A looming government proposal threatens to significantly impact migrant families in the UK, compelling them to relinquish vital in-work benefits to avoid being ‘punished’. The migration charity Ramfel has raised alarm bells over the potential consequences of these changes, which could deepen child poverty and exacerbate financial insecurity for many families.
A Drastic Shift in Immigration Policy
Under new proposals from Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood, the wait for settled status for migrants could extend from 10 to 20 years if they have accessed public funds while employed. This alarming shift would affect over 200,000 individuals currently on the 10-year route to indefinite leave to remain (ILR). Currently, migrants must renew their visas every 30 months—a process that costs nearly £4,000 each time—before being eligible for permanent residency.
Families already struggling with the high costs of living and the demands of work may find themselves in an impossible position, as many would feel compelled to forgo essential benefits such as child benefit, universal credit, and disability allowances to avoid extending their pathway to settlement.
The Human Cost of Policy Changes
Ramfel’s head of campaigning, Nick Beales, has spoken candidly about the dire implications for families, stating that the proposals could lead to parents working excessive hours while simultaneously increasing child poverty rates. “Our research indicates that penalising migrant parents for needing basic state support will have devastating effects on British children from racialised communities,” he said. “This is not a mere policy adjustment; it’s a cruel attack on the very fabric of our society.”
The charity has engaged with families who would be directly affected, revealing a common sentiment of desperation. One parent, who requested anonymity, expressed frustration, saying, “It’s as if we have to choose between securing our future and just getting by day to day. The more paperwork and stress you pile on, the less we can focus on our families.”
Concerns Over Inequality and Insecurity
The proposals have drawn sharp criticism from various organisations, including AdviceUK, which represents a network of independent advisers. They argue that Mahmood’s consultation on a ‘fairer pathway to settlement’ has only exacerbated the challenges faced by migrant families. As the consultation period recently closed, many fear that the changes could be implemented retroactively, creating additional uncertainty for those who have already navigated the complex immigration system.
The government’s proposals suggest that certain criteria, such as proficiency in English or volunteering in public service, could potentially reduce the wait time for settlement. However, these reductions are overshadowed by the severe penalties imposed on those who have relied on public funds, which can add substantial years to their wait for ILR.
A Two-Tier System Emerges
The implications of these proposals are particularly concerning for families from Black and Asian backgrounds, who make up the majority of those currently on the 10-year route. The proposed ‘earned settlement model’ would create a two-tiered system, where those who have accessed public funds face extended waiting periods, effectively punishing them for seeking assistance during tough times.
In a recent survey conducted by Ramfel, nearly 90% of parents who were using public funds indicated they would stop accessing these benefits to avoid penalisation, despite the looming threat of homelessness and financial hardship. For many, the immediate need for survival is pitted against the long-term goal of securing a stable future for their children.
Why it Matters
These proposed changes to immigration policy are not merely bureaucratic adjustments; they represent a fundamental shift in how the UK views its migrant population. By increasing the waiting period for settled status and penalising families for seeking support, the government risks deepening inequalities and exacerbating hardships for vulnerable communities. This approach not only undermines the well-being of countless families but also contradicts the UK’s commitment to fostering an inclusive and equitable society. The stakes are high, and the implications of these proposals could reverberate for generations to come.
