Writing to your MP about Government proposals on settlement (permanent residence)

The following text may be used to write to your MP about these proposals. 

Dear MP

I am one of your constituents. I am writing to raise my deep concern at the immigration proposals set out in the Government paper A Fairer Pathway to Settlement published last month. Amnesty International UK has produced a short briefing on the proposals set out in this paper (that can be found here).

Among the proposals relating to settlement are that:

1. The Government will change the way in which those migrant people who are permitted to settle (become permanent residents) may do so. In particular, it will introduce a system by which the period of time (and therefore the number of successful applications for permission to stay) that someone must spend with only temporary permission to stay will vary. It has called this system “earned settlement.” The starting point is that this period is to be 10 years for most migrant people.

2. The period may be made shorter – for example, only 3 years for very high earners (with salaries over £125,140); or between 5-7 years for someone who can demonstrate “extensive” volunteering. It may be made longer – for example, 20 years for someone who has lawfully received public funds for more than 12 months; or 30 years for someone who first arrived without permission or has in the past overstayed permission that was granted to them.

3. People recognised as refugees in the UK’s asylum system will have a starting point of 20 years from the point they are first recognised as refugees. This may be many months or years after they first arrived and claimed asylum. In the meantime, they will be required to apply for permission to stay every 30 months.

Although far more complex and harsher, these proposals are not entirely new. What the Government refers to as “earned settlement” is in part based on proposals first introduced by a Labour Home Secretary (Jacqui Smith/Alan Johnson) via the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009. Its approach to refugee settlement is also in part based on proposals first introduced by a Conservative Home Secretary (Priti Patel) via the Nationality and Borders Act 2022.

These proposals are intended to make the immigration and asylum system harsher – except for migrant people who are relatively wealthy and/or with particularly privileged educational advantage. This is objectionable for several reasons including:

1. The system for settlement ought to ensure that migrant people who are going to be staying are encouraged and enabled to integrate well. These proposals do precisely the opposite – except for migrant people who are already advantaged by relative wealth and privileged education. At their heart is an awful notion of social contribution that regards wealth and privilege as signifiers of worth and treats people who are not very high or high earners as if contributing little or nothing. This is fundamentally socially divisive – treating the work of surgeons as socially valuable but that of hospital cleaners as not; or treating high earners as socially valuable and integrated even if the person may be a poor parent, colleague or neighbour, or live a life wholly separated from the great majority.

2. The Government asserts a concern about growing social division, which it identifies in hate and racism directed towards some refugees and other migrants. However, it is giving implicit justification for some of that hate. By creating conditions in which more people are liable to face social isolation (including destitution, homelessness, ill-health and exploitation) it is exacerbating division and some of the social ills that enable that to thrive.

3. The Government is making far more work for the Home Office and increasing its costs. It will have to deal with thousands more applications for permission to stay by people, who will need to make many more applications and far more frequently. It is also making work and costs for other Government departments. These proposals have serious implications for the legal aid system, the courts, the NHS and local authorities among others. Worse, since the Home Office and courts are already struggling to manage their workloads, it is highly likely that costs will be made far greater by the further dysfunction this additional work will cause.

4. The likely human rights impact is dire. Increasing the severity of the immigration and asylum systems can only increase the dependence of migrant people on human rights laws to protect their most basic needs and interests. In any event, the human, financial and social harms of what is being proposed will not ease tension concerning migration and human rights but rather make this worse. While the Government is formally committed to the European Convention on Human Rights, its current actions and proposals put the future of this country’s participation in this regional human rights agreement at significant risk.

I urge you to please raise these concerns with ministers and would be grateful to hear from you as to how you intend to respond to the proposals.