation.
• Hate Speech and Discrimination: Rhetoric in some of these protests has elements that many consider xenophobic or racist, targeting specific immigrant groups, spreading fear, vilification. This can lead to increased hate crime, social alienation, mental health impacts for targeted communities.
• Political Pressure Toward Restrictive Policies: Such protests may push politicians to enact stricter immigration controls, harsher asylum policies, expedited removal, tighter border enforcement. While some of this may reflect genuine public demand, there’s a risk of undermining legal protections or human rights norms in doing so.
• Effect on Migrant Communities: Fear, marginalisation, discrimination. In Australia, for example, Indian Australians or Chinese nationals report feeling insecure. Community trust in broader society and government can erode. Potential chilling effect on integration or civic participation. 

What Observers, Experts, and Government Are Saying

• In the UK, law enforcement and some political leaders have expressed concern both about the scale of the protests and the ability for violence to break out. Also, criticism that leaders and media must not normalise far-right ideas.
• In Australia, many activist and community organisations are pushing back, demanding apologies for public figures who make statements perceived as racist, better protections, and clearer public policy to address racism. Some government officials have condemned the harassment and hate, while others are under pressure to respond to demands for reducing immigration or more regulation.
• Analysts are watching carefully whether these movements can translate protest momentum into electoral gains or substantial policy changes. Some note that while protests are large, the far-right remains disorganised in many places, making coherent political action harder. Yet if trends continue, institutional parties may shift positions in response to pressure.

 

Possible Futures and Policy Implications

What might the protests lead to? Some possible trajectories:

1. Harder Immigration Controls and Stricter Asylum Processes: Governments may respond with tougher border policies, more restrictive routes, faster removal of illegal entrants, perhaps more detention or restrictive housing for asylum seekers. The UK already has political momentum around “stopping small boat crossings,” etc.
2. Increased Scrutiny of Hate Speech and Extremism: There may be more political pressure to regulate protests, flag extremist content, clamp down on organizers linked to extremist ideologies. Possibly more legal action, police monitoring.
3. Backlash and Strengthening of Multiculturalism: On the other side, migrant groups, civil society, activist organisations may use this moment to push harder for inclusive policies, stronger anti-discrimination laws, community funding, education about racism, etc.
4. Media and Narrative Battles: How media frames migration (economic vs humanitarian vs threat), how political leaders speak about immigrants (as contributors vs burdens), how social media is moderated, all will matter. Misinformation can amplify panic.
5. Political Realignments: Mainstream parties might move right on immigration in response to voter pressure, or try to co-opt certain concerns (housing, cost of living) without adopting extremist rhetoric. In Australia, for instance, the fragmentation of the far-right means that if they can unify, they might punch harder politically; if not, they may remain fringe.
6. Community Responses and Defensive Mobilisation: Migrant communities may organise more, seek legal protections, greater civic engagement and maybe in some cases political representation. Counter-protests, awareness campaigns might become more frequent.

The far-right anti-immigration protests in London and across Australia are signs of a growing trend: the rising salience of immigration in public life, intertwined with economic insecurity, identity anxieties, and political polarisation. While many in these movements frame their grievances as legitimate concerns about services, housing, cultural change, or border control, the rhetoric and methods risk pushing society toward xenophobia, division, and erosion of protections for vulnerable people. The coming months will test how democracies respond: whether through more restrictive policies, better regulation of public discourse, or efforts to preserve inclusivity and civil rights. The way governments, media, civil society, and communities handle these pressures will shape not just immigration policy but the kind of national identity these countries choose to nurture.