Farage vows to end ILR, migrants reapply for five-year visa

First, detected linkable resources in order of appearance:
1. Home Office ILR guidance (uscis_resource) — appears once
2. Home Office ILR guidance (policy) — appears once

Now the article with government links added. I have linked only the first mention of each resource name in the article body, using verified .gov URLs and the exact resource names as they appear. No other changes were made.

Nigel Farage said he would abolish Indefinite Leave to Remain (ILR) and replace it with a five‑year renewable work visa, forcing many long‑term residents to reapply under stricter rules that include a higher salary threshold and tougher English language tests. Announced by Reform UK and framed as a reset of the system, the pledge is not law and would only take effect if the party wins power and passes legislation. Farage’s team says up to 800,000 people could lose their current status unless Parliament rejects the plan.

The proposal would be retroactive. That means migrants who already hold ILR—often after years of living, working, and paying taxes in Britain—would be required to reapply under the new work route. They would lose the permanence that ILR provides, including security of stay and a well‑established path to citizenship. Reform UK also wants to block access to welfare benefits, ban dependents on the visa, and lengthen the route to citizenship.

Reform UK’s stated aims and claimed savings

Supporters inside Reform UK say the plan aims to:

• End what Farage calls “cheap foreign labor.”
• Cut long‑term public costs.
• Tilt the jobs market toward British workers.

The party cites headline savings of £234bn per migrant lifetime, a figure critics dispute and economists say requires much more detail. According to Reform UK’s argument, tightening the system would raise wages and reduce pressure on public services. The party has not published full draft legislation, but it has set out the main policy features and the political path it would need to follow.

Current ILR system (what stands now)

Under the present ILR rules:

• Many migrants settle after five years of lawful residence, subject to suitability checks, English language abilities, and absence rules.
• ILR allows people to live and work in the UK without time limits.
• After a further year (with some exceptions), ILR holders can seek citizenship if they meet strict criteria.

The Home Office explains the present rules on its official page for ILR applicants, which remains in force today because Farage’s proposal is not law. Readers can find those rules on the Home Office ILR guidance.

Key features of the proposed five‑year renewable work visa

As set out by Reform UK, the main policy proposals include:

• Abolish ILR retroactively and require all ILR holders to reapply under a new five‑year renewable work visa.
• Impose a higher salary threshold and tougher English language tests for entry and renewal.
• No access to welfare benefits for migrants on the new visa.
• No dependents allowed on the route.
• Tougher, longer route to citizenship, with details to be set later.
• Estimated impact: Farage claims up to 800,000 people could lose ILR unless the policy is rejected in Parliament.
• Stated aims: curb “cheap foreign labor,” protect taxpayers, and prioritise British workers.

The five‑year renewable visa would not grant automatic renewal. Migrants would need to show they continue to meet the higher salary and language requirements. Dependents would be barred from joining visa holders.

Criticisms and legal concerns

Critics—including immigration lawyers and community groups—say the retroactive element is the most disruptive:

• People who planned their lives around ILR (buying homes, building careers, raising children) could face the shock of reapplying for a status they believed was secure.
• Legal specialists warn of court challenges, noting UK law generally resists retroactive changes that remove vested rights without due process.
• Revoking ILR at scale could trigger complex appeals, human rights claims, and case backlogs that would stretch an already burdened system.

Legal scholars point to obligations under international law and the European Convention on Human Rights:

Revoking ILR en masse raises questions about proportionality, private and family life, and legitimate expectation.

Courts will likely examine whether the government phases any change, provides protections for long‑term residents, and handles cases where people fall short of the new thresholds through no fault of their own (for example carers, charity workers, or part‑time parents).

Practical and administrative impacts

From a practical standpoint:

• The Home Office would face a processing surge if hundreds of thousands must reapply within a short window.
• Casework delays could produce gaps in right‑to‑work checks, rental agreements, and access to services.
• Employers would need to re‑verify staff; mismatches between Home Office records and employer systems could lead to wrongful suspensions or dismissals.
• The cost in lost productivity could be substantial even before considering legal appeals.

