**
In a concerning development for migrant families in the UK, proposed changes to the immigration system could compel many to relinquish essential in-work benefits, potentially plunging them into financial hardship. The migration charity Ramfel has raised alarms about the implications of these plans, which would double the wait time for settled status to 20 years if individuals have relied on public funds while working. This move has sparked outrage among advocates who argue it will exacerbate poverty among children from racialised backgrounds.
The Proposed Changes and Their Implications
Under the proposals put forth by Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood, the waiting period for migrants on the 10-year route to settled status would be significantly extended. Currently, over 200,000 individuals are navigating this pathway, which requires them to renew their visas every 30 months at a steep cost of £3,908.50, including healthcare contributions. If the new measures are implemented, any migrant who has accessed public funds—even while employed—would face a staggering 20-year wait before qualifying for indefinite leave to remain (ILR).
Experts fear that this change will push families to make dire sacrifices to avoid being “punished.” Many parents have expressed that they would feel compelled to forgo vital support like child benefit, universal credit, and disability allowances, despite the risk of increased poverty and hardship.
Voices of Concern: Ramfel’s Findings
Ramfel has conducted interviews with affected families, revealing that many would be left with no choice but to abandon public support. Nick Beales, the organisation’s head of campaigning, stated, “Our research shows that Shabana Mahmood’s plans to penalise migrant parents for needing basic state support will plunge racialised British children into poverty. This is cruel and heartless and will harm these children in both the short and long term.”
The call for immediate reconsideration of these proposals is echoing across the sector. Beales emphasised the need for a more inclusive approach to child poverty alleviation, arguing that the government’s rhetoric rings hollow if it fails to address the needs of all children, regardless of their parents’ immigration status.
Growing Insecurity for Migrant Families
The consultation period for these proposals closed on 12 February, with changes anticipated to take effect as early as April, potentially applying retroactively. As the clock ticks, concerns are mounting among families already grappling with the stress of an uncertain immigration status. One parent, who chose to remain anonymous, articulated the predicament faced by many: “It’s like you have to choose between settlement and surviving. It’s ridiculous. A decade of paperwork, a decade of your mental health – and yet you’re going to add to that.”
These sentiments are not isolated. Ramfel’s survey of 68 parents, primarily from West African, South Asian, and Caribbean backgrounds, revealed that 90% of respondents using public funds would be willing to forgo these benefits to avoid penalties, despite the looming threats of homelessness and debt.
A Two-Tier Settlement System?
The proposed changes also hint at the establishment of a two-tier settlement system. Those who have accessed public funds for less than 12 months could see their qualifying period increased by five years, while those who have relied on benefits for longer could face an additional 10 years. This could disproportionately affect families already struggling to make ends meet, as highlighted by Julia, a carer and mother of three. On the brink of qualifying for ILR, Julia has opted to cancel all benefits, including housing support and universal credit, fearing that accessing any assistance could extend her wait to 20 years.
Why it Matters
These proposed immigration reforms threaten to deepen the already significant inequalities faced by migrant families in the UK. Forcing parents to choose between accessing essential support and securing their long-term residency status is a cruel dilemma that could have lasting repercussions on children’s welfare and opportunities. As the government continues to advocate for an inclusive society, it must also ensure that its policies do not undermine the very fabric of family stability and child wellbeing that it professes to protect.
