Who Gets to Belong?
- kimm59
- Feb 10
- 6 min read
The Human Cost of the UK’s New Settlement Proposals
In November 2025, the Home Office launched a public consultation titled “A Fairer Pathway to Settlement”, with responses due by 12 February 2026.
This blog outlines what is being proposed, who will be affected, what we are hearing from people on the ground, and why these changes risk causing lasting harm.
At first glance, the title suggests reform rooted in equity and integration. In practice, the proposals amount to one of the most restrictive overhauls of the UK’s settlement system in decades, with profound consequences for migrants, families, communities, and the organisations that support them.
Settlement, also known as Indefinite Leave to Remain (ILR), is the point at which a person can live permanently in the UK without immigration restrictions. It is a prerequisite for British citizenship and provides lifelong stability. Crucially, it is the moment people can finally plan their lives with certainty.
These proposals affect every migrant who has not yet secured settlement, regardless of how long they have already lived in the UK, whether they are already on a path to settle or not.
This is not a technical adjustment. It is a structural shift, and it is happening with limited public awareness.
Why Settlement Matters
Settlement underpins integration, stability, family unity, and sustained contribution.
It enables people to:
Plan for the future
Progress in work and education
Build secure family lives
Invest in communities and local economies
By contrast, prolonged insecurity damages mental health, increases vulnerability to exploitation, and undermines integration.
The proposals risk transforming settlement from a foundation for belonging into a gatekeeping mechanism, where permanence is contingent on narrow economic or behavioural benchmarks - often disconnected from real life, structural barriers, or long-term contribution.
This consultation may be the only opportunity to influence a framework that could otherwise lock inequality into the system for generations.
What Is Being Proposed?
At the centre of the consultation is the introduction of an “earned settlement” model.
Under this approach, settlement would no longer be something people reach by living lawfully in the UK over time.
Instead, individuals would be required to continually demonstrate worthiness through assessed behaviour, earnings, and perceived compliance.
Proposed change | What it means |
Longer baseline | The standard route to settlement would increase from 5 to 10 years for most migrants, with time adjusted up or down based on assessed “contribution”. |
Conditional progression | Settlement could be delayed well beyond 10 years if individuals are judged to fall short against set criteria, even where they are working, integrating, and complying with the rules. |
Unequal routes | Some groups may retain shorter or tailored pathways, creating uneven access to settlement across migrant groups. |
Dependants assessed separately | Partners and adult dependants may be required to earn settlement independently, rather than settling with the main applicant, prolonging family insecurity. |
Extended NRPF | Access to public funds may be restricted until citizenship, extending periods of enforced hardship even after settlement. |
The Four Pillars of “Earned Settlement”
Settlement would be assessed against four pillars
(Baseline qualifying period: 10 years)
Pillar | Minimum requirement to qualify for baseline | Attribute assessed | Adjustment to qualifying period |
Suitability & Character | Must meet suitability requirements under the Immigration Rules (e.g. no criminal conviction). Must have no current litigation, NHS, tax, or other government debt. | Failure to meet suitability criteria | Does not qualify for baseline route |
Integration | Must meet English language requirement at B2 level and pass the Life in the UK test. | Failure to meet suitability criteria | Does not qualify for baseline route |
English language proficiency at C1 level | –1 year (minimum 9 years) | ||
Contribution | Must demonstrate contribution through work or income (minimum earnings of £12,570 for 3–5 years, subject to consultation). | Working in a low-paid role (below RQF Level 6, including Skilled Worker and Health & Care routes) | +5 years (minimum 15 years) |
Receipt of public funds for less than 12 months | +5 years (minimum 15 years) | ||
Receipt of public funds for more than 12 months | +10 years (minimum 20 years) | ||
Taxable income of £125,140 for 3 years prior to application | –7 years (minimum 3 years) | ||
Taxable income of £50,270 for 3 years prior to application | –5 years (minimum 5 years) | ||
Employment in a specified public service occupation for 5 years | –5 years (minimum 5 years) | ||
Community contribution (e.g. volunteering) | –3 to –5 years (minimum 5–7 years) | ||
Entry & Residence | Must have entered the UK legally and not overstayed or switched from a visitor visa. | Irregular entry, entry as a visitor, or overstaying for 6 months or more | Up to +20 years (maximum 30 years) |
3 years’ continuous residence as a Global Talent or Innovator Founder visa holder | –7 years (minimum 3 years) |
Who Will Be Affected?
