Reform plans to scrap indefinite leave to remain for migrants

It wasn't one Afghan who brought in 22 family members.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/07/18/afghan-migrant-brought-22-relatives-to-uk-after-data-breach/

Of course they are different. It shows how low level the conversation on Labour’s policies is. It’s for asylum.

Yes, and those other counties are nothing like the U.K. The counties that are culturally and historically like us do not ban dual nationality.

That should give people pause, really.

I mean, yeah, that might happen. What are you wanting me to say here? Policy has consequences. This could happen. And I still don't think that makes it a racist or xenophobic policy.

So no family reunification for asylum speakers, or everyone? Once again - different types of immigrants are different, and the differences matter. I am less interested in the tribal politics bit, frankly.

I don't think it achieves much of anything. I just don't think it amounts to an imposition on immigrants to ask them to move towards citizenship. To move towards a shared nationality. And it seems like the obvious answer for those who don't want to be caught in the perpetual visa application bind. And yes, as I said earlier, I don't think this is a well thought through policy - I just don't think it amounts to a xenophobic assault on immigrants.

Just thinking that if say Spain follows suit, there could be a influx of returning pensioners.

What is that going to do to the welfare bill?

Ofcourse we all know nothing about this proposal is about reducing the welfare bill.

Ok. But why do you feel it is so essential that long-term residents must become citizens? How does it negatively affect our society or economy that some long-term residents choose not to do so and keep their ILR status instead?

It affects the individuals in question as they cannot stand in elections or vote in national elections (unless a citizen of a Commonwealth country), and they don’t have a right to British consular support when abroad (obviously). But how does it negatively impact UK society? The permanent residents with ILR are still paying the same taxes, abiding by the same laws. You’d have no idea whether they’re a citizen or not unless they told you. By making them become citizens we actually increase our responsibilities to them and potential costs but I can’t see what we gain from this?

Why force people to do this when we know that it will place many in an impossible situation of choosing between their citizenship of birth and UK citizenship (even if the cause of that is laws in their country of origin): what’s the benefit to the UK? What’s the rationale that justifies us enforcing no permanent residence without citizenship? How will it improve things for the UK? I really don’t understand what it is intended to achieve.

IIRC it was aimed at reducing the number of family members asylum seekers can bring over when given ILR. It was after it was reported in July that one Afghan migrant who came over under the Afghanistan Response Route scheme was allowed to bring 22 family members to the UK. Maybe the extended reunification rules have been different for asylum seekers up until now as 21 children and one wife would be very unlikely?

Yes, they can vote in the UK - currently. That could change at any point should governing laws change. It might be a double standard in outcome of this proposed policy - but that's the choice of each country. I'm not understanding why you think we need to achieve an equitable outcome for emmigrants and immigrants?

Edit: If we are going to look at parity, can we keep the cost of citizenship in this country the same as it is, say, in New Zealand, asking for a friend?

This was already covered earlier in the thread. He’s provided no analysis of how many of these people are actually expected to claim any benefits at all, the economic impact, the tax paid by this 800,000, the cost of implementing his proposals (very expensive!), the economic impact that his policies would have (exacerbating skills shortages making many NHS services inoperable as well as key roles in other core industries; lowering economic growth and productivity, lowering tax revenues significantly and therefore necessitating large spending cuts - no detail on what services he proposes to cut or taxes he intends to raise to cover these costs).

This is a bit like when - during the Brexit campaign - he release that horrendous poster that was actually a photograph of Syrian refugees while falsely claiming that Turkey was about to become an EU member and trying to imply that the entire 75 million Turkish population would suddenly move to the UK. Just because 800,000 more people are eligible to apply for ILR doesn’t mean that a) all of them will do so; b) all of them will be granted it; or c) all of them will start claiming benefits.

That’s not to say that some changes shouldn’t be made; as I said near the beginning of the thread the obvious thing to do would be to decouple ILR from welfare entitlements and make the welfare system contributory, like in most European countries. To say that ILR must not be granted to anybody, and must be revoked retrospective from people who have lived in the UK for decades working and paying tax the entire time, is clearly a very extreme position and not remotely justified or necessary (or sensible economically!!).

