Indefinite leave to remain (with your family): how the Immigration White Paper proposals will stunt opportunities for the children of migrants

The issue of indefinite leave to remain (ILR) has been a hot topic in the UK press. The Reform Leader Nigel Farage has suggested that his party would abolish the status and force people with ILR to return to some form of lesser immigration status which would block access to a range of rights which those who obtained the status acquire - access to welfare benefits, free NHS care and home student University fees for young people.
 

This blog will not attempt to critique these unworkable and most likely illegal proposals. They have no basis in evidence, are clearly intended as a provocation to those who support a more open immigration system and aim to differentiate the party from a Government that has already been pushed further to the right on immigration following Reform gains in the May 2025 local elections.

Instead we will deal with the realms of reality. We will look at the government's Immigration White Paper, which contains the proposals to introduce changes to make it more difficult to obtain settlement or ILR in the UK.

The White Paper proposes that the current route to settlement will increase from the standard five years to 10, with 10 years being the starting point for most individuals. This 10-year period could then be reduced based on a "points-based contribution to the UK economy and society."

The government has said that it will consult on what these points-based contributions might be in determining the rules on earned settlement. This consultation will be completed by the end of 2025 and is likely to be launched soon.

Backward looking?

A key question which has yet to be clarified is whether this increase in the qualifying period for settlement will apply to those already in the UK on a track to obtaining settlement within five years. Our view is that a retrospective application of the law to those who are already here would be grossly unfair and have far reaching negative impacts on migrants, their children, UK employers sponsoring migrants and the UK’s attractiveness to global talent. It might also be unlawful.  These issues were raised in Parliamentary debate in September.

The UK as a global outlier

Quite apart from the generally accepted and sensible principle that countries should seek to integrate migrants as soon as possible to generate the most social and economic gains through having productive migrants who contribute fully to society and the economy, the fact is that five years is widely accepted across the world as a standard period in which migrants can obtain permanent residence. In the past, the UK has in fact introduced shorter settlement qualifying periods to bring them into line with those on permanent residence in EU Directives.  Some countries, such as Italy, are even considering reducing the qualifying period for citizenship to aid integration. A 10-year qualification period would make the UK a major outlier in this respect, throwing into question the UK’s attractiveness for global talent and as a place to relocate global headquarters.

Suffer the not so little children

One of the most egregious impacts of any increase in the settlement period, quite apart from the unfairness and the huge cost of continuing to remain on a temporary visa for both the migrants and their sponsoring employers, is the effect on dependent children of those migrants.

The issue of indefinite leave to remain (ILR) has been a hot topic in the UK press. The Reform Leader Nigel Farage has suggested that his party would abolish the status and force people with ILR to return to some form of lesser immigration status which would block access to a range of rights which those who obtain the status acquire- access to welfare benefits, free NHS care and “home” University tuition fees for young people.

This blog will not attempt to critique these unworkable and unfair proposals. Instead it will deal with the present and realms of reality. We will look at the government's Immigration White Paper, which contains the proposals to introduce changes to make it more difficult to obtain settlement or indefinite leave to remain in the UK.

The White Paper proposes that the current route to settlement will increase from the standard five years to 10, with 10 years being the starting point for most individuals. This 10-year period could then be reduced based on a "points-based contribution to the UK economy and society."

The government has said that it will consult on what these points-based contributions might be in determining the rules on earned settlement. This consultation will be completed by the end of 2025 and is likely to be launched soon.

There are two major consequences on children of their parents not being able to obtain settlement for very long periods. The first is access to University education and the second is whether children who are dependant on their parents’ visas and who become adults can ever leave home and get on with their independent lives.

Backward looking?

A key question which has yet to be clarified is whether this increase in the qualifying period for settlement will apply to those already in the UK on a track to obtaining settlement within five years. Our view is that a retrospective application of the law to those who are already here would be grossly unfair and have far reaching negative impacts on migrants, their children, UK employers sponsoring migrants and the UK’s attractiveness to global talent. It might also be unlawful.  These issues were raised in Parliamentary debate in October.

The UK as a global outlier

Quite apart from the generally accepted and sensible principle that countries should seek to integrate migrants as soon as possible to generate the most social and economic gains through having productive migrants who contribute fully to society and the economy, the fact is that five years is widely accepted across the world as a standard period in which migrants can obtain permanent residence.