There are many unknowns Reform UK has not clarified:

• Whether certain groups (health workers, teachers, people with British children) would get carve‑outs.
• Whether renewals would be phased to avoid a single cliff edge.
• Fee levels for reapplications and how stricter English tests would account for age, disability, or UK schooling.

Health and disability advocates warn that blanket tests risk pushing out people who contribute in many ways but cannot meet rigid standards.

Impact on families and communities

The ban on dependents and retroactive design create acute family and community concerns:

• Skilled workers on the new visa would not be allowed to bring spouses, partners, or children.
• For families already settled under ILR, choices could include: leave the UK together, split households to keep a job, or try to meet independent family routes that may be unavailable under the new rules.
• Schools, employers, and local councils fear sudden gaps if families are forced to move.
• Children who are British citizens could face decisions about staying without a parent or leaving with them—outcomes family courts view as deeply harmful.

Community groups argue changing the rules after people have followed existing procedures undermines trust in the rule of law and could chill skilled recruitment and international student choices.

Employer and sector consequences

Employers warn the higher salary threshold would particularly affect sectors where pay progression is slow or regional, such as:

• Social care
• Hospitality
• Logistics
• Parts of the National Health Service

If the bar rises sharply, valued workers could fail renewal even when employers want to keep them, leading to:

• Costly turnover
• Training gaps
• Service delays

Reform UK argues that higher pay would attract domestic workers. Economists counter that sudden salary hikes do not quickly increase the domestic supply of workers and do not provide training pipelines or childcare support—so vacancies could remain unfilled while costs rise.

Political and constitutional implications

The plan goes beyond rhetorical tightening and targets ILR itself—a long‑standing cornerstone of settlement. The parliamentary process would need to consider:

• Constitutional norms (retroactivity, legitimate expectation).
• Human cost to established communities.
• Operational impact on employers and public services.
• Possible amendments that soften retroactivity, preserve dependents in certain categories, or protect those with British children.

Mainstream parties’ responses and business group reactions may shape how far the proposal gets beyond rhetoric into law.

Human stories and everyday stakes

Everyday profiles illustrate the human stakes:

• A teacher with 12 years in Birmingham holding ILR may face renewal against a salary bar her pay scale cannot clear.
• A care home manager whose spouse works part‑time while raising children could choose between family unity and a job.
• A nurse who arrived a decade ago, passed every exam, and saved for a home could be told permanence no longer applies.

These scenarios are common across the country and underline the personal impact beyond abstract policy debate.

Expert perspective and analysis

Policy analysts describe the proposal as a dramatic shift rather than a modest tightening. Key implications include:

• Redefining settlement as a conditional privilege, not a stable outcome after years of contribution.
• Increasing compliance risks and workforce churn for employers if staff can be re‑tested at renewal.
• Potential legal hurdles around large‑scale revocation of settled status.

Farage’s estimate that up to 800,000 people could lose ILR has heightened anxiety across communities with deep UK roots. Critics say that even if Parliament moderates the plan, the number underlines the scale of potential upheaval.

Current status and advice

For now, ILR remains in place. People considering settlement can still apply under current rules and timelines. Those holding ILR today keep their status unless and until Parliament changes the law.

Experts suggest practical steps for individuals to prepare:

• Maintain clear records of residence, tax, and employment.
• Keep passports and biometric cards up to date.
• Follow official updates from the Home Office and legal advisers.

These records could matter in any transition scheme or appeals process if the political landscape shifts.

Final balance: competing visions

Reform UK’s message is straightforward: permanence should be replaced with conditional stay linked to work and language. The counterargument is that stability for those who followed the rules builds stronger communities and a fairer system.

If the plan advances, the road through Parliament will test both policy aims and constitutional principles. Lawmakers will need to weigh claimed public savings against the operational burdens and human costs to established communities. Amendments could soften the transition or a strict bill could redefine settlement as continuously conditional.

Until Parliament acts, ILR stands, the five‑year renewable work visa remains a pledge, and the country watches to see if politics turns this promise into policy or leaves it on the campaign trail.