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

Yes, they can vote in the UK - currently. That could change at any point should governing laws change. It might be a double standard in outcome of this proposed policy - but that's the choice of each country. I'm not understanding why you think we need to achieve an equitable outcome for emmigrants and immigrants?

Edit: If we are going to look at parity, can we keep the cost of citizenship in this country the same as it is, say, in New Zealand, asking for a friend?

IIRC it was aimed at reducing the number of family members asylum seekers can bring over when given ILR. It was after it was reported in July that one Afghan migrant who came over under the Afghanistan Response Route scheme was allowed to bring 22 family members to the UK. Maybe the extended reunification rules have been different for asylum seekers up until now as 21 children and one wife would be very unlikely?

Ok. But why do you feel it is so essential that long-term residents must become citizens? How does it negatively affect our society or economy that some long-term residents choose not to do so and keep their ILR status instead?

It affects the individuals in question as they cannot stand in elections or vote in national elections (unless a citizen of a Commonwealth country), and they don’t have a right to British consular support when abroad (obviously). But how does it negatively impact UK society? The permanent residents with ILR are still paying the same taxes, abiding by the same laws. You’d have no idea whether they’re a citizen or not unless they told you. By making them become citizens we actually increase our responsibilities to them and potential costs but I can’t see what we gain from this?

Why force people to do this when we know that it will place many in an impossible situation of choosing between their citizenship of birth and UK citizenship (even if the cause of that is laws in their country of origin): what’s the benefit to the UK? What’s the rationale that justifies us enforcing no permanent residence without citizenship? How will it improve things for the UK? I really don’t understand what it is intended to achieve.

Just thinking that if say Spain follows suit, there could be a influx of returning pensioners.

What is that going to do to the welfare bill?

Ofcourse we all know nothing about this proposal is about reducing the welfare bill.

I don't think it achieves much of anything. I just don't think it amounts to an imposition on immigrants to ask them to move towards citizenship. To move towards a shared nationality. And it seems like the obvious answer for those who don't want to be caught in the perpetual visa application bind. And yes, as I said earlier, I don't think this is a well thought through policy - I just don't think it amounts to a xenophobic assault on immigrants.

So no family reunification for asylum speakers, or everyone? Once again - different types of immigrants are different, and the differences matter. I am less interested in the tribal politics bit, frankly.

I mean, yeah, that might happen. What are you wanting me to say here? Policy has consequences. This could happen. And I still don't think that makes it a racist or xenophobic policy.

It's not "double standards" it's just that each country has the right to pass their own laws.

It's up to Spain whether they make UK people living there become citizens or not or whatever other rules they impose for non Spanish people wishing to live there.

Yes, and those other counties are nothing like the U.K. The counties that are culturally and historically like us do not ban dual nationality.

That should give people pause, really.

Of course they are different. It shows how low level the conversation on Labour’s policies is. It’s for asylum.

It wasn't one Afghan who brought in 22 family members.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/07/18/afghan-migrant-brought-22-relatives-to-uk-after-data-breach/

Why do they need to “share our nationality”? If they’ve moved here legally, they’re living here peacefully, contributing to our society, paying their taxes and abiding by our laws (hence have been granted ILR) why does it matter whether they have a UK passport?

Given the enormously negative impact this will have on a large number of our long-term residents, and the economic harm that it will cause, and the huge cost of implementing it, surely there has to be a significant benefit to the UK to outweigh all of that to make this a sensible policy to suggest.

If you don’t believe it would achieve much of anything, as you say, then I’m struggling to understand why you also said that you think it’s a reasonable proposal, given the huge negative impacts that it will have.

Firstly, it feels like you are reading around my posts. I'm not advocating for the policy - I just don't think it is xenophobic.

Secondly, you keep talking about it like this is academic point to me and you are pointing out the human cost behind it. But this is our family. You can stop all that. Put the violin down.

Sorry for all the edits here, I'm fighting with my tablet and it is winning.

The UK also allows dual citizenship and it is only Reform as far as I know that may want to change that if they get into power.

And I've only seen that reported in the Guardian so would like to see it from another source really before I definitely believe that they said that ( I watched the press conference and did not hear them say that).

This removal of ILR and demand that everyone must be a UK citizen to have permanent residency is xenophobic by definition: it’s stating you aren’t part of our society - just a temporary guest - unless you are British. It doesn’t matter how long you’ve been here, whether you’ve built a life here, whether you’ve lived here for the vast majority of your life; your presence here in the country in which you’ve made your home and worked and raised a family will always be conditional and up for debate and reconsideration unless you become British.

The policy to remove state pensions from anyone who isn’t a British citizen, even if they’ve made 35+ years of NI contributions, again is pure xenophobia. How could it be anything but? It is literally stating you have made the same contributions as others but you will not receive your pension because you are foreign.

It’s fine to have different rights for citizens to an extent because certain rights are conferred by citizenship such as consular support, standing for election. Our voting system has some huge anomalies where UK citizens who live abroad can’t vote and neither can many long-term residents (while others can, again based purely on their nationality of birth!) so voting rights should be rationalised one way or the other in my opinion; based on either residency or citizenship.

