There are many sides to this story so I won’t leave an opinion, but I think it’s worth pointing out one fact. Temporary worker visas tied to an employer generically lead to worse quality of life for the visa holders and others.
The reason is that workers tied to an employer tend not to negotiate higher pay, not to unionise, and not to push for better work conditions in general.
So one benefit of having more workers (above some threshold of pay) on indefinite leave to remain rather than limited visas is that it avoids the above.
Actually maybe an opinion I would have is perhaps they need to introduce some sort of time limited, “definite” leave to remain, not tied to a particular employer. Again, above some threshold of pay.
The MPs need to stop being pricks and realise this is what the country wants and more importantly what the country needs.
postbox134 on
Starmer really needs to get ahold of his party (not this policy in particular, but his Government is paralysed when it should have a huge majority)
Calactic1 on
Hmm yes, successive governments have been elected for over a decade on almost the singular mandate of being tougher on immigration only for the opposite to occur. Let’s piss off the British public even more!
Apparently it’s “un-British” to want to control immigration.
F00L1SH_T00K on
Good. My business partner fled Hong Kong four years ago and has a British national overseas passport. She is one year away from settled status and devastated at what they’re trying to do after promising Hong Kongers could come here to settle.
You don’t change the rules half way through the game. It should start when people arrive.
Lady-Spangles on
Most of it was just performative cruelty anyway. It served no purpose other than appealing to bigots and Reform voters and only pushed the Overton Window further to the right. Bring in proper processes to get applications seen to ASAP and we’re almost there.
B0797S458W on
Ideology over the needs and will of the people and pandering to a voting block.
coffeewalnut08 on
I feel like applying the changes to visa holders already here was too harsh. Apply rules to future newcomers is understandable because they know what they’re getting into, but there should be transitional arrangements for those here. Especially those who are very close to getting settlement status.
Surprised there hasn’t been some form of revolution tbh shit is wild
M6Df4 on
It’s incredibly obvious how few people actually read these articles on here. This is nothing but a long-winded way of saying proposed policy is out for consultation, some MPs disagree, so now there’s a debate…. So government is working as it’s supposed to?
Plus ILR is only one piece of overall immigration policy, which sits far down the immigration pipeline and mostly only impacts people who have spent years in the country paying taxes already anyway. Whether that’s 5 or 10 years is just a small piece of what impacts the net migration numbers.
It’s really a non-story, and the only reason this is even being discussed is it’s tangentially related to the broader migration numbers, any discussion of which will generate clicks.
goonercaIIum on
Every change they’ve walked back on has been to the detriment of the country. Sadly with all of that, they have no chance at the next election. Unbelievable this time it seems to have been kick-started by the thickest MP I have ever seen in office too.
Separate_Trainer_513 on
These backbenchers are going to be the reason we’ll get a reform government next election. Get a fucking grip, stop being so idealistic, you’re not in opposition anymore.
ModdingmySkyrim on
>A Government spokesperson said: “The Government’s position has not changed.
>“We will always welcome those that come to this country and contribute to our national life. But the privilege of living here forever should be earned, not automatic.
>“But between 2021 and 2024, this country experienced levels of migration it had historically seen over four decades. We must be honest about the scale and impact of hundreds of thousands of low-skilled migrants getting settlement.
>“The Government will double the route to settlement from five to ten years. As announced in November, we are consulting to apply this change to those in the UK today but have not received settled status.
>”We are currently reviewing the 200,000 responses and will outline our response in due course.”
Is the only part of the article that actually states the proposals may be watered down.
Edit: I’ll say this though: Rayner can fuck off. She’s a tax dodger trying to position herself for leadership.
Kenye_Kratz on
This is becoming a fairly typical tale for Labour. They spend years in the wilderness as a left wing party of protest, a grown up comes in and marginalises the far left element while winning power on a centre left manifesto, then the lefties spend the entire time fucking things up and undermining the party leader until the Tories get back in. It’s absolutely pathetic.
The party needs to split.
Weak-Property4908 on
I mean it isn’t suprising, applying new ILR rules retrospectively was a terrible thing to do, no wonder they’re facing backlash.
Applying it to new applicants is the sensible thing to do, it allows them to atleast know beforehand that they’ll be waiting a long time for ILR, and might choose to live in another country.
If I moved to another country, submitted my application that says I would get ILR in 5 years, and then 4 years later, they change it to 10-15 years, i’d also be annoyed. I wouldn’t have bothered going if I had to wait that long.
Tasty-Explanation503 on
The turkeys are actually voting for Christmas, this is incredible.
bejeweledman on
The only thing that the government can do is keep the current immigration rules until the next general election. Probably need to relax some rules on those with a foreign partner as well.
