The Labour Government

[The perfect fumble]

No one has ever welcomed or encouraged illegal migration.

Is that so.

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-10267/

Changes to UK visa and settlement rules after the 2025 immigration white paper​

On 12 May 2025 the government published a white paper policy document called Restoring control over the immigration system. The document proposed some changes to make it harder to move to and settle in the UK, with a view to reducing immigration.

A white paper does not, by itself, alter the law or the immigration rules. It puts forward changes the government intends to make in future. Some of the white paper’s proposals have been implemented since May, but most are still to come.

What changes does the May 2025 immigration white paper propose?​

The document covers both high-level principles and specific policy changes. Among its many proposals, eight are detailed enough to be quantified: that is, civil servants have included some rough illustrations of how much they might reduce net migration (PDF).

These eight proposals are:

• Shortening the list of jobs for which employers can sponsor a worker from overseas for a Skilled Worker visa. Jobs assessed as being medium-skilled – RQF levels 3-5 – will not be sponsorable unless the Migration Advisory Committee recommends an exemption and the industry is demonstrating efforts to recruit domestically.
• Ending an existing exemption for social care workers: employers will no longer be allowed to recruit them from abroad.
• Exploring a levy on English universities’ income from international student fees.
• Making it harder for universities to keep their licence to sponsor student visas by introducing tougher compliance rules.
• Reducing the standard length of the Graduate visa, for international students to stay on and work in the UK, from two years to 18 months.
• Stricter English language rules: higher standards for those already taking language tests, and requiring the partners of people moving to the UK on work visas to have basic English to qualify for a ‘dependant’ visa.
• Increasing the standard qualifying period for permanent residence (also known as indefinite leave to remain or settlement) from five to ten years, with some people qualifying sooner based on criteria yet to be decided.
• Making it easier for people to come to the UK on certain visas aimed at highly skilled migrants, such as the Global Talent and High Potential routes.

Most of these changes can be made by amending the immigration rules. They do not require an act of Parliament, except for the levy on student fees.

The white paper is a wide-ranging document and covers many other issues in addition to the examples above. These include a new Labour Market Evidence Group, reforms to family and dependant visas, Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, and deportation of foreign national offenders.

Much of the media attention and questions from constituents have focused on the proposal to extend the qualifying period for indefinite leave to remain (see below). The white paper says there will be a consultation on this “later this year”, meaning that there will not be changes straight away.
........

So at some unspecified time in the future what is legal immigration today will become illegal immigration, it's entirely political and capricious, and there will be those that oppose it from a standpoint that there should be no immigration control whatsoever...

Back in the day....

Now...

Same message with a contemporary flavour.

And why?

Coz....

 

[TinFoilHat]

Amazing how 4% are causing the death of society and the far right are able to use such a small figure to wind up not only some people, but all the main parties to.

 

[meltonblue]

Is that so.

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-10267/

Changes to UK visa and settlement rules after the 2025 immigration white paper​

On 12 May 2025 the government published a white paper policy document called Restoring control over the immigration system. The document proposed some changes to make it harder to move to and settle in the UK, with a view to reducing immigration.

A white paper does not, by itself, alter the law or the immigration rules. It puts forward changes the government intends to make in future. Some of the white paper’s proposals have been implemented since May, but most are still to come.

What changes does the May 2025 immigration white paper propose?​

The document covers both high-level principles and specific policy changes. Among its many proposals, eight are detailed enough to be quantified: that is, civil servants have included some rough illustrations of how much they might reduce net migration (PDF).

These eight proposals are:

• Shortening the list of jobs for which employers can sponsor a worker from overseas for a Skilled Worker visa. Jobs assessed as being medium-skilled – RQF levels 3-5 – will not be sponsorable unless the Migration Advisory Committee recommends an exemption and the industry is demonstrating efforts to recruit domestically.
• Ending an existing exemption for social care workers: employers will no longer be allowed to recruit them from abroad.
• Exploring a levy on English universities’ income from international student fees.
• Making it harder for universities to keep their licence to sponsor student visas by introducing tougher compliance rules.
• Reducing the standard length of the Graduate visa, for international students to stay on and work in the UK, from two years to 18 months.
• Stricter English language rules: higher standards for those already taking language tests, and requiring the partners of people moving to the UK on work visas to have basic English to qualify for a ‘dependant’ visa.
• Increasing the standard qualifying period for permanent residence (also known as indefinite leave to remain or settlement) from five to ten years, with some people qualifying sooner based on criteria yet to be decided.
• Making it easier for people to come to the UK on certain visas aimed at highly skilled migrants, such as the Global Talent and High Potential routes.