In the past, the UK has in fact increased its own settlement qualifying periods to bring them into line with those for permanent residence in the EU. Some countries, such as Italy, are even considering reducing the qualifying period for citizenship to aid integration. A 10 year qualification period would make the UK a major outlier in this respect, throwing into question the UK’s attractiveness for global talent and as a place to relocate global headquarters.

University Challenge

The UK operates a dual system of tuition fees for those who are deemed to be "home" students and those who are deemed to be international students.

Home students pay the basic tuition fees of £9250 and are also eligible to apply for tuition fee loans and loans for maintenance while they study.

International students pay the relevant international student tuition fee rate which each university sets. There is no set figure for this and universities are free to charge international students what they want. Fees for international students at the University of Oxford range between £35,260 and £59,260 for the annual course fees. Fees at the University of Edinburgh range from £21,500 - £37,500. International student cannot access loans to cover tuition fees and accommodation and living costs in the same way as home students.

To be treated as a home student there are two key requirements. The first is to have been resident in the UK other than as a student for at least three years. The second is that the prospective student must have indefinite leave to remain (settlement) by the 1st of September in the year in which they start their course. 

This means that children who have been on dependant visas and who have reached the end of their A-level years and who have acquired indefinite leave remain can qualify as home students, pay the same fees as local students and can access the full range of student loans for tuition and maintenance.

If children are prevented from applying for indefinite leave to remain, for example because their parents cannot qualify for that status because of the longer 10-year period to settlement, this will mean that their parents will not only have to pay fees which are almost three  times as expensive as a home student, but that those fees will have to be funded out of the parents’ income or savings. 

This would mean that children would in many cases be prevented from going to university until and unless they obtain indefinite leave to remain in line with their parents.

This is the first and most unfair consequence of any proposals to delay the acquisition of indefinite leave to remain for those already in the UK and for those coming to the UK in the future.

The ties that bind

The second major consequence of increasing the qualifying period for settlement is that children will have to remain dependent on their parents for much longer and will not be able to leave home and live an independent life. This issue has received much less attention than the home fees issue.

This is especially relevant for children who arrived in the UK as teenagers, as they could be in their mid to late twenties by the time they reach the end of a 10-year period of residence.

The immigration rules on dependent children mean that, in order to qualify to remain dependant on their parents’ visas, dependants must not be leading an independent life, must not be married and normally must live with the main visa-holder parent.

Generally, where families are applying for an extension of their visa with children over the age of 18, evidence needs to be provided that the children are still financially dependent on the parents and often that they still are based at home. Where children move away from home (moving away for university is fine) and set up on their own and obtain a job, they would no longer qualify as dependents and could not extend their visas or indeed apply for indefinite leave to remain.

The proposal to increase the settlement period to up to 10 years therefore causes a significant problem for those older children who will simply not be able to leave home and get on with their lives.

If they want to qualify for indefinite leave to remain when their parents do and after they have finished any university studies, they will have to stay living at home and dependant on their parents financially.

God forbid that they fall in love and decide to get married. That would mean restarting another five-year period as the spouse/partner of a British or settled person and spend even longer getting to the magic ILR. If they get a job, in theory they could apply for a sponsored work visa and go on to qualify for indefinite leave to remain in their own right. But that will then take another 5 years. Due to recent policy changes, employers can now only sponsor under-26s for RQF level 6 roles with salaries typically above £33,400, making it even harder for graduates to secure relevant jobs and be sponsored.

Cutting the apron strings

The proposals for earned settlement and the increase in the qualifying period from 5 to 10 years may have dramatic consequences for a large number of dependant children of those on long stay visas. It will stunt their opportunities for education and for becoming independent economic actors in the labour market.

It is vital in any consultation and discussions that this issue is raised as a serious bar to the integration and opportunities those who come to the UK as dependant children. Any proposals should not stunt educational horizons or their ability to get on with their lives and start fulfilling and independent futures.

Further information

If you have any queries in relation to the above or any other immigration matter, please contact a member of the immigration team.

 

About the author

Nick Rollason is a partner and head of Business Immigration. He advises on all areas of UK immigration and nationality law and has particular expertise in providing strategic advice to businesses on their global immigration needs.