Changes to immigration rules announced by Starmer

[OneAmberFinch]

Full white paper here is extensive and announces changes to all avenues of migration - basically their approach to resolving the issues of massively increased migration from 2019-2023/4.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6821aec3f16c0654b19060ac/restoring-control-over-the-immigration-system-white-paper.pdf

And Starmer's commentary on the BBC: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/ce810e3z6dkt

Handful of headline changes: default timeline to get ILR to go to 10 years instead of 5; abolishing new care worker visas; raising skills threshold for Skilled Workers back up to graduate level; increasing minimum grades required for student visas; various bits and pieces around English language requirements among several other policies

You’re not alone in thinking that. Labour have been keen to chase higher earners out, presumably due to some supporters wanting the same.

Not directly answering your question, but there is massive conflation in the public debate between "illegal immigration" and "boat people asylum seekers".

Several institutions suspect that the population of the UK is larger than the official figures but driven by visa overstayers who initially entered the country on a legal visa and then disappear into big cities, working gig economy or under-the-table jobs in their communities.

It's somewhat possible to predict which types of visa lead to that profile of person most likely to overstay - and it's things like work visas for lower-skilled jobs and study visas for non-selective institutions. This includes the well-known case of people coming in on care worker visas and then never actually doing care work, or doing a few shifts then vanishing.

This is literally "illegal immigration" and isn't linked at all to asylum-seeking boat arrivals, which is technically a "legal" route (on paper - I'm not commenting on the desirability of it).

It's also well-coordinated with e.g. "agents" who recruit "students" who all know full well that they're paying for a visa not an education.

In 2024 around 800k visas were issued across work and study routes.

Increasing the selectivity of these legal routes decreases the % of the people who overstay and become illegal immigrants - who might not get free hotels but who increase pressure on services/housing and usually don't contribute via taxes.

It's not good enough to just say "oh well working and studying are good things so no problem here".

100%

And making sure that skill visas are only issued for jobs which are unable to be filled by UK citizens.

There needs to be stronger vetting and more stringent follow up on visas issued vs where these people are and what they are actually doing!

Fair question.

I can’t believe Starmer did the I’ll smash the gangs I really will stuff pre GE. How did he get it so wrong? He’s meant to know this stuff surely.

I also recall posters claiming immigration topic was over etc how did their advisors get it that wrong.

He might try to do something else but he’ll need mandate for something that would work, which I expect the other parties will ask for at next GE.

If you pay your way that’s fine. if you get a council house and top up benefits absolutely not. Feel free to leave as our country it is far too overpopulated anyway. We need about 10 million less people here. I know high earners who’ve based themselves abroad for tax and young professionals with good degrees should leave this mess of a country for Australia or New Zealand. I don’t think we’ll have much of a country left in 20 years if government doesn’t get a grip and stop being woke. In a way we have been invaded some parts of this country you rarely see British people or British businesses on their high street. It’s been far too quick and it’s not integration if they don’t adopt our customs and values and just take over areas and speak their own language.

a Australia style system would be great and deal with asylum seekers exactly the same way they did (but they’d be an outcry here if we did).

If we're sending half of our young people to University but can not fill the highly skilled jobs or low paid jobs, and have a really low growth economy, then something is truly rotten in the state of Denmark.

I don’t want to chase higher earners out and think Starmer is a fool for going there.

I agree on Aus style system. Watching people grapple with getting there is self defeating for us. If we vote it in it’ll never be voted out. Not even by the left.

This 10 Year period, which looks to be retrospective in application, looks more like CH or Japan. These are countries with very tough migration systems. They are extremely picky on residency. I would also not describe them as multicultural by design in terms of who they allow in.

One more stat on the topic of "illegal" vs "legal" migration and asylum seeking.

Source: Home Office data: sources of asylum claims in 2024

In 2024, about 35k people who had arrived in boats crossing the Channel claimed asylum.

In the same period, about 40k people who arrived in the UK on a legal visa claimed asylum (16k study, 11.5k work, 9.5k visitor).

I am certainly not a defender of the current asylum system but if you're concerned about blocking asylum seekers specifically from reaching the UK, you should probably be interested in "legal" migration statistics and patterns.

Commentary from the white paper:

"95. We have also seen a series of problems involving misuse and exploitation of student visas, where visas are used as an entry point for living and working in the UK without any intention to complete the course, and increasing numbers of asylum claims from students at the end of their course, even though nothing substantive has changed in their home country while they have been in the UK."

Well agree! These universities have good lobbyists in government. No one is absconding from the Russell Group are they. The University of East Togmodern perhaps

I love how you think British professionals should migrate to Australia but not the other way around.

Anyway the BBC has reported that the rules will be applied retroactively to those already in the country, including those with ILRs.

So any recent migrant- including high earning, tax paying, English speaking, fullly integrating migrants- will be affected. That includes you, OP, I guess.

The UK is mad if it thinks this sends a good message to global talent. What it sends is the message: we will invite you in to do a job that a British person could not do, shake you down for visas, make you pay 40% tax and a whopping NHS surcharge, then change the rules on you just as you approach ILR. Take it or fuck off. We can't get our young people into work, so you pay the bills.

Then 4 years later, when everyone has fucked off, Starmer will be raising taxes to pay for it all.

@TheHouseofGirth It obviously should be retroactive because the whole point is that it needs to deal with the Boriswave, bluntly. (Which includes me.)

