Proposed ILR Rules – The Unfair Impact on Working Mothers and the Need for a Full Maternity Exemption

[Zinary]

I am writing this with a newborn in my arms, and my heart is completely breaking.
Instead of being allowed to heal, rest, and soak in the pure joy of my baby, I am sitting here crying, terrified, and questioning if I made the right choice to have a child. How can a mother be driven to question her greatest gift, her absolute world, all because of a cruel change to immigration law?
On 2 November, Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood announced the finalized "Earned Settlement" rules. To get Indefinite Leave to Remain (ILR) in the standard 5 years, you now must earn over £50,271 a year.
But the absolute malice is in the fine print: you must meet that £50,271 threshold in three out of the last five years before you apply.
The Home Office is actively spinning this "3 out of 5 years" rule as a generous maternity "buffer." They are telling the public it gives women two years of leeway to have a baby.
Let me tell you why that math is a blatant, calculated lie for real women:

1. The Starting Trap: Many of us spent our first two years in the UK working up from entry-level salaries, earning below that £50k mark. Our two "buffer years" are ALREADY GONE. We have zero margin for error left.
2. The Maternity Penalty: Pregnancy is nine months of physical toll, followed by maternity leave and statutory pay dips. If your annual P60 earnings drop below £50,271 because you lose out on bonuses, commission, or overtime while caring for your baby, your year doesn't count. The clock resets.
3. The Multi-Child Ban: If you want to have two children within five years, it is mathematically impossible to hit that threshold for three consecutive years.

If the math fails you because you chose to have a baby, you are forced onto the 10-year path. The punishment? Paying thousands of pounds more in upfront Immigration Health Surcharges (IHS) and visa extensions just to keep your home. For a family, we are talking about an extra £35,000+ extracted by the Home Office. This is evil. It is a pay-to-settle hierarchy that penalizes the female body and treats human lives like a spreadsheet. The right to live and build a family must NEVER be a hard choice. The Home Office is laying these rules before Parliament next month (December) to take effect in 2027. We have a tiny, critical window to fight this. I am calling on every mother, every ally, and anyone who believes that a woman shouldn't be penalized for having a child to help us.

• If you are an immigration lawyer: How do we launch a class-action challenge against this under the Equality Act?
• If you have links to journalists or MPs: Please help us get this cruel math into the mainstream media. Backbench Labour MPs forced a U-turn on care workers last week—we can force a U-turn on mothers if we make enough noise.
• If you are a British citizen: Will you write to your MP on behalf of your migrant friends and colleagues who have no voice in the ballot box?

Please bump this, share this, and tell me what we can do. I refuse to let a spreadsheet dictate whether it was a "mistake" to hold my beautiful baby.

@HelenaWaitingI am sure there would be hoops to jump through if they had gone to the US instead. Particularly with healthcare? I assume the UK is the better option? It is a lot of money but I imagine it’s also to put people off trying for marriages of convenience.

I’m self-employed so had to wait until I had enough in savings to afford to cover my outgoings when I had my first baby. I then had to wait 5 years before trying to conceive my second for the same reason. Finances are a big factor for most people when deciding to have children and how far to space them.

@Passaggressfedup Where is the right to equality?????? I’m human too and my baby has done absolutely nothing wrong

I’ve lived abroad in places I would have zero right to settle in. This was absolutely fine by me. I think the idea that if you choose to live somewhere then that place has an automatic obligation to allow you to stay is a bit mad tbh.

I understand it’s disappointing OP but the reality is some immigration ends up being a net cost over the lifetime of that immigrant. It is reasonable for the UK to prioritise people who will be a net benefit to the UK instead. It’s not about being nice or not nice it’s the hard reality of making the math work.

@Icepop79 that was your choice to make and I respect it. Should my choice be taken away from me?? I have paid all my dues all of it , I am able to care for my children. Even during my maternity my husband works extra hours to meet our obligations.

The rule that takes away my choice to bare children within a certain timeframe is infringing on my fundamental rights as a human

"The right to ....build a family should never be a hard choice." 🙄

You are talking from a situation of priviledge that many women born in the uk, cannot afford. Women who have paid into the system their whole lives cannot afford. Women who are stopping at one child because they cannot afford to feed and house a second.

So, no, I don't agree with you. A huge number of people are struggling, and in hard times we have to prioritise.

Paying the extra NHS fees it will cost you is fair.

I am an immigrant who came to the UK 25 years ago. I dont like that its only based on salary. All the bankers I work with who come over from other countries will easily make that threshold even if they have children during that period thanks to our generous maternity and bonus packages. But we work for a private company that ships earnings back to the EU. Why should they have priority, over people working in civil service jobs.

No-one has an automatic right to citizenship to any other country. Millions of us have been or are expats or immigrants to other countries, it is totally normal in most of the world to have extremely stringent citizenship rules that you have to meet to be able to settle. Equality doesn’t mean anyone can claim British citizenship just because. You can keep renewing your visa until you qualify for citizenship.

I am British. I was not able to have more children because I could not afford to do so and know so many other women who made that same decision. Having a child is not a human right.
There are many things I don’t agree with regarding immigration laws and many ways that the current system is being exploited but this is not one of them.

Having children within your desired timeframe is not a human right. Citizenship to a country other than the one you are currently a citizen of is also not a human right.

Equality doesn’t mean everyone gets to do everything they want for free. You don’t actually seem interested in engaging with anything anyone says, you just want to reiterate the same emotional argument, but the fact is you haven’t been paying tax here for long enough to just be able to demand to have your baby free on the NHS. Sorry. I am pretty left wing but am struggling to make sense of why you think you should be entitled to resources from a country you only recently arrived in.

