**
A new set of proposals from the Home Secretary, Shabana Mahmood, threatens to upend the lives of migrant families across the UK by significantly extending the wait for settled status. As the government seeks to tighten its grip on immigration, families reliant on in-work benefits may find themselves caught in a precarious situation where they must choose between essential financial support and their long-term residency prospects.
A Dangerous Choice for Migrant Families
The charity Ramfel has raised alarms about the potential impact of Mahmood’s proposals, which would double the waiting period for settled status from 10 to 20 years for those who have accessed public funds while employed. Currently, over 200,000 individuals on the 10-year route to indefinite leave to remain (ILR) face the daunting task of renewing their visas every 30 months, each time incurring costs exceeding £3,900, including healthcare fees.
Under the new rules, families fear they will be forced to abandon critical support systems such as child benefit, universal credit, and disability allowances. Parents have expressed their concern that the government’s approach effectively punishes them for seeking necessary assistance, with many stating they would have “no choice” but to forgo these benefits to avoid jeopardising their residency status.
The Human Cost of Policy Changes
Nick Beales, Ramfel’s head of campaigning, highlighted the dire consequences these changes could have on children in migrant families. He warned that the proposed measures would exacerbate child poverty and lead parents to work grueling hours—up to 80 a week—just to make ends meet. Beales remarked, “This is cruel and heartless… the government’s rhetoric on ending child poverty rings hollow if it excludes racialised British children.”
The implications of Mahmood’s proposed “fairer pathway to settlement” have left many advocating for a different approach. AdviceUK, a prominent network of independent advisers, has noted that the consultation launched by Mahmood has only served to increase insecurity and inequality among migrant families striving for stability.
Unsustainable Pressure on Families
The consultation period for the proposed changes concluded on 12 February, with potential implementation by April, raising concerns about retroactive effects. While the government suggests that certain criteria—such as English proficiency or contributions to public service—could reduce the qualifying period, these reductions are overshadowed by the possibility of extended waits for those who have accessed public funds.
One anonymous parent voiced their frustration, stating, “It’s like you have to choose between settlement and surviving. It’s ridiculous.” The burden of prolonged paperwork and uncertainty weighs heavily on those striving to secure a stable future for their families.
The proposed policies predominantly affect Asian and Black individuals, raising questions about systemic inequality within the immigration system. The so-called “earned settlement model” could impose even harsher penalties, adding years to the qualification timeline for those who have utilised public funds, further entrenching the challenges faced by low-income families.
The Personal Stories Behind the Numbers
Ramfel’s recent survey of 68 parents, primarily from West African, South Asian, and Caribbean backgrounds, revealed troubling trends. Among those surveyed, 90% of the 51 respondents who had relied on public funds indicated they would choose to forgo these benefits, despite the risks of financial instability, homelessness, and overwhelming debt.
One poignant case involved Julia, a carer and mother of three. Just one year away from qualifying for ILR, Julia made the heartbreaking decision to cancel all benefits she was entitled to, fearing that any access to support would extend her wait for settlement by 20 years. “It feels so unfair that I accessed benefits because I’m on a low wage and now that is being used against me,” she lamented.
Why it Matters
The ramifications of these proposed changes extend far beyond bureaucratic red tape; they threaten the very fabric of family life for countless migrants in the UK. By compelling families to choose between immediate survival and long-term security, the government risks creating a two-tier system that disproportionately affects those already vulnerable. As these policies loom, it is vital to scrutinise their impact not just on migrants, but on British society as a whole, as the well-being of all children—regardless of their background—should be at the heart of any policy aimed at tackling poverty.
