Reform plans to scrap indefinite leave to remain for migrants

[Twiglets1]

BBC report following Farage's press conference this afternoon:

Reform UK has announced it would abolish the right of migrants to qualify for permanent settlement in the UK after five years, if the party wins the next election.

Under the plans, Reform would abolish the right of migrants to apply for Indefinite Leave to Remain (ILR) - which gives migrants rights and access to benefits - and reapply for new visas with tougher rules.

Reform will also unveil plans to bar anyone other than British citizens from accessing welfare. The party claims their plans would save £234bn over several decades.

Reform said it would replace ILR with visas that force migrants to reapply every five years. That includes hundreds of thousands of migrants currently in the UK.
Applicants would also have to meet certain criteria, including a higher salary threshold and standard of English.

The announcement launches Reform's fresh assault on what they brand the "Boriswave" - 3.8 million people who entered the UK after Brexit under looser rules brought in by Boris Johnson's administration.

Speaking at a press conference, Reform UK leader Nigel Farage said the "main reason" for the policy was to "wake everybody up to the Boris wave".

Hundreds of thousands of these migrants, who have come to the UK since 2021, will soon qualify for permanent residence under the ILR scheme.

Reform said the changes would not apply to EU nationals whose settled status is protected under the European Union Withdrawal Agreement, who make up the majority of benefit claimants by people with ILR.

But EU nationals not benefiting from the provisions of the Withdrawal Agreement will be subject to the new system.

Reform will also introduce a new scheme called Acute Skills Shortage Visas (ASSV) for jobs in crisis. Under the scheme, firms can hire one worker from abroad only if they train one at home.

Reform will also raise the average wait for UK citizenship from six years to seven.

Reform say their policy is designed to bring Britain into line with other countries such as the US and United Arab Emirates (UAE) and save the UK more than £234bn over what it calls the "lifetime of the average migrant".

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c930xypxpqpo

@StarlightRobotI’m very sorry you’re in that position. It’s stressful watching these rabid fucking racists whip everyone up for their own political and financial gain, so I can’t imagine how it must be if you’re directly affected.

I hope these people never get anywhere near government.

No. They are looking at extending the qualifying period. Not removing it.

You again.

As usual with you posts, nobody stated that you could.

Case law provides interpretation of the treaty. Papers have been written - including one by a very experienced Belgian constitutional and immigration expert lawyer - highlighting the fact that the problems arising from the ECHR are primarily due to case law interpretations that have exceeded the intention in the drafting itself.

Sensible countries party to the ECHR have been holding discussions about how the wording of the ECHR could be amended to supersede this case law making it inapplicable by clarifying in the ECHR its limitations, and thereby also limiting unintended interpretations by the court going forward. Such amendments to it would make existing case law defunct and limit the ECHR’s application to that which was intended, which would prevent the egregious cases being brought to prevent legitimate deportations of criminals, for example, without going down the extremist Farage/ Jenrick route of saying “let’s remove all human rights entirely even from our own citizens”.

I wonder why Farage and Jenrick would be in favour of the latter, completely unnecessary, option when a perfectly sensible way to solve the problem without removing everyone’s legitimate human rights is available?

I got a bit of push back yesterday about saying Reform were professionalizing. But they are. The presentation of this was both compelling and slick. It doesn’t make a difference I don’t like it. The appeal is there, it is effective, it sounded superficially reasonable.

It is really up to everyone to discuss amongst ourselves, not through ideas like these, what kind of country we want to have. Some of us don’t want people here who aren’t citizens. The only other class is a guest worker. I find the effect is racist myself

Absolutely. Reform is counting on sowing division coupled with complacency to pave their way.

She often uses the term "These people". You do have to check but it usually means someone whose political views she disagrees with.

Politicians are responding to similar pressure from voters. They know the ECHR is losing ground.

It might take some of the pressure off but it’s a similar to what we’re seeing here.

I'm not convinced that Reform won't be the next government. I don't think that it's xenophobic or racist to ask people to move towards citizenship to live in the country with all the benefits of citizenship. I do think it will be a difficult policy to put through though.

I'm neither quacking nor flapping, thanks. I just don't think that this meets the level of hyperbole being built around this...gesture of a policy.

Yes me again. Keeping you right 😃

You said "many sensible European countries have been discussing ways to amend the ECHR and interpretation through case law". I'm simply pointing out that it is impossible to amend the ECHR through caselaw.