Where is the right to equality?????? I’m human too and my baby has done absolutely nothing wrong
That's the whole point! The rule makes it more equal! It's you who thinks you should have special treatment by being entitled to having 2 children in 5 years whilst not earning or earning minimally, a privilege that the majority of women don't get in this country either!

Your baby has the option to be raised in your country of nationality. You've decided to have a child in the UK before getting residency! Your choice!

I do understand OP, you had plans and the changes will result in forcing you to re-evaluate your choices. But you do actually have choices, you just don’t like them.

Many people wait more than 5 years to have children, some wait a lifetime. Motherhood is not a right.

I think realistically the current Labour policy is probably the ‘softest’ of the options available from the 3 parties capable of winning the next election. A Tory and/or Reform government would be even harsher. Even if campaigners successfully achieve amendments to the current proposals, they might well find things change again in 2029.

@Arbourimage Thank you for your perspective. However, you are conflating personal financial planning with structural systemic discrimination. This isn't a case of immaturity or a lack of planning; it is about a system that mathematically treats the biological reality of motherhood as an economic liability.
Here is why the 'just wait until you are financially secure' argument fails under the mechanics of this specific law:
1. The Illusion of 'Waiting' for Security
I did plan. I entered the UK earning over £36,000—well above the government's required threshold at the time—and I have steadily advanced my career. To answer your assumption about the housing supply: my finances are stable enough that I pay a UK mortgage, not rent. I am deeply rooted, self-sufficient, and a net contributor.
The issue is that the new law sets the fast-track bar at £50,271—a salary that puts an individual in the top 15% of UK earners. Under the '3 out of 5 years' rule, even if a woman is completely stable, independent, and meeting every financial metric, taking a standard maternity leave that drops her P60 net earnings below that top-tier threshold for just one year triggers a penalty. The system does not care how hard she planned or how stable she is; it simply triggers a penalty because she gave birth. That is the definition of a motherhood penalty.
2. The Truth About the IHS and Healthcare Costs
You mentioned that £10,000 does not cover maternity care. To be clear, the Immigration Health Surcharges I pay are a surcharge—they are an extra tax paid on top of the standard Income Tax and National Insurance automatically deducted from my salary every month.
Like any other working professional in this country, my monthly taxes fund the NHS. The IHS is an additional, upfront premium. Migrant workers pay for the NHS twice. Framing a full taxpayer using the healthcare system they actively fund as a 'drain' is economically incorrect.
3. Systemic Rules vs. Personal Normalcy
There is a massive difference between a couple choosing to wait to have children based on their own personal readiness, and a government legislating a framework that structurally resets a woman's residency clock if she has a baby.
This policy does not affect men on the exact same visa route, because their salaries do not take a statutory maternity dip. When a government policy creates a system where a man can secure his permanent residency in 5 years, but a woman doing the exact same job is pushed to 10 years solely because she gave birth, it is not 'hyperbolic' to call it unjust. It is indirect sex discrimination, which is why organizations like Maternity Action are actively fighting it."

I lived in the States for 7 years. I was working on a work visa 'sponsored' by my company. I was assaulted during my employment and the company did nothing about it. No way was I going to continue to work there for another 2 years to get my green card. I couldn't afford to find another sponsor and pay solicitors fees, so I had to go back. I had to sell everything, leave everything behind, the life I had built, my boyfriend, friends, cats...

Your situation is nowhere as traumatic. No sympathy.

@HelenaWaiting thank you for airing your voice

There is no right to financial equality for new migrants into a country though, the UK is not unique in that sense.
I’m sure you wouldn’t have gone to the US and had a baby less than 2 years in and expected it to cost 10k.

There are hoops and barriers to citizenship, I’m not sure why you think it’s a human right to access citizenship in any country of your choosing without meeting the criteria. Nor why you think you should be able to have a child whenever you like and face no financial penalties.

Perhaps your DS could move to the US with her instead?

Maybe try a different country? Dubai?

“This isn't a case of immaturity or a lack of planning; it is about a system that mathematically treats the biological reality of motherhood as an economic liability.”

It IS an economic liability. Why do you think it’s not?

Don’t be daft - no it doesn’t. It means that it might cost you more or take longer before you have a child but that’s the same for every single woman wanting to have a child, regardless of their immigration status.

@Zinary
Why didn't you have a child in your own country?
Maybe you thought you'd get more benefits here?
Why should the British Taxpayer fund your family?
You wonder why people aren't sympathetic to some immigrants ? Really?
No sympathy.

A lot of people are coming at this from an “economic” migrant perspective. I am a migrant to the UK, but I am not an economic migrant. I migrated here because I fell in love with a a British man. I would have been much better off living in my own country financially, better healthcare, better everything, but due to various circumstances we decided to live in the UK. I agree with OP that I should not be penalised for having a baby/ the goal post seems to move. I took a massive pay cut moving to the Uk. This is year ago now and I am on a six figure salary now having contributed probably more than most people living in the Uk. I also agree with OP that you can’t wait 5 year to have children. If you are 35 then that’s a bad idea. I think a lot of people forget that a lot of the EU “people
movement” are also people who fall in love and marry British people. Honestly, if it wasn’t for my wonderful DH and now lovely children, you can stick your country where the sun doesn’t shine. It’s in a terrible state mostly and not due to immigrants contrary to what Farage and his ilk has brain washed the population with for the past God knows how many years. In fact I would say Britain very much need fresh blood and well educated people
from the EU and they are not all going to earn 50k +