Do you think Dubai would be this popular if people were expected to integrate?

Ofcourse the rights of low paid immigrants in Dubai are non existing, not an example the UK should want to follow

Their feelings matter because they can vote in all UK elections.

It's just the double standards, expecting immigrants to the UK become citizens and not expecting the same from expats, this applies to integrating too.

Anyway, who are Reform going to blame if all immigrants became British citizens.

Well it's up to the government to make sure that the uk is attractive for people with software skills. And those people can decide. Dubai as stated above doesn't offer citizenship at all and is pretty popular at the moment. We will just be in line with the EU.

Getting people's backs up is a more colloquial way of saying "contraversial" I suppose! 🤣

I agree with @Upstartledits the other countries who are stricter on this.

Yes, I know. That wouldn't be the effect of our law though, but their own home country. If that is the problem they should lobby their native government. I think we should be able to make laws independent of how they butt up against foreign laws.

Not every country allows joint nationality so by “asking people to become citizens” some people would be forced to relinquish their nationality of birth.

I would guess this is aimed at the asylum seekers because there’s a pattern of families sending their young men to do the dangerous journey here, then later if asylum and later ILR is granted applying for their entire extended family to come to join them.

Again, it seems like a sledge hammer to crack a nut to ban reunification entirely, especially as asylum seekers are such a tiny proportion of immigrants. It would make sense to tighten the rules for reunification for those claiming asylum, but to ban it entirely for immigrants who’ve come here on working visas and later applied for ILR seems extreme. There is also an issue more recently now that Brexit has made us very reliant on non-EU immigration of people coming to the UK on working visas and immediately bringing multiple dependents with them and we should apply higher incomes thresholds for this proportionately at the application stage to ensure that they’re covering their costs. But an outright ban would mean that even a UK citizen who marries someone of a different nationality would be banned from having their spouse move to the UK. Banning that would be inhumane. Even the US isn’t this extreme with its green cards.

It seems as always they’ve gone for simplistic and unworkable proposals without thinking through different scenarios or the implications, or how such a system could actually operate in practice, or indeed the costs! It all seems to have been designed for slogans and soundbites not as any kind of solution to the actual problems.

I'm not sure their feelings on the matter has any bearing on the Spanish or British government's requirements of them.

Do you think 'expats' in Spain for example will agree to that too?

Asking people to become citizens is fairly reasonable. Asking people to give up their dual nationality is an unnecessary step, imo.

For many reasons. Firstly, why should they have to? Just because you’ve made another country your permanent home doesn’t mean you should have to cut off your roots.

People could end up in a situation, if they did what you suggest, that they’d have to apply for a visa to visit the country in which they grew up. Visas take time to apply for and are expensive as well so if there was an emergency such as a dying relative they might not be able to go back in time. If they needed to go back for an extended period to care for an elderly relative they might not be allowed to.

Perhaps they intend to spend their working life in the UK and raise their children here then retire to their home country (brilliant for the UK because people get very expensive in old age) but if they’d given up their original nationality they might not be able to do so.

What’s the rational reason for demanding that they must become a citizen in order to secure permanent residence here? If they’ve been living here many years as law abiding citizens and contributing and paying tax then why should they have to live with never-ending insecurity about whether they’ll be forced to leave? This isn’t how any other country civilised western country runs their immigration system; all have a version of permanent residency that does not require citizenship.

Yes, I'm not here advocating for Reform or Farage. I don't think we should, as say the Germans do via Qatar, pay the Taliban to take deported Afghans.

I do take your point that not all of Labour supporters were comfortable with Labour's words and actions - and that discord went largely unnoticed. I think my exposure to Labour supporters is largely the voices in places like mn, where the license for Labour to behave counter to its narrative seems endless.

I think it’s in place now and yes it means women and children. You wouldn’t know on mn as not a peep from Labour.

It means it’s very unlikely women and children will get asylum at all. As for earlier pp I recall praise for this for Labour. It’s odd how people are inconsistent to this extent.