Just trying to help you. You said in the same post that "Robert Jenrick is thick", so..

Oh dear, you’re back to more ad hominem attacks, are you? And now trying to recruit other posters to participate in the false claims you’ve made wilfully attempting to misrepresent posts of mine throughout this thread, all of which have been called out and shown to be false and some of which were so egregious that they broke the talk guidelines and have been deleted by moderators.

I have made no insulting comments to any other poster on the thread at any point. The only person who has done that is you, as evidenced by the deletions of the unwarranted and unacceptable personal insults you posted to posters with whom you don’t agree. How ironic.

But it’s very odd gesture to make, @Upstartled because as you note, on scrutiny, it’s barely a policy. That really leaves you with the intent, which imo is racist.

Why bother?

Most developed countries have permanent residency as a precursor to naturalisation. It has many advantages for both parties.

For the host country, it removes a layer of expensive administration on the way to someone becoming a citizen, but also keeps them from having full citizen rights. Someone with ILR can’t reside out of the country for more than 2 years without losing their ILR altogether, for example. They can also be deported if they commit a crime. So ILR residents don’t have full “British” rights, they are just allowed to stay as long as they continue to be good.

For the ILR holder, it encourages them to further lean into Britishness and becoming a productive member of society beyond the already established working, paying taxes, following the law, etc. For mixed nationality couples, it encourages them to have their families here and raise their children as British.

Getting rid of this step makes little sense to the economic health of a country. It really only seems to be appealing to people who sincerely believe ILR-paid taxes are not real taxes.

Just trying to help the PP. That's the second time at least on this thread that someone has needed to clarify what "These people" means when you write it. And both times you meant reform supporters. "Fans" I think you called them.

Obviously if it upsets so much you, do grass me up again to MN.

Surely the intent is demonstrate a route to reduce the welfare bill? Or, as a pp suggested, to fill acres of column inches in the press with the concept of a Boriswave - and cut any political aspirations off at the knees.

I certainly don't think it's racist. Which race is being discriminated against by asking immigrants to take on citizenship to have the right of citizens?

Agreed. But it's likely to happen as Labour are looking at removing it or at least extending the 5 year qualification period.

Do you not understand English?

I didn’t write “they are trying to amend the ECHR and its interpretation, though case law.” There was no comma after “interpretation” indicating that the amendments would done via case law.

The sentence I wrote quite clearly means they are considering how the ECHR could be revised given the issues with the EHCR and its interpretation through case law, I.e. discussing possible amendments to the EHCR that will prevent it being misinterpreted through case law.

Your posts get increasingly absurd as the thread goes on.

I’m not getting the racist part either. It’s limiting but then so is Labour’s move to ten year ILR. Is that racist?

Labour have moved many goalposts, mostly to try and catch up with Reform.

Yes, it's a pain in the arse having to get to a centre - take the test, pay your money- go and do this ceremony thing - but there isn't a short cut for white non-eu immigrants.

Given I was writing specifically about the actions of Reform politicians, and in response to a post about the actions of Reform politicians, it was pretty clear that the words “these people” referred to the Reform politicians whose actions were being described in the rest of the paragraph.

It’s not my fault that you have such problems with basic reading comprehension.

A simple thank you for correcting me would have sufficed.

You're welcome.

Well I disagree because the effect seems to be one about being British or not British, and having a lesser legal status as a result. The justification appears to be benefits, but it seems to me that was the mischief, you could probably amend ILR entitlement much more easily than doing this. The motivation to me appears divisive and racist, because the economic case for this policy was not clear at all. It was a principle being announced, for that motivation, and then an economic case shall be made later. If you announce a policy like this, imo without that backing, it’s done as a kind of sounding bell to emotion

But all the main parties are considering it. Reform have just jumped in first.

But you said racist, which race is being asked to jump through hoops that others are not?

And Labour are trying to make it harder to get citizenship. Ten years instead of five.

I think you and I may differ as to the idea of racism vs nationalism. I would regard it as racist to have a policy that achieves this;

a) British person employed at 35,000 a year, has benefits and public service entitlement

b) not British person, employed at 35,000 a year, no benefits or PSE

Btw I am not saying this is legally impossible, but that I find it morally repugnant and racist.