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

What are the benefits of being a national of your own country though? Do you think a.non national should have as many rights as a national? Does this happen in all other countries?

All governments make similar decisions on what is available, even Labour. So they are racist and repugnant too?

I’ve said why I find it racist. Could some of the defenders here return the courtesy please?

Why do you think the scenario I have outlined, which is Reform’s policy is an acceptable outcome? I feel it is racially motivated

Yes.
I say that as a Czech citizen (here for 25 years), currently reluctantly applying for a British passport.
Does anyone have a better idea?

Yes but your reasoning applies to Labour and nearly every gov. So could you confirm you do find them all racist and repugnant?

No, of course not 😂

@EasternStandard I think Labour are distinguishing between applicants who are married to citizens and those who aren’t. Reform do not draw the distinction. Labour also are not proposing retrospective amendments- as far as I am aware

Yes, I would like to know this. Is any disparity between the rights of a national or an immigrant to be considered racist? Even where immigrants are white?

I would like to know when any of the defenders of this policy will address my example.

These are real people who would be affected

Some of them are your neighbours or posting here.

It's British (conferring rights as a national of the UK) v non British. Not ethnic as the same policy would apply to a US.national for example. But the US national would have their own rights in the US as an American, over and above any rights that you may have as a British person in the US.

Labour and probably all governments have policies that differentiate in status between people. There may be differences in what they are but to say any differentiation is racist is odd.

Where has exactly the same benefits regardless of status? I can’t think of anywhere.

Xenophobic might be the correct term in the case of white immigrants.

So, a fear of white Kiwis, Aussies, Americans, etc?

I know that. But what is the motivation in your view for the distinction?

My feeling is that it is racist. Why do you consider that it is not?

Even then every country had limitations on who can enter and stay. And again has different benefits based on status.

If they have been here so long, have kids here etc, why shouldn’t they have to decide where they belong?

Because it doesn't distinguish between race.

I think it's based on the notion of citizenship. Does citizenship of a particular country give you rights in that country over and above a non citizen? Answer..yes. Otherwise what's the point in citizenship.

If you don't distinguish between citizens and non citizens then it's a free for all for everyone in the world. Which is unworkable as you need a tax base that sees the social benefit in paying tax in the UK. The Social Contract.

The point is not the goad anyone, btw. I disagree that this is a good policy, I believe it is racially motivated, but people can support it. I expect Reform voters or supporters to make a proper case because the apparent economic case makes it suspect as to the motives.

This is true. But, TBF, people with ILR haven't had to, there is no material difference between this visa and citizenship and who can't think of something they wouldn't rather spend £2k on.

But, yes, I agree, it's not beyond civility to ask people to choose.

This is a bit macro though isn’t it? So could you deal with my example? I assume you think it is an acceptable outcome?

This is where we differ. I don't think it's a good policy, it's not very workable but I don't think it is racist - by any definition.

This is exactly how I feel about it. I have family in the UK and many other countries, with many different nationalities and passports. These small minded politicians pandering to the very worst aspects of human nature are destroying so many opportunities for our young people, making them poorer if they stay in the UK and making them grow up in a society full of hate and division, as well as taking away so many wonderful opportunities to expand their horizons.

High achievers from the UK will still have these opportunities even if they’re not dual passport holders: they will be welcomed by other high income countries hence the brain drain of bright young people currently taking place, which more economically damaging policies lowering living standards in the UK further and the normalising of xenophobia and racism in public discourse by Farage and his ilk will only ramp up further.

Those who will suffer the most are those from poorer backgrounds who are less likely to have the qualifications to make them welcome wherever they want to go and won’t have such opportunities easily available to them in future. Farage’s Brexit already took away much of this and his latest proposals will damage it even further. If he was in a position to implement his policies the economy would tank further, education would become even more poorly funded than it is now: all routes to a better life are being closed off, very deliberately, to exacerbate the division and sense of disenfranchisement which is the only thing which gains him votes.

People should ask themselves what incentive a politician would have to improve things for the majority of the population when their only way to gain power is by creating division and exacerbating their sense of despair to the point that they are prepared to vote for a party made up of fraudsters, liars, racists, wife beaters and violent criminals in the desperate hope they might be better than the dire politicians we’ve had for the last few decades. If this is the only basis upon which they can gain the required support to be elected (as they’ve clearly concluded, hence this strategy) then what incentive would they have to change this situation and improve living standards post-election? Their only way to maintain power would be to increase this desperation, despair and division further. Or by force, of course.

Look, if you think what Reform is proposing is fine and dandy, then you are entitled to that view.
I am equally entitled to view the proposals with disgust and find them racist, xenophobic and abhorrent.

Why don’t you ask this of the government today?

There are benefits related to status now.