Page 8 | Reform plans to scrap indefinite leave to remain for migrants

Twiglets1 · 2025-09-22T12:08:01+00:00

BBC report following Farage's press conference this afternoon: *Reform UK has announced it would abolish the right of migrants to qualify for permanent settlement in the UK after five years, if the party wins the next election.* ^Under the plans, Reform would abolish the right of migrants to apply for Indefinite Leave to Remain (ILR) - which gives migrants rights and access to benefits - and reapply for new visas with tougher rules.^ ^Reform will also unveil plans to bar anyone other than British citizens from accessing welfare. The party claims their plans would save £234bn over several decades.^ ^Reform said it would replace ILR with visas that force migrants to reapply every five years. That includes hundreds of thousands of migrants currently in the UK.^ ^Applicants would also have to meet certain criteria, including a higher salary threshold and standard of English.^ ^The announcement launches Reform's fresh assault on what they brand the "Boriswave" - 3.8 million people who entered the UK after Brexit under looser rules brought in by Boris Johnson's administration.^ ^Speaking at a press conference, Reform UK leader Nigel Farage said the "main reason" for the policy was to "wake everybody up to the Boris wave".^ ^Hundreds of thousands of these migrants, who have come to the UK since 2021, will soon qualify for permanent residence under the ILR scheme.^ ^Reform said the changes would not apply to EU nationals whose settled status is protected under the European Union Withdrawal Agreement, who make up the majority of benefit claimants by people with ILR.^ ^But EU nationals not benefiting from the provisions of the Withdrawal Agreement will be subject to the new system.^ ^Reform will also introduce a new scheme called Acute Skills Shortage Visas (ASSV) for jobs in crisis. Under the scheme, firms can hire one worker from abroad only if they train one at home.^ ^Reform will also raise the average wait for UK citizenship from six years to seven.^ ^Reform say their policy is designed to bring Britain into line with other countries such as the US and United Arab Emirates (UAE) and save the UK more than £234bn over what it calls the "lifetime of the average migrant".^ [[https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c930xypxpqpo https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c930xypxpqpo]]

Upstartled · 23/09/2025 14:22

Upstartled · 23/09/2025 14:20

I haven't seen a sharp drop anywhere, but I love a poll so if you point me in the direction I'll have a look.

Show quote history

Fwiw, I appreciate that we've had this conversation that hasn't tipped into typical MN shittiness. I think we are just seeing this differently.

bombastix · 23/09/2025 14:22

Upstartled · 23/09/2025 14:20

I haven't seen a sharp drop anywhere, but I love a poll so if you point me in the direction I'll have a look.

Show quote history

It will come out tomorrow. 5 point drop

bombastix · 23/09/2025 14:21

Lifeinthepit · 23/09/2025 14:16

But many British people aren't white?

Show quote history

See “substantially” as part of the answer. Legally, the idea of whether a policy might substantially benefit one group racially is something governments cannot yet achieve in the UK. It currently needs justification. IMO it is not clear what that is is you look at my example of two people doing the same job in the UK. It is the total exclusion of benefits and PSE and their recasting as guest workers that tells me of a full intention to remove any domestic recourse those with ILR currently have.

Upstartled · 23/09/2025 14:20

bombastix · 23/09/2025 14:16

Yes. That is my suggestion. If you want this kind of discrimination domestically, not on point of entry, then Reform’s motives look suspect to me.

Incidentally I am not sure it is very popular either. Looks like they have a large vote share drop

Show quote history

I haven't seen a sharp drop anywhere, but I love a poll so if you point me in the direction I'll have a look.

TheClaaaw · 23/09/2025 14:19

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

BendoftheBeginning · 23/09/2025 14:17

bombastix · 23/09/2025 14:05

Yes. There is an element of law that doesn’t permit governments to make an explicitly racist policy.

So for example, the UK can’t introduce a law yet that said “white people only can have benefits”. Thats going to be against domestic and international law so long as we are in the ECHR.

But it could try to have a policy that had substantially that effect. That engages discrimination law too, and is called indirect discrimination and this can be unlawful if there is not a proper reason for the policy.

If you say only British people get certain services because they are British or that people in the same circumstances but are not British are excluded full stop then the current law will say that’s unlawful.

Saving money alone will not be a good enough reason for indirect discrimination. These are people already in the UK which makes a big difference to what rights they have. They have some protection from policies like these so long as we are in the ECHR and apply that law here and they are here working.