Most of these changes can be made by amending the immigration rules. They do not require an act of Parliament, except for the levy on student fees.

The white paper is a wide-ranging document and covers many other issues in addition to the examples above. These include a new Labour Market Evidence Group, reforms to family and dependant visas, Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, and deportation of foreign national offenders.

Much of the media attention and questions from constituents have focused on the proposal to extend the qualifying period for indefinite leave to remain (see below). The white paper says there will be a consultation on this “later this year”, meaning that there will not be changes straight away.
........

So at some unspecified time in the future what is legal immigration today will become illegal immigration, it's entirely political and capricious, and there will be those that oppose it from a standpoint that there should be no immigration control whatsoever...

Back in the day....

Now...

Same message with a contemporary flavour.

And why?

Coz....

That white paper doesn’t welcome or encourage illegal immigration to be fair.

I don’t think the SWP are going to be anywhere near power any time soon either… :)

 

[Vic]

No one has ever welcomed or encouraged illegal migration.

I don't like the term. If someone escapes genocide but to do it they have to break the law of a neighbouring country to cross a border, are they illegal migrants or refugees?

 

[Vic]

What a load of utter and ignorant bollocks

And I gave what I consider to be a solution - which could be done by any government of any colour:

"I would suggest that this this just needs the 'government will' to introduce primary legislation to limit or modify certain aspects of the ECHR regulations without formally withdrawing from the convention itself"

Now why does that remind me of the brilliant Brexit negotiation tactic of having the political will to walk away with no deal?

 

[hcblue95]

A big problem we have (one of many obviously) is that even if we got a bold progressive government in, they often can't do much in 5 years anyway.

Take the electricity grid for instance. We generate so much cheap green electricity in Scotland now that we have to turn off basically free electricity a considerable amount of the time. If labour ramped up spending on distribution and transmission networks we'd be set up for generations. We could sell excess electricity to Europe. But this would take more than 5 years so they don't really have an incentive to do it and it'd probably end up being reversed by our version of Trump anyway.

 

[Vic]

Of course there's some people like that, but it's the lazy slur classifying everyone who has genuine non-racist concerns as a far right racist thug, that has in many cases inflamed the situation.

What, by turning someone who has genuine non-racist concerns into a far right racist thug? ("If that's what they think of me, I might as well become a thug.")

 

[Blue and true]

Yep, let’s just stick to the facts and actual numbers that we face.

https://ifs.org.uk/articles/home-office-budgeting-and-asylum-overspends

You suggested locking up for five years those that cross the channel on boats, and the poster refuted your nonsensical suggestion with proof it would be more burdensome to the taxpayer. Isn't that your primary concern, the cost of all this?

But let's put that aside. I have a hard time believing that the NHS crisis, desperately high house prices and shortages, neglected public services, chronically low wages, a discontented lower and middle class; all issues that predate the crossings "crisis", and have done for generations, would be alleviated if we stop the crossings "crisis." Do you see where I'm going with this now? Do you see why maybe I don't think those marching in solidarity with a racist career-criminal aren't concerned citizens but are, in fact, bad faith actors?

 

[blueinsa]

You suggested locking up for five years those that cross the channel on boats, and the poster refuted your nonsensical suggestion with proof it would be more burdensome to the taxpayer. Isn't that your primary concern, the cost of all this?

But let's put that aside. I have a hard time believing that the NHS crisis, desperately high house prices and shortages, neglected public services, chronically low wages, a discontented lower and middle class; all issues that predate the crossings "crisis", and have done for generations, would be alleviated if we stop the crossings "crisis." Do you see where I'm going with this now? Do you see why maybe I don't think those marching in solidarity with a racist career-criminal aren't concerned citizens but are, in fact, bad faith actors?

Asylum is costing the treasury nearly £7 Billion a year.

It shows no sign of stopping there either.

Money we should be spending elsewhere.

I’ve no time nor interest in your attempts to label everyone with concerns as a racist or those that marched.

If it makes you feel superior and better then crack on.

 

[VOOMER]

That white paper doesn’t welcome or encourage illegal immigration to be fair.

I don’t think the SWP are going to be anywhere near power any time soon either… :)

That was never the SWP plan. Control the unelected infrastructure and little by little shape the society.

 

[Brewster's millions]

Asylum is costing the treasury nearly £7 Billion a year.

It shows no sign of stopping there either.

Money we should be spending elsewhere.

I’ve no time nor interest in your attempts to label everyone with concerns as a racist or those that marched.

If it makes you feel superior and better then crack on.