[deleted] on
[removed]
Dramasticlly on
Rayner is delusional if she thinks she can replace Starmer. So is Streeting. And yes, new changes are harsh – compared to what we have now – but they worked in Denmark. We have to try it ffs
BigBladeBerticus on
Retrospective ILR applied in a blanket way would affect spouses of UK citizens, not just Skilled Worker Visa holders bringing their family over.
They need to review their consultation and make nuanced exceptions for people that have come here legally to the tune of tens of thousands of pounds and have a British Citizen connection.
Clbull on
ISTG that you could harvest Sir Kid Starver’s u-turns as a renewable energy source at this point. May solve part of the looming Iran crisis…
George_Hayman on
Starmer has been so weakened he can’t stand up to those Labour MPs who cares more about what’s ‘fair’ to foreign people who’ve come here to work than they do about what’s in the financial interests of the country. The potentially huge costs to the public purse that come with giving millions of people ILR all at once are very real. So real in fact that the government itself saw the need to propose a policy change. One intervention from Rayner and that goes out of window. Starmer would put his own job in front of the needs of the country any day of the week.
Tiberinvs on
What most people are missing from these reforms is that these changes were terrible for high skill migration which is something the UK desperately needs to fill up the state coffers.
A low paid immigrant from a developing country will probably have no issues with grinding for an extra 5 years because for them and their family settlement/citizenship is the golden ticket as they usually don’t have many options. A finance professional/doctor/engineer etc has many options in terms of developed countries with way less strict settlement requirements and quite often higher wages, so they’re going to think twice or thrice about staying/coming to the UK and buy a house, build a family etc in a country where they change the rules so often and by such a huge margin. And this is with a Labour government, imagine if Reform won the elections.
I work in finance in London and I personally know many high earners on visas that are looking for a way out, and these people are not going to be replaced by those in the unemployed pool as they are generally not the sharpest tools in the box. These changes were total populist slop and completely backwards because they are going to deter high skill immigrants and attract the kind of low paid immigrants that are desperate and willing to do anything for settlement/citizienship
25 Comments
There are many sides to this story so I won’t leave an opinion, but I think it’s worth pointing out one fact. Temporary worker visas tied to an employer generically lead to worse quality of life for the visa holders and others.
The reason is that workers tied to an employer tend not to negotiate higher pay, not to unionise, and not to push for better work conditions in general.
So one benefit of having more workers (above some threshold of pay) on indefinite leave to remain rather than limited visas is that it avoids the above.
Actually maybe an opinion I would have is perhaps they need to introduce some sort of time limited, “definite” leave to remain, not tied to a particular employer. Again, above some threshold of pay.
Edit: Here is the research [https://www.chicagobooth.edu/review/case-loosening-closed-visa-programs](https://www.chicagobooth.edu/review/case-loosening-closed-visa-programs) . Honestly interesting stuff.
The MPs need to stop being pricks and realise this is what the country wants and more importantly what the country needs.
Starmer really needs to get ahold of his party (not this policy in particular, but his Government is paralysed when it should have a huge majority)
Hmm yes, successive governments have been elected for over a decade on almost the singular mandate of being tougher on immigration only for the opposite to occur. Let’s piss off the British public even more!
[Called it!](https://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/comments/1mz6fnn/comment/nak2pfs/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button)
Also for anyone thats frustrated, have a look [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/comments/1mz6fnn/comment/nahsyhb/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button).
Apparently it’s “un-British” to want to control immigration.
Good. My business partner fled Hong Kong four years ago and has a British national overseas passport. She is one year away from settled status and devastated at what they’re trying to do after promising Hong Kongers could come here to settle.
You don’t change the rules half way through the game. It should start when people arrive.
Most of it was just performative cruelty anyway. It served no purpose other than appealing to bigots and Reform voters and only pushed the Overton Window further to the right. Bring in proper processes to get applications seen to ASAP and we’re almost there.
Ideology over the needs and will of the people and pandering to a voting block.
I feel like applying the changes to visa holders already here was too harsh. Apply rules to future newcomers is understandable because they know what they’re getting into, but there should be transitional arrangements for those here. Especially those who are very close to getting settlement status.
It’s also worth mentioning that immigration has declined by more than 75% since 2023. The numbers aren’t an issue anymore: [Net migration falls 78% in two years returning to pre-Brexit levels](https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/press/net-migration-falls-78-in-two-years-returning-to-pre-brexit-levels-every-major-immigration-category-except-asylum-declines/). The far-right only keep talking about immigration because they have nothing else worthy to talk about.
