A recent proposal from the Home Secretary, Shabana Mahmood, could have dire consequences for migrant families reliant on in-work benefits, forcing many to choose between essential support and their pathway to settled status. Recent discussions reveal that over 200,000 migrants currently navigating the lengthy process for indefinite leave to remain (ILR) may face an extended wait of up to 20 years if they utilise public funds. This alarming shift is raising concerns about the potential for increased poverty among children of migrant parents.
Proposed Changes to Settled Status
Under Mahmood’s new plan, the qualifying period for settled status could double if migrants access public funds, even while working. Currently, individuals on the 10-year route to ILR must renew their visas every 30 months, incurring significant costs that can exceed £3,900, including healthcare. If the proposed changes are implemented, those who have accessed benefits such as child benefit, universal credit, and disability support would find their wait for settlement extended, effectively punishing them for seeking necessary assistance.
“Parents will be forced to abandon vital support just to stay on track for settlement,” warns Nick Beales, campaigning head at the migration charity Ramfel. He highlights the grim reality of parents working excessively long hours to make ends meet, which could exacerbate child poverty rates. “These plans will not only harm families today but will also have lasting effects on their children’s futures,” Beales insists.
The Emotional Toll on Families
The emotional burden of this proposed policy is palpable among those it will affect. One anonymous parent described the agonising choice they face: “It’s like you have to choose between settlement and surviving. A decade of paperwork, a decade of your mental health, and yet still, they want to add to that.”
The fear of long-term financial instability has driven many families to forfeit benefits they desperately need. Julia, a carer and mother of three, exemplified this struggle; she opted out of receiving housing benefit and disability allowances for her autistic daughter, fearing the repercussions on her settlement application. “It feels so unfair,” she lamented, “that I accessed benefits because I’m on a low wage and now that is being used against me.”
The Broader Impact: A Two-Tier System
Concerns have also been raised about the broader implications of Mahmood’s proposals, which could create a two-tier settlement system. According to a Ramfel survey involving 68 parents from diverse backgrounds, an overwhelming 90% of respondents indicated they would relinquish public support to avoid penalties, despite the threat of homelessness and debt.
The survey revealed that out of 134 children referenced, over half were British citizens. The report stated, “The proposals punish those on lower incomes and force families to choose between immediate survival and long-term security.” This sentiment underscores the discriminatory nature of the proposed changes, which disproportionately affect families from racialised backgrounds.
A Call for Rethink on Migration Policies
AdviceUK, a prominent network of independent advisers, has voiced strong opposition to Mahmood’s consultation, which concluded on February 12. They argue that the proposed “fairer pathway to settlement” merely increases insecurity and inequality for migrants. The consultation suggests that while some criteria could reduce the baseline qualifying period—such as English competency or public service work—these reductions are overshadowed by the additional years imposed for those who have accessed public funds.
Mahmood initially launched the consultation in November, asserting that contributing to society is a prerequisite for permanent residency in the UK. “To become a part of this country, permanently, is therefore not a right but a privilege – and one that must be earned,” she stated.
Why it Matters
As the UK government contemplates these significant changes to migration policy, the potential fallout on the lives of migrant families cannot be overstated. By extending the wait for settlement and imposing penalties for those who utilise public benefits, the proposed measures threaten the basic economic stability of vulnerable communities. This is not merely a bureaucratic adjustment but a fundamental question of fairness and humanity. The government must reconsider these plans to avoid exacerbating poverty levels and undermining the life chances of countless children in the UK.
