Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Politics

Changes to immigration rules announced by Starmer

658 replies

OneAmberFinch · 12/05/2025 14:27

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

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

OP posts:
Thread gallery
15
GlutesthatSalute · 16/05/2025 10:02

HorribleHisTories15 · 15/05/2025 19:50

Where are you going to @GlutesthatSalute? Do stay on MN and keep us informed. Other experiences and opinions help to keep the discussions balanced.

Thanks. We hope to return to my birth country, whose citizens are allowed a family life (ie to marry foreigners and raise their children in their own home). My husband would also become a permanent citizen almost immediately, provided we apply within a certain time frame of returning to the country. But he also has to pass a medical, which last time (when he lived with me when I was completing my university studies) was a perfunctory box-ticking exercise, but as usual I am stressing at 2am about it. My childhood doctor is still working at the age of 70, so I am hoping she just taps his nethers and says he's a fine specimen of a man and signs the form, like last time, lol

We had to choose which country we settled in about six years ago and unfortunately it was the UK. Ah well, can't be undone now, and happily we were here for my lovely FIL at the end of his life. I have paid a lot into NI for pension, benefits and so on I can never access- but then so has my husband! And when you think of it, when we go and take our kids, your net migration figures will be just that much "better" (with the loss of several British citizens + the dreaded foreign spouse/mum, so -4 on the human balance sheet... hurray), so all those here on this thread who think legal migrants are the problem with this country should be very happy and relieved. You are welcome.

TheHouseofGirth · 16/05/2025 12:04

@GlutesthatSalute don't make any hasty decisions. Yesterday, a LibDem MP brought up the issue of skilled workers who have paid a lot of tax and NI. And the government acknowledged the problem and said there will be transitional arrangements announced shortly. A points based system for significant contributors perhaps.

Mypinkchequebookholder · 16/05/2025 12:15

DuncinToffee · 12/05/2025 22:23

Breaking into the country?

How do you propose they claim asylum otherwise? ----

They could claim in Bulgaria/Hungary/Germany/France on the way over.

TheHouseofGirth · 16/05/2025 12:20

Oh and also @GlutesthatSalute write to your MP. MPs are bringing up these concerns in the consultation.

Southwestten · 16/05/2025 12:22

We hope to return to my birth country, whose citizens are allowed a family life (ie to marry foreigners and raise their children in their own home

@GlutesthatSalute may I ask which country?

DuncinToffee · 16/05/2025 15:08

Mypinkchequebookholder · 16/05/2025 12:15

They could claim in Bulgaria/Hungary/Germany/France on the way over.

How can they claim asylum in the UK?

OneAmberFinch · 16/05/2025 15:47

TheHouseofGirth · 16/05/2025 12:04

@GlutesthatSalute don't make any hasty decisions. Yesterday, a LibDem MP brought up the issue of skilled workers who have paid a lot of tax and NI. And the government acknowledged the problem and said there will be transitional arrangements announced shortly. A points based system for significant contributors perhaps.

This was in the original white paper repeated several times. They referenced points potentially for important public sector roles e.g. nursing, high tax contributions, and volunteer contributions.

OP posts:
TheHouseofGirth · 16/05/2025 16:13

The original white paper was a vague, panicky, hasty mess that Yvette Cooper keeps making worse.

Law firms are already pointing out that the retrospective application of rules is deeply dodgy and has been struck down by the courts.

OneAmberFinch · 16/05/2025 16:19

At no point was I ever promised a definite right to receive ILR after 5 years. This is like trying to say it's illegal to change the state pension age after people have started work. I would very much like to receive ILR after 5 years but I don't have a right to it.

I agree they should have "come to market" with a clearer package for high income earners, and I'm usually not at all a Labour stooge, but it's not accurate to say they're backtracking on this point.

OP posts:
OneAmberFinch · 16/05/2025 16:30

Parliament is sovereign. Courts don't make laws, parliament does. They can literally just pass a law saying ignore all previous case law, it is our explicit intention to do this.

Of course, Starmer does often forget this, so we will have to see which one of us ends up right.

I don't want to have to wait another 5 years any more than you do, but the direction of public sentiment is increasingly in favour of not just tightening up rules but rolling them back. Even stripping people of ILR is now on the edges of the Overton window - it's not proposed as policy now, but a couple of years ago a lot of the current immigration debate wasn't even acceptable to discuss at a dinner party let alone on national TV and yet here we are.

OP posts:
Mypinkchequebookholder · 16/05/2025 16:49

DuncinToffee · 16/05/2025 15:08

How can they claim asylum in the UK?

Why are they allowed to pick and choose ?

If they are asylum seekers genuinely "fleeing war and persecution" surely the first friendly country that is willing to accommodate them is OK ?

Digdongdoo · 16/05/2025 16:50

Mypinkchequebookholder · 16/05/2025 16:49

Why are they allowed to pick and choose ?

If they are asylum seekers genuinely "fleeing war and persecution" surely the first friendly country that is willing to accommodate them is OK ?

Almost all refugees do stay in neighboring countries.

Mypinkchequebookholder · 16/05/2025 16:53

Digdongdoo · 16/05/2025 16:50

Almost all refugees do stay in neighboring countries.

OK so all the hoards of young men coming over to UK on boats are not genuine asylum seekers, just economic migrants

DuncinToffee · 16/05/2025 16:53

Mypinkchequebookholder · 16/05/2025 16:49

Why are they allowed to pick and choose ?

If they are asylum seekers genuinely "fleeing war and persecution" surely the first friendly country that is willing to accommodate them is OK ?

Because they are, as would you if you were to find yourself in that unfortunate situation.

