Reform UK’s Plan to End Indefinite Leave to Remain

Immigration policy is once again at the heart of British politics. Reform UK, led by veteran campaigner Nigel Farage, has announced plans to abolish Indefinite Leave to Remain (ILR), the status that allows many migrants to settle permanently in the United Kingdom after five years of lawful residence.

If enacted, the proposal would fundamentally reshape the rules under which migrants live and work in Britain and raise significant legal and administrative questions.

Nigel Farage: A Brief Profile

Nigel Farage is one of the most recognised figures in UK politics. He first came to prominence as leader of the UK Independence Party (UKIP), becoming a leading voice in the campaign for the UK to leave the European Union.

He later founded the Brexit Party and now heads Reform UK, a party seeking to challenge both Conservative and Labour positions, especially on immigration and national sovereignty.

What Reform UK Proposes

Under the plan, migrants would no longer gain permanent settlement after five years.

Instead, they would need to reapply for visas every five years, meeting more demanding conditions such as higher salary thresholds and stricter English language requirements.

Reform also wants to limit access to welfare benefits and social housing to British citizens only, claiming that this could save up to £234 billion over several decades.

Independent economists and government ministers, however, have described this savings figure as unverified and likely overstated.

Other key aspects include:

Intended retrospective scope: The party has indicated that the new rules would apply to many people already living in the UK who are approaching eligibility for ILR, although the exact transition arrangements remain unclear.

Specialised visa routes: New categories would be created for entrepreneurs, investors and roles experiencing acute skills shortages.

Employers hiring from overseas would be required to train a UK worker alongside.

Citizenship delay: The minimum qualifying period for British citizenship would increase from six to seven years.

Reform UK argues that these measures would bring Britain’s immigration system closer to those used in the United States and the United Arab Emirates.

Political and Legal Reactions

The proposals have drawn strong criticism across the political spectrum. Chancellor Rachel Reeves said the projected savings “have no basis in reality.”

Conservative spokespeople described the plan as “half-baked and unworkable,” while the Liberal Democrats warned it could harm the economy and disrupt businesses that depend on migrant labour.

Legal commentators point out that applying the policy retrospectively would raise serious concerns about fairness and legitimate expectation.

Migrants who have complied with the current rules and built stable lives in Britain could challenge any loss of rights. Such a move could trigger judicial reviews or human-rights claims, leading to lengthy and costly court proceedings.

Analysis and Perspective

From a practical standpoint, enforcing this policy would be highly complex. Managing repeated visa applications for hundreds of thousands of long-term residents could overwhelm the immigration system and generate a surge of appeals.

It is equally important to recognise that migrants make significant contributions to the UK economy and society. They strengthen key sectors such as healthcare, hospitality and technology, pay taxes, and enrich community life.

Policies that create uncertainty about long-term settlement risk undermining these benefits and may deter skilled workers from choosing the UK.

Conclusion

Reform UK’s proposal to abolish Indefinite Leave to Remain is one of the most far-reaching immigration policy ideas seen in recent years.

Aimed at tightening control over migration and public spending, it raises profound questions about practicality, fairness and legality.

Whatever its political fate, the plan ensures that immigration and settlement will remain key issues in Britain’s national debate, challenging policymakers to balance border control with the proven economic and social value migrants bring.