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

It might work or might just kick the can down the road a bit. It would need to be combined with other measures. And also for people to be fully aware of the rules before they decide to come here (hence why the retrospective element of Reform's suggestions are controversial I think).

If someone’s lived her for ‘decades and decades’, and want to continue to live here, why wouldn’t they relinquish the citizenship of the country where they were born and don’t want to live in anymore?

@Upstartled and @EasternStandard I can understand where you’re coming from, but I would say that Labour have received a lot of backlash and criticism, for both the policy and the speech, from many of their voters and those on the Left - there are plenty who view it as them pandering to Reform and their voters. I appreciate that this doesn’t always filter through into the MSM, etc. in the same way, but left-wing social media was certainly outraged and they’ve lost voters over this.

I also think context is key, particularly with Reform and Farage’s track record. For one example, he recently announced a policy on mass deportations which he confirmed would included negotiating with the Taliban (at our financial cost) and returning women to Afghanistan, when the ICC have issued arrest warrants for the Taliban due to their persecution of women and gender-based violence. There’s a clear message here about what he’s willing to do in terms of immigration - we know what fate awaits those Afghan women if returned like he has pledged - and so understandably, people are very concerned about his total disregard for human rights and history has a few lessons for us on how that usually goes, so it make sense to be concerned about how this develops and expands.

Agree other measures would be needed if the aim is to reduce the welfare bill significantly in future. Which is more controversial.

I think Labour planning to extend the term from 5 years to 10 was a start and attracted less media interest than if they had combined with it other measures at this stage.

Because they have a foot in two places, not one. ILR means they are resident in Britain but do not have full rights - they can be deported if they commit a crime, which a citizen cannot. (Clearly they are not planning or accepting to commit any crimes if they have been under ILR for decades - I bet that’s never occurred to you!)

They have family, history, and emotional connections in two places, not one. Even if they don’t live in this country of origin, the odds are good they visit pretty often and take their British families.

Perhaps it’s having an Aussie husband who grew up in a house full of Britishmess, just as our kids are growing up in a house full of Auatralianness, but I find your question pretty thoughtless. It is not hard to work out why people keep their original citizenships, if your pause to empathise with them for even a few minutes.

If what you mean to ask is “why don’t they apply for British citizenship with all its attendant rights,” I can only answer for my other half. It’s expensive, he’s paid quite a bit into the Home Office already, the kids are dual and having ILR hasn’t been a problem. If it’s made a problem, yes he’ll apply for naturalisation.

But if you tell us he has to give up this citizenship and the kids do too because the U.K. won’t accept dual citizenship, the background option of moving to Aus (which I’ve not wanted because I don’t want to leave my own family) suddenly looks more relevant, because the U.K. would be clearly trying to punish and make an example of us. All of us, including the kids.

I hope that clarifies things for you.

Going back to this as there’s also been radio silence on ending family reunification on here, unsurprisingly. The same posters probably think that’s pretty good for Labour, whereas it would be racist and repugnant for anyone else.

10 years is a change and a significant one, but it is fair because it’s being communicated in advance of people moving here. They can make an informed choice on whether they want to bring their software engineering skills here or to another market as a result.

It’s the retrospective elements of Reform’s plan that are getting people’s backs up.

You'd have to ask them but IDLR is based on being a citizen of another country.

It's not the same as being a dual national and I don't think keeping it while renouncing citizenship of, say, Jamaica is do-able.

One reason is that it makes re-entering your home country straightforward.

This sounds like we are living in a very similar situation. Just switch out Aussie for a Kiwi, and we made similar decisions for similar reasons. I think asking people to give up their dual nationality seems like the step that is purely ideological or disruptive for sport.

Anyone who is surprised that people haven't applied for citizenship under the current system must like taking tests and burning money to get their kicks.

Yes. Absolutely. People who think that Labour is unfairly punished by the press seem to miss the perspective of how this would play out under a different political banner.

What exactly is intended by “ending family reunification?” Most of the extended reunification was ended years and years ago - no bringing over aged parents, no extended family, etc.

If they mean a flat banning of reuniting people with spouses and children, that’s horrendous no matter who’s suggesting it.

I think it’s in place now and yes it means women and children. You wouldn’t know on mn as not a peep from Labour.

It means it’s very unlikely women and children will get asylum at all. As for earlier pp I recall praise for this for Labour. It’s odd how people are inconsistent to this extent.

Yes, I'm not here advocating for Reform or Farage. I don't think we should, as say the Germans do via Qatar, pay the Taliban to take deported Afghans.

I do take your point that not all of Labour supporters were comfortable with Labour's words and actions - and that discord went largely unnoticed. I think my exposure to Labour supporters is largely the voices in places like mn, where the license for Labour to behave counter to its narrative seems endless.