From frontline data, the impacts are extensive. Reviewing our current database of 583 migrants:
Nearly 80% would be negatively affected
Over 50% are already on a pathway to settlement
Almost anyone without ILR today would face longer waits or new barriers
In practical terms:
Low-paid workers (care, hospitality, cleaning, retail) could wait 15 years or more
Refugees may be penalised for unavoidable reliance on public support during forced transitions
Graduates and early-career professionals risk extended precarity due to lower starting salaries
Families may no longer settle together
Children face prolonged instability during formative years
People who followed the rules could see the goalposts moved mid-journey
What We Are Hearing on the Ground
Across our support work, several themes come up repeatedly:
People feel their contributions are not recognised or valued
Low-paid but essential work is treated as a failure, not a contribution
Individuals are being penalised for following the rules set for them
Circumstances beyond anyone’s control (illness, caring, homelessness risk) are used against them
Long-term insecurity is causing anxiety, disengagement, and loss of trust
The following quotes are drawn from anonymised case studies and frontline support work carried out during the consultation period:
“It feels like the finish line has been moved just as I was getting close. No matter how much I do, it will never be enough under the new system.”
“I made life-changing decisions based on the five-year route. Changing the rules halfway through feels deeply unfair and destabilising.”
“My work counts, but not to the system”
“I work as a care worker. My job is physically and emotionally demanding, but under these rules I could be forced to wait 15 years because my income is low.”
“I work full time, pay tax, and still feel treated as a problem rather than a contributor.”
“I’m being punished for circumstances beyond my control”
“I relied on Universal Credit after being forced to leave Home Office accommodation. That wasn’t a choice — it was survival. Now it could add five years to my settlement.”
“After years of being prohibited from working, being penalised for needing support is cruel and disconnected from reality.”
“This keeps me in constant anxiety”
“The uncertainty affects my mental health. I can’t plan, I can’t settle, and I’m always worried something will change again.”
“Being asked to re-prove my fear of persecution feels like reliving the asylum process all over again.”
“My children will pay the price”
“My children go to school here. This is their home. Prolonging insecurity harms them most.
Children should not grow up wondering if they belong.”
These are not isolated stories. They are systemic outcomes of policy design.
The Wider Impacts
Insecurity undermines integration, participation, and social cohesion. People cannot invest in places they are unsure they can remain.
Charities and community groups will face:
Increased demand for immigration-related support
Greater hardship requiring crisis intervention
Additional safeguarding risks
Unfunded administrative burdens if asked to evidence “contribution”
These costs are simply displaced onto the third sector.
Why the Framing Is Misleading
The title “A Fairer Pathway to Settlement” is profoundly misleading.
What is being proposed is not fairness, but conditional belonging. It creates a hierarchy of worth based on income, education, and compliance, privileging those with the fewest barriers while punishing those navigating trauma, or structural disadvantage.
This is not evidence-based integration policy. It is appeasement, designed to signal toughness rather than support cohesion.
What a Fairer Settlement System Would Look Like
A genuinely fair system would:
Retain existing settlement timelines
Honour transitional arrangements for those already on routes
Assess character proportionately and contextually
Recognise integration as lived participation, not test performance
Value contribution broadly, including care, community participation, and persistence
Prioritise child wellbeing and family unity
Ensure settlement includes access to public funds
Above all, settlement should provide stability, not extend precarity.
There is hope, yet.
This consultation closes 12 February 2026. The window to influence policy is narrow but real.
You can influence change by:
Submitting an individual response
Supporting an organisational response
Sharing evidence and lived experience
Encouraging others to engage before the deadline
Settlement policy shapes lives for decades. This moment matters.
A fair system does not ask people to endlessly prove they deserve to belong.
It provides stability first. Because stability is what enables contribution, integration, and thriving.
Comments