But to extend these very specific rights conferred by citizenship to policy areas beyond the bounds of what it means to be a citizen, to the extreme of saying you can pay all the taxes and live here for decades but can’t have a pension or be considered a permanent part of our society unless you become a British citizen is a very extreme position indeed for a western European country to adopt, or indeed any western country at all (this is not the case in Australia, NZ, the US, or Canada, as well as in no other European country of which I’m aware).

Given that nobody’s been able to suggest any rational explanation of how these policies would actually benefit the UK either socially or economically, and it’s very clear that there would be a significant number of very negative social and economic effects if they were implemented (which is, presumably, why no other western countries have adopted such policies!), it’s difficult to conclude that the motivation is anything other than xenophobia.

Do you ever read anything I write, or am I just the oppositional other for you to make your points?

Of course I read what you wrote. I was responding to and questioning your comment that you don’t think it amounts to xenophobia.

In my previous comment to you I specifically questioned why you had stated that you think it’s a reasonable position to expect people to become British citizens in order to have permanent residency rights (a comment you made earlier) when you’d just also said that you don’t think the policy would actually achieve anything much.

I don’t understand your response given that I’ve been responding specifically to the comments that you have made and discussing them.

Secondly, you keep talking about it like this is academic point to me and you are pointing out the human cost behind it. But this is our family. You can stop all that. Put the violin down.

What do you mean by this?

@TheClaaaw my reading of the proposal is that Reform intends to make it harder not easier for immigrants to get UK citizenship. So they are not so much encouraging more UK citizenship as fewer people with ILR.

The benefit of this would be lower welfare costs as generally speaking only British citizens will be able to access benefits. He may also be imagining softer benefits like people being more invested in the country if they are British citizens, I don't know.

I don't think it is a very extreme position to ask people to become citizens outside the remit of visa restrictions. I don't think it is xenophobic to ask people to become citizens. It's not the hill I would die on, I don't think there is much to be gained from it either.

I don't think there's much room for agreement here. I don't see this as either a likely thing or, if it were to become policy, I don't consider it a xenophobic policy.

With regard to your following post, I don't need you to map out this sad story about how immigrants will feel about this - as if I've got lost in the theory of fairness without understanding the impact. We are in exactly this position of being a family and dh having ilr. It's not a situation I need you to demonstrate the tough choices in play. It is just not, xenophobic.

I think we've got to the point in the conversation which is entirely circular. I'm going to agree to disagree before the morning is lost.

Do other countries have a way of finding out? I have heard about many countries which assert that they don't allow multiple citizenships but I haven't heard of any enforcement.

As a dual citizen myself, how would my birth country know that I'd also taken on UK citizenship?

You keep saying that you don’t think it’s xenophobic but have provided no rationale for this position despite it being a textbook example of xenophobia i.e. prejudicing certain people in our society purely because of their nationality, like denying them a pension when they’ve met the qualifying UK NI contribution criteria just like everyone British who receives one. That’s what I’m questioning.

I’m trying to understand why you believe these policies are not xenophobic given that nobody’s been able to provide any rational explanation for removing ILR from all permanent residents or how this would benefit the UK either socially or economically (and in fact it would have a number of very negative impacts in both respects, as previous comments have highlighted).

If there’s no benefit (as you admit), then what could be the motivation for it other than xenophobia?

I am genuinely trying to understand your position and why you think that it is a reasonable policy to demand citizenship in order to achieve permanent residency, when you admit it would have little or no benefit; what purpose do you believe such policies have, then, that makes them “reasonable” and is not motivated by xenophobia?

My comments haven’t been about “how immigrants will feel about this”, on the whole. A few minutes ago you were criticising me for providing an “academic” response (i.e. rational analysis of practical policy issues) and now I’m being accused of “violins” or being overly sentimental? These comments seem to contradict each other so I hope you can explain.

I’m sorry to hear about your situation with your DH. I’m surprised that you take the position you do given that I expect you have a good understanding of the issues as a result of dealing with these systems personally. What I can’t understand is the rational basis for your view that these policies are not xenophobic when they literally meet the dictionary definition of the word, or what you think the motivation for them is - if not xenophobia - given that nobody so far has been able to provide any rationale for how they would be beneficial to the UK so there appears to be no non-xenophobic, valid justification for them from either a social or economic perspective.

UK authorities obviously check applications to ensure that they are legally compliant. If your existing citizenship is with a country that doesn’t allow dual citizenship then you’d have to provide proof of relinquishing your citizenship of birth in order for your UK citizenship to be granted.

Ahh, and I'm replying, again. Okay. I don't think it is xenophobic to ask more immigrants to become citizens.

If the policy were to stop immigrants from becoming citizens - that would look like xenophobia to me.

I never said you were being academic at any point- I said that you seem to be approaching this from the position that I only have an academic take on this. Although I am having serious tech issues and may have scrambled together an incomprehensible post at some point.

Let's call it a day.

@TheClaaaw - thank you. :) Obviously, I don't remember that from filling in my UK application a few years ago. That was shortly after the EU referendum and I spent about £2,000 on the application, biometric checks, citizenship test, induction ceremony and, finally, passport but it sounds like costs have risen.

At the time, I had had ILR for nearly 2 decades but I was worried about how Brexit might affect me. Also, as discussed upthread there were always extra charges - it wasn't enough to have an ILR sticker in my passport, I was supposed to buy an 'ID' card.