I think, for both selfish and principled reasons, that they should announce what they mean by their "Points-Based Contributions" route to shorter paths to ILR so that people like me (and you I think?) are not/less affected, because those are the people more able and willing to make swift alternative plans and will likely disproportionately leave, which will defeat what I think is the intended object (reversing the low-skilled migration trend of specifically the 2020-24 cohort).

But if they don't, I'll deal with it!

I think the OP may not be all that worried about it. These measures will sting professionals who want to make the UK a permanent home. I’d say if you were a national already of say an EU state or economy of comparable economic development you might not won’t care that much.

It depends where your talent comes from. If the UK makes deals for professionals via trade deals, it can allow much shorter term access, and grow its own talent from its graduates.

Thie isn’t wicked. It’s what other countries do.

The Labour voting electorate will get what they wanted. Trouble is they’ll impact the rest of us.

Here's the link to the BBC article. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c249ndrrd7vo

I am a high taxpayer, but I don't know if I have contributed enough. Not in the medical field.

PP who made a comparison to Japan, I have lived and worked there too, years ago. The difference is the rules are clear from the start. Nobody is lured into thinking they can make a home in Tokyo, unless they speak fluent Japanese. London has set out its stall differently, as a global, multicultural city that welcomes diversity.

This kind of rhetoric is only going to make the global skilled flee. You can afford to flip and flop on immigration if you are Dubai with a low tax rate ( Not that I ever want to live there. ). Not if you are the UK.

What do you mean if you’re from a comparable country you won’t care that much?

This seems blind to how people behave. Do you know Gov advisors who think this way?

I would like to make the UK my home - I've mentioned before that my husband is British and though my ancestry is somewhat mixed it's largely English, and I've spent my life mostly in countries very influenced by British culture so it feels comfortable for me - but my family does have other options to live together, yes.

I don't particularly want to live in a version of the UK which is no longer predominantly influenced by British culture nor do I want to live in a version of the UK which has been impoverished by combining a welfare state with open borders.

I don't think these are incompatible positions to hold, but some do I suppose!

It may shock you to know that the UK has changed its immigration rules on dozens of occasions in last decade. The majority of these changes did not apply to professional visas but they were often retrospective and this is lawful. A lot of people can find themselves in a different position than when they arrived in the UK.

I don’t mind this, and agree on borders I prefer the Aus approach. But I absolutely see the pp on not chasing off high earners. Which Labour seem intent on doing.

I believe from the Reddit board that one visa change which they tried to make retrospective was struck down by the courts. Not exactly sure which one.

The comparable countries bit; not sure if this is true. I work with Americans, Scandinavians, Spaniards, Singaporeans... all of whom could have a better life in their home country perhaps. But they like the buzz and culture of London- who doesn't?- and see themselves as contributors.

If I am not wrong, OP, I think you could stay as the spouse of a British citizen. Surely it would be cruel for you to be separated. Isn't the spouse visa exempt?

Ultimately however, it’s not about work and a culture buzz or diversity which are about the society. If you actually move to the UK not for say professional experience or an ex pat life but with the intention of citizenship then yes this is hard news (though comparable economies do this). However, retrospective changes to immigration law have been upheld by the courts.

I appreciate the thorough response. I also understand that rules aren't personal, but they do have real effects on real people. I often visit the UK visa subreddit, and it sucks to read about situations like a parent not being able to attend their child's graduation because the immigration office doesn't believe they'll return home.

My EUSS application was rejected because I didn't have proof that he was added to my insurance. Where I'm from, that's not even a thing. They don't ask for extra documentation, and they'd rather deny the application and make you apply and pay again. Or like when my friend got a letter about her pending deportation, and the immigration office later said it was a human error.
One British friend of mine wants to move back to take care of his mother, but he can’t bring his wife with him. So they’ve decided to stay abroad and continue teaching at an international school.

None of this really matters on a government level. It's all just numbers. A few Brits unable to come back, a few families split, a few couples divorcing, and it's no big deal in the bigger picture. I get that. But on a personal level, I still wish the system were different and they had an alternative way to fight the issues. But this is just a personal rant. Same in many other countries.

I also think some of this is just for show. For example, when the income requirement for UK citizen family visas was raised a while ago, it felt more like a publicity stunt, a way to say “look, we’re doing something,” even though that group wasn’t really the main issue.

Personally, I think the UK made a mistake years ago by having looser immigration rules for EU citizens compared to other EU countries. In several, maybe even most, EU nations, EU citizens can stay for three months, but then they must register and show they have grounds for residency. Who knows, maybe some of this could have been avoided.

@Rewis Thank you for your message, it was very touching and you are completely right that there are humans behind all these statistics... I think I often try to take the "logical/statistical" view of things because it is a way to comprehend and navigate the system. My own family is very scattered and I will likely not see some close relatives again. It's something I try not to dwell on - stats are easier to deal with than emotions ;)

However, I think my personal situation does impact how I see this issue: it's very, very hard to undo migration. Someone gets married to a foreigner, someone has a child here etc: there's no undo button if 10/20/50 years down the track you realise you went too fast. Because exactly as you say, these are people's lives, in some cases people who didn't even ask to be born into a country their parents weren't native to. "Remigration" has entered the Overton window - which really would rip people's lives apart - but would it, in a different world where we had taken a slower, more controlled, more cautious approach to immigration in the first place?

I don't know your situation but I hope you're able to find a way to be with your loved ones.