Surprised there hasn’t been some form of revolution tbh shit is wild
It’s incredibly obvious how few people actually read these articles on here. This is nothing but a long-winded way of saying proposed policy is out for consultation, some MPs disagree, so now there’s a debate…. So government is working as it’s supposed to?
Plus ILR is only one piece of overall immigration policy, which sits far down the immigration pipeline and mostly only impacts people who have spent years in the country paying taxes already anyway. Whether that’s 5 or 10 years is just a small piece of what impacts the net migration numbers.
It’s really a non-story, and the only reason this is even being discussed is it’s tangentially related to the broader migration numbers, any discussion of which will generate clicks.
Every change they’ve walked back on has been to the detriment of the country. Sadly with all of that, they have no chance at the next election. Unbelievable this time it seems to have been kick-started by the thickest MP I have ever seen in office too.
These backbenchers are going to be the reason we’ll get a reform government next election. Get a fucking grip, stop being so idealistic, you’re not in opposition anymore.
>A Government spokesperson said: “The Government’s position has not changed.
>“We will always welcome those that come to this country and contribute to our national life. But the privilege of living here forever should be earned, not automatic.
>“But between 2021 and 2024, this country experienced levels of migration it had historically seen over four decades. We must be honest about the scale and impact of hundreds of thousands of low-skilled migrants getting settlement.
>“The Government will double the route to settlement from five to ten years. As announced in November, we are consulting to apply this change to those in the UK today but have not received settled status.
>”We are currently reviewing the 200,000 responses and will outline our response in due course.”
Is the only part of the article that actually states the proposals may be watered down.
Edit: I’ll say this though: Rayner can fuck off. She’s a tax dodger trying to position herself for leadership.
This is becoming a fairly typical tale for Labour. They spend years in the wilderness as a left wing party of protest, a grown up comes in and marginalises the far left element while winning power on a centre left manifesto, then the lefties spend the entire time fucking things up and undermining the party leader until the Tories get back in. It’s absolutely pathetic.
The party needs to split.
I mean it isn’t suprising, applying new ILR rules retrospectively was a terrible thing to do, no wonder they’re facing backlash.
Applying it to new applicants is the sensible thing to do, it allows them to atleast know beforehand that they’ll be waiting a long time for ILR, and might choose to live in another country.
If I moved to another country, submitted my application that says I would get ILR in 5 years, and then 4 years later, they change it to 10-15 years, i’d also be annoyed. I wouldn’t have bothered going if I had to wait that long.
The turkeys are actually voting for Christmas, this is incredible.
The only thing that the government can do is keep the current immigration rules until the next general election. Probably need to relax some rules on those with a foreign partner as well.
[removed]
Rayner is delusional if she thinks she can replace Starmer. So is Streeting. And yes, new changes are harsh – compared to what we have now – but they worked in Denmark. We have to try it ffs
Retrospective ILR applied in a blanket way would affect spouses of UK citizens, not just Skilled Worker Visa holders bringing their family over.
They need to review their consultation and make nuanced exceptions for people that have come here legally to the tune of tens of thousands of pounds and have a British Citizen connection.
ISTG that you could harvest Sir Kid Starver’s u-turns as a renewable energy source at this point. May solve part of the looming Iran crisis…
Starmer has been so weakened he can’t stand up to those Labour MPs who cares more about what’s ‘fair’ to foreign people who’ve come here to work than they do about what’s in the financial interests of the country. The potentially huge costs to the public purse that come with giving millions of people ILR all at once are very real. So real in fact that the government itself saw the need to propose a policy change. One intervention from Rayner and that goes out of window. Starmer would put his own job in front of the needs of the country any day of the week.
What most people are missing from these reforms is that these changes were terrible for high skill migration which is something the UK desperately needs to fill up the state coffers.
A low paid immigrant from a developing country will probably have no issues with grinding for an extra 5 years because for them and their family settlement/citizenship is the golden ticket as they usually don’t have many options. A finance professional/doctor/engineer etc has many options in terms of developed countries with way less strict settlement requirements and quite often higher wages, so they’re going to think twice or thrice about staying/coming to the UK and buy a house, build a family etc in a country where they change the rules so often and by such a huge margin. And this is with a Labour government, imagine if Reform won the elections.
I work in finance in London and I personally know many high earners on visas that are looking for a way out, and these people are not going to be replaced by those in the unemployed pool as they are generally not the sharpest tools in the box. These changes were total populist slop and completely backwards because they are going to deter high skill immigrants and attract the kind of low paid immigrants that are desperate and willing to do anything for settlement/citizienship