Migrant and refugee groups condemn Government’s earned settlement reforms

A number of migrant and refugee organisations have strongly criticised the Government's earned settlement reforms, warning that extending the standard route to indefinite leave to remain from five to 10 years, and making refugees wait up to 30 years, will leave thousands facing prolonged uncertainty and insecurity.

Reunite Families UK (RFUK), a not for profit organisation supporting families affected spouse visa rules, said the changes will create uncertainty for many workers and their families. While it welcomed the Government's decision to assess household rather than individual income, RFUK noted it penalises families where one partner cares for children or elderly parents.

Highlighting a lack of clarity over some elements of the reforms, RFUK's Head of Policy and Advocacy commented: "It is still unclear whether partners of British citizens who hold a visa other than a spouse visa will be able to settle in 5 years or under the rules of that visa, not as the partner of a British citizen. The same lack of clarity applies to the partners of people who became British since their partner's first spouse visa application. Many details remain unclear and must be set out in the coming days. But overall, these changes are a cold shower for everyone who hoped Andy Burnham represented real change and a genuine chance to end the demonisation of migrants and newcomers. Instead, they risk building the 'island of strangers' his predecessor so infamously warned of."

Migrant Voice said it was "deeply disturbed" by the earned settlement policy, calling the reforms "cruel, discriminatory, inhumane and immoral".

Nazek Ramadan, Migrant Voice's Director, said: "These reforms represent a significant rollback in rights for people who have come to the United Kingdom, in good faith, to build their lives, and their families. The retroactive nature of some of these changes is distinctly immoral and goes against every notion of 'fairness' which the Home Secretary claims they are based on."

Migrant Voice also accused the Home Secretary of portraying migrants as "second class" commodities, with their ability to remain in the UK with their families based on how much they earn.

Praxis noted on social media that waiting for the official announcement on earned settlement has been hugely stressful for affected families. The organisation said its services would now be overwhelmed by people in urgent need of expert immigration advice and support.

Praxis said the policy "will upend the lives of working class families who've lived and worked here for years," and added: "Settlement should not be an endurance test. It's the foundation of a secure life, not a prize reserved for the highest earners. Security should not depend on your salary or the job you do."

Women for Refugee Women expressed deep concern at the Government's decision to press ahead with the policy, saying it will deepen insecurity and hardship for thousands of people.

With regard to the impact on refugees, Women for Refugee Women commented: "The proposals are especially punitive for people who arrive in the UK through so-called 'irregular' or 'illegal' routes, who could face a 30-year wait for settlement simply because of the route they were forced to take to reach safety. Yet for most people seeking asylum there is no safe route available to the UK and no way to apply for asylum from overseas. Many are left with no choice but to make dangerous journeys in order to survive. Lengthening the route to settlement will not prevent dangerous journeys. It will simply punish those who have already survived persecution, violence and displacement, forcing them to live with prolonged uncertainty about the future."

The charity also said the policy risks having a particularly severe impact on refugee and migrant women by entrenching existing gender inequalities and making it harder for women to meet the criteria required to secure permanent status.

The Helen Bamber Foundation (HBF) said in a statement that it was deeply alarmed and disappointed by the Government's announcement, warning it would cause "profound and lasting harm" to refugees. The Foundation called it "inhumane" to extend the qualifying period for settlement to 20 years for refugees who have not arrived through a safe and legal route.

It emphasised: "Stability and security are essential for recovery from trauma. Through our clinical work, we know that survivors of torture and trafficking who live under the constant threat of losing their immigration status, or who are repeatedly required to navigate complex and adversarial immigration processes, can experience worsening symptoms of anxiety, depression and post-traumatic stress disorder. Forcing refugees to wait decades for the security of settlement risks exacerbating trauma, increasing the likelihood of destitution and preventing people from rebuilding their lives."

HBF added that the policy risks entrenching poverty, insecurity and exclusion.

NACCOM (No Accommodation Network) said Monday was a "dark day for those who believe in the UK as a country of welcome and sanctuary".

Noting that the policy means that migrants who claim welfare support will be penalised, and no-one will be able to settle if they have welfare support within the previous five years, NACCOM warned: "The changes will also discourage people from accessing essential welfare support, which they are entitled to, for fear of extending their wait for settlement. For those already experiencing financial insecurity or struggling to access safe accommodation and support, a longer route to settlement could further compound these difficulties, making it even harder to find stability and continue rebuilding their lives. Many of the people affected are already working hard, contributing to their community, paying taxes, and raising families. For newly arrived refugees, finding housing and work will now become harder as their future looks increasingly uncertain."

NACCOM called it "utterly counterproductive" policymaking that will only lead to greater poverty, insecure and unstable lives, and fractured communities.

Skill Migrants Alliance said in a statement on Facebook, that the retrospective application of the new rules raised questions about fairness, legitimate expectations and legal certainty.

The group said it had requested an urgent legal consultation with law firm Kingsley Napley to examine whether there were grounds for a judicial review and how strong any legal challenge might be. It said it is also considering whether the Government's decision to offer transitional protection to some care workers who arrived before May 2025 could provide a basis for similar protections for other existing Skilled Worker visa holders. The Alliance said it would share its assessment and proposed next steps after receiving legal advice.