But the other reason I think this is mostly racially motivated is that Farage really only mentioned it being justified is that he mentioned India, Pakistan and Afghanistan as his countries of concern. So to me, that really informed the motivation behind it.

Show quote history

Regarding your last paragraph, the subtext about most immigration in the U.K. has always been about brown illegal immigrants. For years, when the topic has got heated people on the right and left of the question will tip a wink at my husband and say, “Oh, it’s not about you, you’ll be fine.”

They are wrong. It IS about him, and therefore about me, and our children, and my extended family. The ratcheting up of the rhetoric is a problem for all of us, whether you came legally 5 years ago from India on a work visa, 20 years ago from Aus on an Ancestry Visa before earning ILR and marrying a Brit, or illegally on a boat. This is the first time I have ever heard ALL immigrants described as scroungers by a political leader through, against all facts and evidence.

There could be a genuine conversation about immigration trade-offs, pros and cons, but as long as the subtext is racism and xenophobia we never really get to it.

Lifeinthepit · 23/09/2025 14:16

bombastix · 23/09/2025 14:05

Yes. There is an element of law that doesn’t permit governments to make an explicitly racist policy.

So for example, the UK can’t introduce a law yet that said “white people only can have benefits”. Thats going to be against domestic and international law so long as we are in the ECHR.

But it could try to have a policy that had substantially that effect. That engages discrimination law too, and is called indirect discrimination and this can be unlawful if there is not a proper reason for the policy.

If you say only British people get certain services because they are British or that people in the same circumstances but are not British are excluded full stop then the current law will say that’s unlawful.

Saving money alone will not be a good enough reason for indirect discrimination. These are people already in the UK which makes a big difference to what rights they have. They have some protection from policies like these so long as we are in the ECHR and apply that law here and they are here working.

But the other reason I think this is mostly racially motivated is that Farage really only mentioned it being justified is that he mentioned India, Pakistan and Afghanistan as his countries of concern. So to me, that really informed the motivation behind it.

Show quote history

But many British people aren't white?

bombastix · 23/09/2025 14:16

Upstartled · 23/09/2025 14:12

But surely the discriminated group here is non eu immigrants. The discrimination is by virtue of not being a citizen of the UK/ EU. Every immigrant with a legal right into the country has had to demonstrate their right to live here in a way that natives, obviously, do not. So right at the point of application, using your approach, you are suggesting that the engineered unfairness is a racist endeavour.

Yes. That is my suggestion. If you want this kind of discrimination domestically, not on point of entry, then Reform’s motives look suspect to me.

Incidentally I am not sure it is very popular either. Looks like they have a large vote share drop

TheClaaaw · 23/09/2025 14:14

bombastix · 23/09/2025 14:05

Yes. There is an element of law that doesn’t permit governments to make an explicitly racist policy.

So for example, the UK can’t introduce a law yet that said “white people only can have benefits”. Thats going to be against domestic and international law so long as we are in the ECHR.

But it could try to have a policy that had substantially that effect. That engages discrimination law too, and is called indirect discrimination and this can be unlawful if there is not a proper reason for the policy.

If you say only British people get certain services because they are British or that people in the same circumstances but are not British are excluded full stop then the current law will say that’s unlawful.

Saving money alone will not be a good enough reason for indirect discrimination. These are people already in the UK which makes a big difference to what rights they have. They have some protection from policies like these so long as we are in the ECHR and apply that law here and they are here working.

But the other reason I think this is mostly racially motivated is that Farage really only mentioned it being justified is that he mentioned India, Pakistan and Afghanistan as his countries of concern. So to me, that really informed the motivation behind it.

Show quote history

Indeed. And that’s precisely why another of their stated targets is the Equality Act 2010: if they were to get into power so that they could remove that as they have stated that they wish to do, as well as removing the ECHR, then all protections of British citizens will also be gone, the gloves will be off and they will be able to make racist and homophobic and sexist and ablest laws…

Upstartled · 23/09/2025 14:12

But surely the discriminated group here is non eu immigrants. The discrimination is by virtue of not being a citizen of the UK/ EU. Every immigrant with a legal right into the country has had to demonstrate their right to live here in a way that natives, obviously, do not. So right at the point of application, using your approach, you are suggesting that the engineered unfairness is a racist endeavour.

EasternStandard · 23/09/2025 14:12

Lifeinthepit · 23/09/2025 14:04

Not sure. Although I suppose communists do want global citizenship which would mean you can claim benefits anywhere in the world. Maybe that's the thinking behind it. Although that should be made clear if that's the case.