Maybe read up on it

Digdongdoo · 16/05/2025 16:54

Mypinkchequebookholder · 16/05/2025 16:53

OK so all the hoards of young men coming over to UK on boats are not genuine asylum seekers, just economic migrants

An asylum seeker has no obligation to stay in the nearest safe country. But most do.

GlutesthatSalute · 16/05/2025 16:58

Thanks, @HouseofGirth. It's not really hasty to be honest. I wrote and deleted a detailed post describing my disenchantment, but I genuinely never want to be someone who bitches about the country they are living in. As in a relationship, when you get "the ick"-- then it is time to get out. Britons must be quite happy with the prevailing winds because they are sailing right along on them

RayonSunrise · 16/05/2025 17:00

OneAmberFinch · 16/05/2025 16:30

Parliament is sovereign. Courts don't make laws, parliament does. They can literally just pass a law saying ignore all previous case law, it is our explicit intention to do this.

Of course, Starmer does often forget this, so we will have to see which one of us ends up right.

I don't want to have to wait another 5 years any more than you do, but the direction of public sentiment is increasingly in favour of not just tightening up rules but rolling them back. Even stripping people of ILR is now on the edges of the Overton window - it's not proposed as policy now, but a couple of years ago a lot of the current immigration debate wasn't even acceptable to discuss at a dinner party let alone on national TV and yet here we are.

What would be the point of stripping people of Settled status (ILR doesn’t seem to exist anymore - it changed when the new e-visas rolled out)? Do we just not need the tax revenue or skills anymore, all to mollify people who think the illegal boats ARE the British immigration system?

The capacity of the British public to cut their noses off to spite their faces never fails to amaze me.

Mypinkchequebookholder · 16/05/2025 17:04

DuncinToffee · 16/05/2025 16:53

Because they are, as would you if you were to find yourself in that unfortunate situation.

Maybe read up on it

I don't need to read up on it.

In one Lincolnshire seaside town I personally know about 5 hotels were being used for these people ( I don't know if they were illegal immigrants/asylum seekers/refugees - I'm not getting into semantics)
They were give bed, board, free dental treatment, medical treatment and money to spend, while the locals had to queue around the block to register with a dentist when one was available
The doctors in the area were oversubscribed - you had to ring at 8.am if you needed an emergency appointment. I have heard people tell me that they were kept on line with a recorded message saying "you are No 34 in the queue".

The world is full of people in unfortunate situations but we cannot help them all and we cannot bring them all here.

You need a reality check IMO

DuncinToffee · 16/05/2025 17:08

Mypinkchequebookholder · 16/05/2025 17:04

I don't need to read up on it.

In one Lincolnshire seaside town I personally know about 5 hotels were being used for these people ( I don't know if they were illegal immigrants/asylum seekers/refugees - I'm not getting into semantics)
They were give bed, board, free dental treatment, medical treatment and money to spend, while the locals had to queue around the block to register with a dentist when one was available
The doctors in the area were oversubscribed - you had to ring at 8.am if you needed an emergency appointment. I have heard people tell me that they were kept on line with a recorded message saying "you are No 34 in the queue".

The world is full of people in unfortunate situations but we cannot help them all and we cannot bring them all here.

You need a reality check IMO

That you say 'hoards of young men are not genuine asylum seekers' means you really do.

As does your 'I don't do semantics'

Under investment in the health service caused the problems, not asylum seekers

Changes to immigration rules announced by Starmer
OneAmberFinch · 16/05/2025 17:12

RayonSunrise · 16/05/2025 17:00

What would be the point of stripping people of Settled status (ILR doesn’t seem to exist anymore - it changed when the new e-visas rolled out)? Do we just not need the tax revenue or skills anymore, all to mollify people who think the illegal boats ARE the British immigration system?

The capacity of the British public to cut their noses off to spite their faces never fails to amaze me.

Feel free to read my previous posts. I'm obviously someone who thinks that immigrants who contribute "tax revenue and skills" should be allowed to stay - out of naked self-interest!

However, I can read the prevailing winds and my gut feeling is that any categories where there is still room to prevent people from becoming full citizens (i.e. "locking in" the immigration wave permanently) will be challenged.

If you have ever seen a graph of immigration over the last 25 years vs the 25 years before that, or comparing say 1900-1925 with 2000-2025... the answer to "why" will be obvious.

I didn't predict Brexit would happen because I read the kind of self-congratulatory international press articles that said things like "Brexit won't happen because it's illegal". I've learned lessons since then.

OP posts:
Mypinkchequebookholder · 16/05/2025 17:14

Obviously you didn't see GB News special program on the camps at Calais.

The migrants (those who were interviewed and could speak some English) want to come to UK because they think they will get a house and a job for nix.

That says it all.

OneAmberFinch · 16/05/2025 17:16

DuncinToffee · 16/05/2025 16:53

Because they are, as would you if you were to find yourself in that unfortunate situation.

Maybe read up on it

People understand why asylum seekers want to come here, it's obvious, that's not the point under discussion...

OP posts:
DuncinToffee · 16/05/2025 17:17

Mypinkchequebookholder · 16/05/2025 17:14

Obviously you didn't see GB News special program on the camps at Calais.

The migrants (those who were interviewed and could speak some English) want to come to UK because they think they will get a house and a job for nix.

That says it all.

GB news, yeah that says it all indeed.

Mypinkchequebookholder · 16/05/2025 17:18

@DuncinToffee Under investment in the health service caused the problems, not asylum seekers

So are you saying that the UK taxpayer now has to fund the "International health Service"

No-one let me know about the change in direction 🙄

Swipe left for the next trending thread