This week, the home secretary, Shabana Mahmood, announced that many migrants on skilled worker visas earning below £50,000, outside the social care sector, will have to wait for 10 years to “earn” settlement (Shabana Mahmood softens immigration plans in face of cabinet backlash, 2 November). This blatantly overlooks the contribution of those whose work cannot be measured in high salaries.
I arrived in the UK in September 2022 to pursue a master’s degree, for which I paid more than twice the fee that domestic students pay. Since then, I have worked for two organisations, including the Institute of Development Studies, a leading institution for development research. I have paid my taxes and met the financial requirements of successive visas, paying substantial fees twice, first for a graduate visa and then for the skilled worker visa, including the immigration health surcharge. I would like the government to explain what more I must do to demonstrate that I have “earned” the right to settle.
These proposed changes raise urgent questions about which professions the UK values. People working in development, social sciences, academic research and public policy often earn considerably less than those in finance or technology, despite contributing to research and policymaking, and addressing some of the world’s most pressing challenges. So just because I don’t make £50,000 or work in social care, I have no contribution to make?
Britain wants to retain its position as a global centre for research and development expertise while introducing immigration conditions that could make it harder for international researchers and professionals to build long-term lives here. An income-based settlement system undermines those whose contribution cannot be measured by salary alone.
The government needs to stop mistaking higher salaries for contribution and take a more holistic view of the wider social, intellectual and public value of people’s work.
Jigyasa Agarwal
Hove, East Sussex
Despite saying that she wants a fair migration policy, Shabana Mahmood’s statement on “earned settlement” contains many examples of unfairness beyond those in the headlines and your editorial (The Guardian view on a migration U-turn: it still leaves unfair changes intact, 2 November.
Here is just one example that has received little attention. Under “no recourse to public funds” rules, most migrant families are not eligible for child benefit or universal credit even if they are working and paying tax. If the rent goes up, a partner leaves or the main breadwinner falls ill, the remaining partner ends up working long hours of overtime to try to earn enough to pay the rent and feed their family. Sometimes that is not enough, and a family faces the grim prospect of eviction and homelessness.
It has always been possible to apply to the Home Office to change the “no recourse to public funds” condition if a family would otherwise become homeless. But under the new immigration rules, a migrant family that has claimed public funds at any time in the previous five years will be ineligible for permanent settlement, or will be required to wait an extra 10 years to settle.
Waiting an extra 10 years will mean renewing the family’s permission to stay every 30 months, each time paying thousands of pounds in fees. Either option will mean deep poverty, debt and mental distress.
The children in these households – over 380,000, according to one recent estimate – already face severe deprivation, with long-term effects on their health and wellbeing. The government’s changes will push these families into even deeper, more grinding and Dickensian poverty.
Lynn Sloman
London
Having worked with asylum seekers and refugees while running a charity for 10 years, I was horrified to read of the home secretary’s recent proposals, and I am glad they have been reviewed and changed somewhat.
But they are still an unjust punishment for people who take low-paid jobs, as so often they have little or no choice. It is important for Shabana Mahmood and the government to realise that having to wait for 30 years for settlement will not deter those crossing the channel in small boats. First, because there are hardly any safe routes, and second, because those attempting the crossing will not know of this restriction.
They will come anyway as they are encouraged to by people smugglers. The answer is to provide safe legal routes for all those fleeing danger and persecution that is beyond what we can imagine.
Dr Elizabeth Hare
Former chair, RAIS Lancaster (Refugee, Advocacy, Information and Support)
As a UK visa holder, I would hardly call the few concessions in the earned settlement plan a “U-turn”. A crucial aspect is that from now on, vast proportions of present or future skilled worker visa holders will be on a 10-year route rather than a five-year route to settlement (indefinite leave to remain, ILR). Something that not everyone is aware of is that this visa type is linked to a specific job and employer, placing visa holders in a fragile position of dependency for 10 years.
For example, if your employer is downsizing and laying off staff, you not only lose your job, you and your family will lose your UK visas and will have to leave the country unless you rapidly find a new job with another registered sponsor, which is unlikely. Think of being in this fragile position for 10 long years.
To resolve this, the government could have stipulated that after five years on a skilled worker visa you would be eligible for an “open” work visa that isn’t bound to a specific job and employer. But the fact that the government hasn’t done this shows the true nature of this reform. Fearing massive reliance on benefits once on ILR, the government is trying to push out of the country most of the people who entered thanks to the lowered criteria in about 2022-24. Therefore, not only have the ILR goalposts been extended by five years, but the pathway to get there has been made even harder by relying on the skilled worker visa, a clearly inadequate tool.
This suggests no “fairness” ethos in the earned settlement reform, but rather the intention of making life as hard as possible for a specific population group. While the Home Office estimates the number of affected people at 500,000, independent estimates have suggested up to 2 million.
Name and address supplied
I came to the UK in February 2021 as an international student. I studied, followed the rules, secured a permanent role as a software engineer in 2023 and moved on to a skilled worker visa. Like thousands of others, I made major financial and personal decisions based on the settlement pathway that existed when I arrived.
What troubles me most about the government’s earned settlement proposals is not that immigration rules can change. Governments have always had that power. It is that people who came here lawfully, in good faith, could find the goalposts moved years into their journey.
The Home Office argues that settlement should reflect contribution. Yet contribution is not measured only by salary. A person earning below £50,271 who pays taxes, works full-time, obeys the law and never claims public funds contributes meaningfully to British society. Suggesting that someone earning £50,271 deserves settlement five years earlier than another law-abiding taxpayer risks creating a two-tier system of belonging.
Britain’s reputation has long rested on fairness, predictability and respect for legitimate expectations. When migrants make life-changing commitments based on published rules, those commitments should matter. Trust works both ways.
The government’s retreat on care workers is welcome, but it highlights the wider problem. If retrospective changes are unfair for one group, why are they fair for others who also followed every rule asked of them?
Integration is achieved when people can plan their futures, buy homes, start families and put down roots. Security encourages commitment. Uncertainty discourages it.
Srujalkumar Patel
Watford, Hertfordshire