Show quote history

Communist countries are even more severe. They might not let people in or out.

It’s such an odd gotcha in pp as I can’t think of any country that doesn’t distinguish between citizens and other status in some way.

Lifeinthepit · 23/09/2025 14:11

BendoftheBeginning · 23/09/2025 14:06

Removing it would be stupid and counted-productive, as I have already explained. It costs more to administer non-ILR visa holders because they “cycle” through the visa system more often and need more checks (which, for people who have already made it through a few intensive visa checks and the Leave to Remain process, has already been pretty damned through). Once they’re in ILR they are on a “best behaviour” rule, which is more than any Brit is.

Extending how long it takes to qualify if quite a different proposal, though unnecessarily punitive for families as each child needs to be paid for separately. I know one Aussie family (highly experienced FinTech couple) who left the U.K. after 12 years because it would cost 12k to naturalise the whole family. The UK lost them, right at a time when it was screaming for full stack engineers.

None of this matters to people who hate foreigners though. They don’t care about making the U.K. work, they just don’t want it to work for people who weren’t born here.

Show quote history

I don't think that's most people though (your last line). I think most people are pretty fair minded. I think the timing of the Boris Wave getting ILR is unfortunate as it coincides with Labour stuffing up the economy and concern over immigration going up the charts in the polls.

I think (as France is always accusing us of being) we are a bit too much of a draw to immigrants and that needs adjustment. Extending the time frames seems a good solution or raising the wage limit and requiring it to be maintained. As long as we are in line with most other EU countries I think we can't really complain.

bombastix · 23/09/2025 14:09

BendoftheBeginning · 23/09/2025 14:06

Removing it would be stupid and counted-productive, as I have already explained. It costs more to administer non-ILR visa holders because they “cycle” through the visa system more often and need more checks (which, for people who have already made it through a few intensive visa checks and the Leave to Remain process, has already been pretty damned through). Once they’re in ILR they are on a “best behaviour” rule, which is more than any Brit is.

Extending how long it takes to qualify if quite a different proposal, though unnecessarily punitive for families as each child needs to be paid for separately. I know one Aussie family (highly experienced FinTech couple) who left the U.K. after 12 years because it would cost 12k to naturalise the whole family. The UK lost them, right at a time when it was screaming for full stack engineers.

None of this matters to people who hate foreigners though. They don’t care about making the U.K. work, they just don’t want it to work for people who weren’t born here.

Show quote history

Are you sure they want to make it work for those of us that were?

BendoftheBeginning · 23/09/2025 14:06

Lifeinthepit · 23/09/2025 13:06

Agreed. But it's likely to happen as Labour are looking at removing it or at least extending the 5 year qualification period.

Show quote history

Removing it would be stupid and counted-productive, as I have already explained. It costs more to administer non-ILR visa holders because they “cycle” through the visa system more often and need more checks (which, for people who have already made it through a few intensive visa checks and the Leave to Remain process, has already been pretty damned through). Once they’re in ILR they are on a “best behaviour” rule, which is more than any Brit is.

Extending how long it takes to qualify if quite a different proposal, though unnecessarily punitive for families as each child needs to be paid for separately. I know one Aussie family (highly experienced FinTech couple) who left the U.K. after 12 years because it would cost 12k to naturalise the whole family. The UK lost them, right at a time when it was screaming for full stack engineers.

None of this matters to people who hate foreigners though. They don’t care about making the U.K. work, they just don’t want it to work for people who weren’t born here.

bombastix · 23/09/2025 14:05

Upstartled · 23/09/2025 13:48

So, the policy isn't racist but the effect is racist? And that's because you think asking people to become citizens is racist, even when those people are white because others in the group are not white? Could you spell it out for me because I'm not joining the dots here.

Show quote history

Yes. There is an element of law that doesn’t permit governments to make an explicitly racist policy.

So for example, the UK can’t introduce a law yet that said “white people only can have benefits”. Thats going to be against domestic and international law so long as we are in the ECHR.

But it could try to have a policy that had substantially that effect. That engages discrimination law too, and is called indirect discrimination and this can be unlawful if there is not a proper reason for the policy.

If you say only British people get certain services because they are British or that people in the same circumstances but are not British are excluded full stop then the current law will say that’s unlawful.

Saving money alone will not be a good enough reason for indirect discrimination. These are people already in the UK which makes a big difference to what rights they have. They have some protection from policies like these so long as we are in the ECHR and apply that law here and they are here working.

