In the spring of 2025, the Labour government launched a consultation on a white paper proposing changes to the UK immigration system. That consultation ended on 12 February, but eight days later the astute political commentator Ian Dunt fired off his own response as an audio report on his Substack, Striking 13.
The government remains deeply aware that immigration hit a high peak (‘the Boris wave’) in 2023-24. The statistics were meat and drink for Nigel Farage and other right-wing politicians, and an often-used phrase was ‘the electorate has legitimate concerns’. Irrespective of the sharp fall in immigration numbers post-2024, the new government apparently felt it had to put in place disincentives that would deter immigrants. The ‘pull factors’ that made the UK attractive for foreigners to come here had to be doused.
Dunt was incandescent. Much of his attention was on two issues: immigrant access to family visas and access to ‘indefinite leave to remain’ (aka ‘settled status’).
The removal of refugee family visas
Until last year, people who had been granted refugee status had automatic access to ‘refugee family visas’. If one parent arrived here, the other partner, plus any children under 18, could join him or her on one such visa. Access to such visas was stopped in September last year, ostensibly because the system was being reconsidered and possibly revamped prior to a re-launch later in 2026. But on 2 October, Starmer, in a public statement, simply asserted that there would be no re-launch. Family visas were to be a thing of the past.
To suggest that this policy change is hard-nosed underplays the opprobrium. As Dunt comments: “ They’ve got no moral basis to do it and no practical basis to do it. ….. but they’ll do it anyway. Force children to grow up without their dad”. (at 12.03)
Extending residency period to at least 10 years
Turning to ‘indefinite leave to remain’, the present rule is that ‘settled status’ can be offered after five years’ residence. Compare this to other major democracies, whose time period tends to be between three and six years (including the USA, Canada, Australia, France and New Zealand although requirements vary), and currently the UK is in line. The white paper proposes doubling the period to 10 years.
That 10-year extended period can be shortened or lengthened according to specific circumstances.
The financial catch
If an applicant earns £125,140/pa, their wait can be reduced by seven years to just three. If they earn £50,270/pa, the system will knock off five years.
Christina McAnea, the general secretary of the UK’s biggest union, Unison, said the proposals would be devastating to thousands of essential workers.
“Judging someone’s worth by the size of their wage slip sends a dreadful message to the people who keep the UK’s public services running,” she said. “Forcing staff, many of whom stepped up during Covid, to wait 15 years for certainty about their futures betrays the promises they were made.”
For those seeking ‘settled status’ there are additional penalties for anyone receiving benefits. If they are in receipt of benefits for less than one year, the proposed system will add on a further five years (ie 15 years in total) until indefinite leave to remain is granted. If receipt of benefits exceeds 12 months, then a further ten years will added, taking the total waiting period to twenty years.
The employment catch
If the applicant has a job below degree level, for example as a care worker, then five years will automatically be added to the basic 10.
The projected changes will apply to people already in the country awaiting settled status. But now the government is proposing moving the goalposts. It has asserted that the new laws, once enacted, will apply to those who have already been waiting. It used to be a principle of English law that a change in the law cannot be applied retrospectively.
Ian Dunt comments: “It is a grim and mortifying irony that a barrister from north London should be the prime minister to eradicate Britain’s legal standards in this way” (at 20.59)
As he also records:
“Imagine that you are a care worker without degree-level skills who came here in 2021, during the Boris Johnson administration. … There were significant shortages in those roles. They wanted people to help and they made it clear to you what the conditions were. You are now a few months away from the end of the five-year term and within grasping distance of settled status. But just before you can do so, they are going to add another ten years to that process. 10. Not five. 10.” (at 18.46)
The economics of immigration
How depressing that our government – a Labour government! – should set out to make the UK an unattractive destination. A total lack of compassion, a total lack of open-heartedness.
There are two ironies here. The first is that ‘the Boris wave’ of large-scale immigration has now passed through, and recent numbers give much less grist to the Reform mills.
The second and more important irony, is that the benefits of immigration into the UK exceed the costs.
All the evidence shows that immigrants are net contributors to the UK economy.
Professor Jonathan Portes, a leading authority on the economics of immigration, has written that “The Starmer government risks trapping the UK in a spiral of discontent and decline”. He further states that the white paper under discussion shows “an obsession with reducing numbers that is at odds with the economic role migration plays”.
Portes continues:
“The risk is the emergence of a migration doom loop, in which political pressure to reduce migration leads to policy choices that weaken economic performance and public services, thereby intensifying the very discontent that fuels anti-immigration sentiment”.
Labour MPs voice concerns
In a recent parliamentary debate in Westminster Hall, 40 Labour MPs voiced their concerns, expressingsignificant opposition to the direction of travel of government policy on immigration.
Tony Vaughan, MP for Folkestone and Hythe, said: “You cannot talk about earning settlement if you keep moving the goalposts after the game has started.
“In my view, retrospectivity is un-British and undermines our sense of fair play. It should be abandoned.”
Rachael Maskell, MP for York Central said the “only place where this policy belongs is in the bin”as government reforms risked making the UK’s skills shortage worse.
The Labour government would be well advised to give up trying to ape Reform and rather focus its energies on developing a humane and compassionate immigration policy, consistent with the economic best interests of the UK economy.
Author’s note: I write as someone who for years has been a paid-up Liberal Democrat. In the 2024 election I voted (tactically) for Labour to rid my constituency of a Tory MP. I would never vote in favour of the harsh illiberalism contained in the government’s white paper on immigration. I fully expect the 72 Liberal Democrat MPs to oppose the proposed changes.
Friends of Bylines Network
There has never been a greater need for grassroots journalism that investigates the stories that really matter, holds power to account and champions the voices of everyday citizens. We are proudly powered by volunteers but what we do isn’t free.
STAND WITH US for independent, citizen-led journalism that makes democracy stronger, and you will even get some exclusive benefits.
