**
A new set of proposals from Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood could force migrant families in the UK to relinquish critical in-work benefits, risking increased hardship and poverty. The plans, which could see the settlement wait time for migrants double from 10 to 20 years if they have accessed public funds, have raised alarm among advocacy groups and families who fear dire consequences.
Unpacking the Impact of Proposed Changes
The migration charity Ramfel recently surveyed parents who expressed deep concern over the proposed immigration reforms. Many indicated they would have “no choice” but to stop utilising essential financial support, including child benefit, universal credit, and disability allowances, to avoid severe penalties under the new system.
Currently, over 200,000 individuals are on the 10-year route to settled status, which involves renewing visas every 30 months at a staggering cost of £3,908.50 per renewal, including healthcare. Under Mahmood’s new framework, any use of public funds during this period could extend the settlement wait to two decades, effectively punishing those who may already be struggling financially.
Nick Beales, Ramfel’s head of campaigning, voiced his concerns, stating, “Our research shows that Shabana Mahmood’s plans to penalise migrant parents for needing basic state support will plunge racialised British children into poverty.” He described the proposals as “cruel and heartless,” warning that they would detrimentally affect the life chances of children from migrant families.
Consultation and Immediate Consequences
The public consultation on Mahmood’s proposals closed on 12 February, with changes anticipated to be implemented by April, potentially applying retroactively. The proposed immigration rules would introduce a more stringent “earned settlement model,” extending the qualifying period for migrants who have accessed public funds. While the baseline could be reduced based on certain criteria—such as English proficiency or employment in public service—additional years would outweigh any reductions, creating a complicated and uncertain landscape for applicants.
One anonymous parent articulated the stressful predicament faced by many: “It’s like you have to choose between settlement and surviving. It’s ridiculous.” The added burden of extended waiting periods can derail career prospects and exacerbate mental health issues, making the prospect of settlement feel increasingly unattainable.
Families Forced to Choose Between Survival and Security
The ramifications of these changes are particularly alarming for those already on low incomes. Many families may find themselves compelled to forgo essential benefits, even when they desperately need them. A case highlighted by Ramfel involved Julia, a carer and mother of three, who decided to cancel her entitlements to housing benefit and universal credit out of fear that accessing these resources would further delay her settlement process.
In a survey conducted by Ramfel, 90% of participants who had utilised public funds indicated they would give them up to avoid penalties, despite the potential consequences including homelessness and financial instability. The group reported that over half of the children referred to in the survey were British citizens, underscoring the unfairness of a system that creates a two-tier settlement process based on income.
Government Rhetoric vs. Reality
Mahmood has publicly framed the need for contributions and integration as central to being part of the UK’s “pluralistic” society. However, critics argue that the government’s approach exacerbates existing inequalities and undermines the well-being of children from migrant backgrounds. As Ramfel’s findings illustrate, the proposed changes do not just affect adults but jeopardise the future of countless British children whose parents are navigating the complexities of immigration.
The ongoing discourse around these reforms raises vital questions about the perceived value of migrant contributions to British society and the moral implications of penalising those who seek assistance during challenging times.
Why it Matters
The proposed immigration changes represent a significant shift in the UK’s approach to migrant families, with potential consequences that extend far beyond individual circumstances. By penalising those who access public funds, the government risks deepening poverty and inequality, particularly among racialised communities. The impact on children, who are often the innocent victims of these policies, is especially troubling. As society grapples with the meaning of fairness and inclusion, it is critical to ensure that all families—regardless of their immigration status—are afforded the support they need to thrive.