But the other reason I think this is mostly racially motivated is that Farage really only mentioned it being justified is that he mentioned India, Pakistan and Afghanistan as his countries of concern. So to me, that really informed the motivation behind it.

Lifeinthepit · 23/09/2025 14:05

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

I knew the reply would be a cracker (and long). And you didn't disappoint!

Lifeinthepit · 23/09/2025 14:04

EasternStandard · 23/09/2025 13:58

Just coming back to this as the reply seemed to be a yes I thought so response. But why?

Which country doesn’t do this?

Show quote history

Not sure. Although I suppose communists do want global citizenship which would mean you can claim benefits anywhere in the world. Maybe that's the thinking behind it. Although that should be made clear if that's the case.

TheClaaaw · 23/09/2025 14:03

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

Lifeinthepit · 23/09/2025 14:01

bombastix · 23/09/2025 13:47

It was, thank you. I’d rather people were clear on what they believe, and why.

Show quote history

But most people surely would expect to be given more rights in the country they are a citizen of than a country they aren't? That's sort of how countries work. I don't think it's racist or xenophobic. It's just practical.

EasternStandard · 23/09/2025 13:58

Lifeinthepit · 23/09/2025 13:46

I think I did deal with your example? Nothing macro (I think you mean large scale, looking it up? I'd assumed you were referring to economics!).

I think UK citizens should have more rights than non UK citizens within the UK, for the reasons already given. Hopefully that's the answer you were looking for even if you don't agree with me.

Show quote history

Just coming back to this as the reply seemed to be a yes I thought so response. But why?

Which country doesn’t do this?

Sherbs12 · 23/09/2025 13:57

Lifeinthepit · 23/09/2025 12:41

Tbf Farage wasn't an MP at the time of Brexit. He was effectively part of a pressure group and had no political power.

No the responsibility for Brexit was the person who called a referendum with a 50% win cut off.

Show quote history

If you’re referring to Cameron and the Tories, then I totally agree that the referendum is on them.

No, Farage wasn’t an MP, but he was an MEP and leader of UKIP - he has had significant political influence and huge media platform for many years, way before July 2024 when he was finally elected (his 8th attempt?).

In relation to this, you may well recall his abhorrent ‘Breaking Point’ poster used for Brexit - he was a high-profile figurehead and campaigner; for anyone who is failing to recognise the subtext and undertones of Farage’s messaging, I’d also suggest it’s worth reminding yourself of his tactics (although I’m sure there’ll be some who will lap this up).

Reform plans to scrap indefinite leave to remain for migrants

StarlightRobot · 23/09/2025 13:55

I don’t think it is a racist policy. It may be motivated by racism, but that is different. I do think it is cruel and stupid. I am actually ok with limiting benefits, but retrospectively ramping up minimum income thresholds to a point where ordinary self-funding individuals who currently have a legal right to live in the UK will then be deported is really cruel. It will break up families.

Lifeinthepit · 23/09/2025 13:51

TheClaaaw · 23/09/2025 13:45

It’s not an insult, it is a fact clearly evidenced by your posts which repeatedly have claimed that posters wrote things that they didn’t write, and claimed that sentences have alternative meanings that would require them being written with different punctuation (or, indeed, completely different words) to have any validity.

Show quote history

Another explanation would be that you write things and then when you are picked up on your errors, you are outraged and deny them. Or you are rude.

It's fine. You're very busy on this thread and can't be expected to get everything right (which you haven't).

I'm here to help you. No need to abuse me.

Upstartled · 23/09/2025 13:48

bombastix · 23/09/2025 13:41

Well, I think my concern is the effect and the motivation which imo is. But of course I accept that it is not badged in that way.

I believe that probably there would be a problem with this legally regarding discrimination law in the ECHR, as the intent or effect of this discrimination in my example is the element that concerns me. That is to me the bit I find morally repugnant.

Show quote history

So, the policy isn't racist but the effect is racist? And that's because you think asking people to become citizens is racist, even when those people are white because others in the group are not white? Could you spell it out for me because I'm not joining the dots here.

EasternStandard · 23/09/2025 13:48

Lifeinthepit · 23/09/2025 13:46

I think I did deal with your example? Nothing macro (I think you mean large scale, looking it up? I'd assumed you were referring to economics!).

I think UK citizens should have more rights than non UK citizens within the UK, for the reasons already given. Hopefully that's the answer you were looking for even if you don't agree with me.

Show quote history

This happens everywhere? I’m not sure what the pp is aiming for. It’s not clear.