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.

You are talking about your financial situation. And on paper you have a case.

But the law does not look at individuals , it applies across the board, and these new proposals take into account the numbers of women to whom your financial situation does not apply.

You are claiming preferential treatment based on your salary and what you say is your net contribution to the UK economy , but are not looking at the wider picture. For example, although you have not made any claim on the NHS another woman with a similar income could already have used up the £10,000 NHS contribution through an accident, or a severe illness, so not only could that persons earning capacity have fallen dramatically but they would have possibly been given health care far beyond the value of their NHS surcharge. If this imaginary scenario was applied to you ( and I am pleased of it hasn’t) then your case for preferential treatment disappears.

As others have said, many women have to juggle their financial expectations to achieve their wish for parenthood, it might mean for example turning down promotion, or an unwanted move to a new area. It is not something that is only experienced by women migrating to the UK. Your situation is highly visible because it is laid out in clear terms, but many UK citizens are also faced with making hard financial choices. Very few of us have the financial independence to be able to ignore how our salaries and outgoings affect our decisions.

Sorry, I’m AUDHD and sarcasm doesn’t always come across on the internet. I assumed it was bollocks but didn’t want to accuse someone of making shit up.

I am not sure why people that work and contribute to taxes are being punished for having kids? What about all the people who pop them out on benefits and live off the government entirely? It is shocking really. No help for people who actually want to work and contribute to society.

Virtually all choices are shaped by government. It’s how society functions. You’re starting to sound a bit ridiculous.

Your choice is determined by the country you chose to live in.

I think what the government are saying is they only want doctors as they would hit that earning threshold easily.

@BermudaRhombus now I sound ridiculous because I turned the table? Common!!!! Be reasonable

I can think what I want about your country. It’s not a requirement to live the Uk to live here. Stop throwing your toys out of the pram. Again, the narrative that we must be so grateful to live here and use your NHS. Actually a lot of us are net contributors and personally I have never used the NHS. I go private.

No need to apologise x

I see two points here. Let's treat them separately (eventhought they impact you personally together)

One is the change of rules for those already on the path defined by the current law.
I understand it feels unfair and I actually see it as unfair, it feels like a law with retro-activity.
I believe a good law should somehow deal with this aspect (I don't know how).

The second point is the biology difference, men with children getting it in 5 years, women not.
I understand it is not equal. However, I don't see how to fix it. The law isn't intended to be "three out of five years earning X or having a baby"? That would move it totally elsewhere, as women would be incentivised to have babies when failing the income criteria.
What would you suggest?

Your choice was to move to another country. At that point you need to follow the rules if you want ilr. That’s not unreasonable.
The government isn’t going to make people have children. It wants to reduce the burden on the state not increase it. But the government does make me do lots of things - pay tax, abide by the law etc etc
It’s part of living in a country with laws. Most of us follow them. If you want to come live here you follow the rules or they don’t want you to stay. Simple.

My is my choice determined by the government
Some choices are determined by biology. Their choices are even more restricted.

Others are determined by the economy, others by health issues.

Some people focus on their privileges whilst others focus on hard done by they are because of one limitation which in the scale of things is nowhere as restricted as they like others to believe.

Why aren't you responding to the suggestion that your husband could take a year off? Oh is it a case of ' but but but I WANT to be at home with my baby for 12 months, bouhouhou that you are not allowing me to do this how and when I want'.

You have to earn your settlement. That's life

What about all the people who pop them out on benefits and live off the government entirely? It is shocking really You can also not agree with this.

Lots of people have their choice to have children determined by the government, because they have to consider maternity/parental leave pay and therefore whether they can afford it.

I think there are reasonable arguments you can make against this policy. But acting like you’re the only one who will have reproductive choices affected by government policy is silly.

I hope you never need A and E. The NHS is pretty wonderful when you’re in a car accident or get hit by a bus. But thanks for your comments on this thread, you’ve certainly helped shape my view of migrants.

OP understandably you are taking this very personally but the law does not work at an individual level. I’m a British citizen by birth but I hold dual nationality for another country which I got the same way you are attempting to get British citizenship. I get how you feel, I was really upset that I wasn’t allowed to vote for the first 3 years I had leave to remain and then when I was I was only allowed to vote in local elections which was the same rule for people with criminal records. At the time I worked for the government in that country so it seemed bizarre I could do my job but not vote. Even though I understood the need for rules it still felt like a judgment on me as a person (which obviously it wasn’t). Just after I got citizenship they changed the rules so you needed much longer living on leave to remain before you could apply so friends of mine were suddenly thrown into disarray about their plans. It’s horrible being on the receiving end of this but you need to retrace or as it not being a personal attack. The government needs to support existing citizens first in the same way in sure your home country does.

I really feel for you - it's completely unfair to move the goal posts once someone has already committed.

Essentially, we've been profiting from having you here these last few years, but you made the calculation that it was worth the pay-off in the long run, so everyone's been happy. But now we've just pulled the rug out from under your feet and we're no longer holding up our end of that bargain, which is particularly awful given you're at an especially vulnerable time having just had a baby.

Quite. People can take their family planning into account when they choose to move to the UK. We need skilled people to come to work not to be on maturity leave.

@FiveEightNine My argument from my perspective which is not exhaustive is that, women already earning above the 50+ should get an exemption which simply means we shoud be reduced to two years to accommodate for 1 year’s maternity leave.

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.

But the biological reality of motherhood IS an economic liability and the subsequent children are as well in the majority of cases.

I certainly don't want to deport most immigrants. I don't think most people do. However I suspect the hyperbole and emotive entitlement exhibited by the OP will add fuel to the anti immigration agenda.

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.

And this is part of why our country is so shit

@Keroppi thank you for your contribution we need enough noise

You're just repeating yourself.

You like others needed to wait to have children. We all did. I had to wait, my neighbour had to wait, my friends had to wait. You have choices, and you made them.

How can a mother be driven to question her greatest gift, her absolute world, all because of a cruel change to immigration law?

Your choice of language and words are irritating.

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.

How does 1 year of 5 drop her down below the 3 out of 5?

Im pro immigration, for people who want to come here and work and be valued members of the community.

How old are you, and where did you come from? @Zinary