For many reasons. Firstly, why should they have to? Just because you’ve made another country your permanent home doesn’t mean you should have to cut off your roots.

People could end up in a situation, if they did what you suggest, that they’d have to apply for a visa to visit the country in which they grew up. Visas take time to apply for and are expensive as well so if there was an emergency such as a dying relative they might not be able to go back in time. If they needed to go back for an extended period to care for an elderly relative they might not be allowed to.

Perhaps they intend to spend their working life in the UK and raise their children here then retire to their home country (brilliant for the UK because people get very expensive in old age) but if they’d given up their original nationality they might not be able to do so.

What’s the rational reason for demanding that they must become a citizen in order to secure permanent residence here? If they’ve been living here many years as law abiding citizens and contributing and paying tax then why should they have to live with never-ending insecurity about whether they’ll be forced to leave? This isn’t how any other country civilised western country runs their immigration system; all have a version of permanent residency that does not require citizenship.

Asking people to become citizens is fairly reasonable. Asking people to give up their dual nationality is an unnecessary step, imo.

Do you think 'expats' in Spain for example will agree to that too?

I'm not sure their feelings on the matter has any bearing on the Spanish or British government's requirements of them.

I would guess this is aimed at the asylum seekers because there’s a pattern of families sending their young men to do the dangerous journey here, then later if asylum and later ILR is granted applying for their entire extended family to come to join them.

Again, it seems like a sledge hammer to crack a nut to ban reunification entirely, especially as asylum seekers are such a tiny proportion of immigrants. It would make sense to tighten the rules for reunification for those claiming asylum, but to ban it entirely for immigrants who’ve come here on working visas and later applied for ILR seems extreme. There is also an issue more recently now that Brexit has made us very reliant on non-EU immigration of people coming to the UK on working visas and immediately bringing multiple dependents with them and we should apply higher incomes thresholds for this proportionately at the application stage to ensure that they’re covering their costs. But an outright ban would mean that even a UK citizen who marries someone of a different nationality would be banned from having their spouse move to the UK. Banning that would be inhumane. Even the US isn’t this extreme with its green cards.

It seems as always they’ve gone for simplistic and unworkable proposals without thinking through different scenarios or the implications, or how such a system could actually operate in practice, or indeed the costs! It all seems to have been designed for slogans and soundbites not as any kind of solution to the actual problems.

Not every country allows joint nationality so by “asking people to become citizens” some people would be forced to relinquish their nationality of birth.

Yes, I know. That wouldn't be the effect of our law though, but their own home country. If that is the problem they should lobby their native government. I think we should be able to make laws independent of how they butt up against foreign laws.

I agree with @Upstartledits the other countries who are stricter on this.

Well it's up to the government to make sure that the uk is attractive for people with software skills. And those people can decide. Dubai as stated above doesn't offer citizenship at all and is pretty popular at the moment. We will just be in line with the EU.

Getting people's backs up is a more colloquial way of saying "contraversial" I suppose! 🤣

Their feelings matter because they can vote in all UK elections.

It's just the double standards, expecting immigrants to the UK become citizens and not expecting the same from expats, this applies to integrating too.

Anyway, who are Reform going to blame if all immigrants became British citizens.

Do you think Dubai would be this popular if people were expected to integrate?

Ofcourse the rights of low paid immigrants in Dubai are non existing, not an example the UK should want to follow

This was already covered earlier in the thread. He’s provided no analysis of how many of these people are actually expected to claim any benefits at all, the economic impact, the tax paid by this 800,000, the cost of implementing his proposals (very expensive!), the economic impact that his policies would have (exacerbating skills shortages making many NHS services inoperable as well as key roles in other core industries; lowering economic growth and productivity, lowering tax revenues significantly and therefore necessitating large spending cuts - no detail on what services he proposes to cut or taxes he intends to raise to cover these costs).

This is a bit like when - during the Brexit campaign - he release that horrendous poster that was actually a photograph of Syrian refugees while falsely claiming that Turkey was about to become an EU member and trying to imply that the entire 75 million Turkish population would suddenly move to the UK. Just because 800,000 more people are eligible to apply for ILR doesn’t mean that a) all of them will do so; b) all of them will be granted it; or c) all of them will start claiming benefits.

That’s not to say that some changes shouldn’t be made; as I said near the beginning of the thread the obvious thing to do would be to decouple ILR from welfare entitlements and make the welfare system contributory, like in most European countries. To say that ILR must not be granted to anybody, and must be revoked retrospective from people who have lived in the UK for decades working and paying tax the entire time, is clearly a very extreme position and not remotely justified or necessary (or sensible economically!!).