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.

@ThatKeenLimeCrab
It is a biological reality, not a justification for state-sanctioned sex discrimination.
Under this logic, a male migrant and a female migrant doing the exact same job, paying the exact same taxes, are treated differently simply because the woman gives birth. The man gets permanent security in 5 years; the woman is penalized with a 10-year path and a five-figure financial penalty.
When a government policy creates a system where a man secures his residency faster than a woman for the exact same economic role, it is no longer an economic strategy. It is indirect sex discrimination, and it treats women's bodies as a punishable offense.

@Passaggressfedup I’m sorry to hear that. Whilst I haven’t been in exactly the same position, I’ve certainly been tied to an employer in less than favourable conditions!

I also had my DC abroad at no point did I consider that them not being given citizenship easily and quickly a punishment for them. I chose to move and I was grateful for the opportunity to live in another place, I have never ever considered making any demands on the host country other than to have access to the same rights as citizens in terms of law and order. I was getting something out of it and so was the host country, thats the deal, if my family had turned into a net liability we would have been marched to the nearest airport.

Delaying childbearing is a normal choice many people make. You aren’t being deported you are being asked to prove that once you are working fulltime that you will not be a burden on the state. It is absolutely reasonable.

Sorry but the sheer entitlement here is extraordinary. There will be other women on this forum who like me have lived elsewhere, stuck to the rules and if we didn’t like the rules just went home.

I also dont think this is equality.female immigrants married to uk citizens won't be able to have children even if their partner can support them male citizens with uk partners will be able to.
Also im 100% pro choice but women having to decide to abort babies to make sure they keep above the earning threshold sounds pretty revolting to me( I haven't read the proposal yet. Just going by what the op has put here)

@Miaaaaaowbit rude! You can leave if you don’t like it remember.

But your available options are purely because of the choice you made to move from one country to another. You haven’t been forced. Making certain choices comes with certain consequences. This isn’t Utopia!

The problem is that you have chosen to move to a new country, you need to work 3 out of 5 years, choosing to have a baby is a choice at that point, whereas you can wait until you have met the criteria. If i move to another country I have to meet the criteria too - to get a visa just to move to where my dd lives I need a job paying in excess of €60k or €1m to invest in a business, needless to say I can’t meet either (i don’t speak the language so working isn’t an option) and they have no family reunification option at all. Britains system is actually more generous than many.

@Miaaaaaow 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 +

How would you know someone was well educated if they earned less than the 50k threshold.
It seems like one of the only available rudimentary measurements available.
Earning 50k doesn’t prove someone is well educated but it’s certainly a lot more likely than if they earned 25k.

I do see your point here.

We are also £3trillion in debt and don't need any more demands on our infrastructure.

I suppose you could opt to live somewhere where you feel your fundamental rights are better protected? Britain is in dire straits financially, and you are certainly not the only person who has to think twice about the number and spacing of children.

You’re not going to win many supporters by coming to the UK as a migrant and then telling us its crap and we can ‘stick our country’. The more I read comments like yours, the more I’m inclined to support tightening the migration rules.

Also im 100% pro choice but women having to decide to abort babies to make sure they keep above the earning threshold sounds pretty revolting to me( I haven't read the proposal yet
Of course there's always the option to go back to their own country. Anyone who is able to get a job earning £50k most likely received a higher level of education, so likely had a somehow privileged life up to that point. Going home can't be that horrendous!

PS. I don’t have access to any benefits I have literally paid standard rent since I moved here, no discounts full rent with deposit. So what exactly have I done wrong?

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

OP, you are contradicting yourself here.

If you don't like it, go to a country that gives you a better deal.
Simple.

The poll results so far are pretty stark.

No love, they would be treated differently because they earn different amounts. The reason for that is irrelevant.
If someone is earning £55k and takes minimum maternity leave they would lose very little if they opted to take minimum maternity leave. Do you realise that thousands of women return to work having only taken a month’s mat leave due to financial reasons?

At least write your own replies.

Ai drivel

Not the case. The male and female are being treated the same, you would be choosing to take an extended period if time off work and at a reduced income. It’s a choice, it’s not mandatory.
You could choose to take less time off and still meet the earnings threshold if you wanted, just like the man.

@bababamama
Comparing the UK to countries with even worse rules does not make this policy just, nor does it erase the structural sexism.
The core issue is that the rule does not apply equally to men and women. A male migrant can choose to become a parent at any point during those 5 years without his residency clock resetting or facing a £35,000 financial penalty, because his income does not take a statutory maternity dip.
When a policy forces only the female worker to freeze her biological window to achieve the exact same legal security as her male colleague, it is not a 'neutral criteria.' It is systemic discrimination against women.

I think you’ll have to accept that most people aren’t going to agree with you and that the Labour policy is the ‘softest’ option you’ll get. If Tories or Reform win the next election you might not even stay in the UK.

They are my words

Cotraception. Don't be dramatic.

No, it's not.

You can bare children in your home country if that is more important to you then financial stability in the UK.

As others have pointed out, many people delay having children until they are financially stable.

if pregnancy maternity leave exempt people would just keep popping out, babies.

Why can't the male parent be the stay at home parent and the female work?