Remarkable, isn’t it, that people who claim to be so concerned about NHS funding, a shortage of social housing and the general pressure on public services can be so blasé about billions of pounds of expenditure and countless resources across the public sector being diverted to what are effectively illegal economic migrants.

Are they actually concerned citizens or, in fact, bad faith actors?

 

[hampshireblue]

Remarkable, isn’t it, that people who claim to be so concerned about NHS funding, a shortage of social housing and the general pressure on public services can be so blasé about billions of pounds of expenditure and countless resources across the public sector being diverted to what are effectively illegal economic migrants.

Are they actually concerned citizens or, in fact, bad faith actors?

You don't know they are until their asylum claims have been processed. Around 70% are found to have a genuine case and so are not "effectively economic migrants". Those that are will eventually be refused asylum, and hopefully deported. Now,if only that assessment could be carried out before the attampt the crossing.

 

[The Future’s Blue!]

Bless.

You brought Brexit up ;-)

Bless?

I brought it up because it’s the exact same debate, just swap out the location that the migrants are coming from.

Some weird fuckers infest this thread.

 

[blueinsa]

You don't know they are until their asylum claims have been processed. Around 70% are found to have a genuine case and so are not "effectively economic migrants". Those that are will eventually be refused asylum, and hopefully deported. Now,if only that assessment could be carried out before the attampt the crossing.

I will wager that 70% will drastically drop as the government changes to a much tougher stance than where we are at now.

 

[The Future’s Blue!]

Surprised that Blueuntrue liked this post.

Is seems such a lazy generalisation I would have expected him to respond along the lines:

"classic insecurity - "the numbers don't fit my perception or belief therefore they must be wrong". As long as that attitude persists any Govt of any colour will never succeed in your eyes."

You do seem to have a problem with people, rather than the debate. Did somebody upset you in earlier life?

 

[John John]

I thought you'd already replied to my post, questioning the holiday claim, but looks like it was someone else.

As I said originally, you made a lot of points, and I picked out the holiday one because I used to with a lot of refugees, and know the law in that area. It's not the norm for them to be allowed to travel back to the country they left.

Afghan asylum seekers in UK after 'fleeing Taliban' have returned home 'to go on holiday'

The Afghans have been flying into Iran, then crossing the border

www.gbnews.com

It's in a few other newspapers as well They are going into Afghanistan with visas from Iran

 

[The Future’s Blue!]

I don't like the term. If someone escapes genocide but to do it they have to break the law of a neighbouring country to cross a border, are they illegal migrants or refugees?

Or people seeking asylum?

 

[Blue and true]

Asylum is costing the treasury nearly £7 Billion a year.

It shows no sign of stopping there either.

Money we should be spending elsewhere.

I’ve no time nor interest in your attempts to label everyone with concerns as a racist or those that marched.

If it makes you feel superior and better then crack on.

And as I laid out in my post, the issues you're concerned about (presumably these are the issues, no?) have been apparent for generations. I saw those concerns raised with Brexit; heard it all before. Did nurses start receiving fair pay? Did housing become more affordable for those most needy? Did public services receive the huge cash injection they were promised? Did any of these things happen post-brexit? After all, the bus told us it would happen. Like I said, heard it all before. It's called othering, blame those it's easy to blame for the country's ills, in reality, that blame is completely misdirected.

And I will label those that marched in London the other week, because they were marching in solidarity with a racist, degenerate criminal. It doesn't make me feel superior, but it makes me happy with who I am as a person and with my moral alignments.

 

[meltonblue]

Asylum is costing the treasury nearly £7 Billion a year.

It shows no sign of stopping there either.

Money we should be spending elsewhere.

I’ve no time nor interest in your attempts to label everyone with concerns as a racist or those that marched.

If it makes you feel superior and better then crack on.

You’re not saying we should be spending all of that money elsewhere here are you?

 

[Brewster's millions]

You don't know they are until their asylum claims have been processed. Around 70% are found to have a genuine case and so are not "effectively economic migrants". Those that are will eventually be refused asylum, and hopefully deported. Now,if only that assessment could be carried out before the attampt the crossing.

The success rate is around 70% because this government and the last one don’t have a clear plan, and they’re effectively waving them through in order to get people out of the system and free up capacity.

Which in turn provides absolutely zero deterrent to people making the crossings in the first place. Why would anyone apply for asylum before making the crossing when you have a roughly 70% chance of getting what you want if you can make it to the UK and convince people that you come from a particular country?

At worst they’ll have a few months, probably longer, playing PlayStation in a hotel having everything done for them.

It’s as simple as that.