Tories Won’t Deport Legally Settled People, Badenoch Confirms

(UNITED KINGDOM) Kemi Badenoch has moved to shut down speculation that the Conservatives would seek to expel migrants with lawful status, saying the party will not deport people who are legally settled in the UK after a backlash to remarks by shadow Home Office minister Katie Lam suggesting some legal migrants should “go home.” A spokesperson for the Conservative Party leader said the policy targets only illegal immigrants and foreign criminals, not those with lawful status, following days of criticism from opposition politicians and migrant groups.

The clarification came after Lam told the Sunday Times:

“There are also a large number of people in this country who came here legally, but in effect shouldn’t have been able to do so… They will also need to go home. What that will leave is a mostly but not entirely culturally coherent group of people.”
Her comments prompted immediate cross-party condemnation and anxiety among families who have secured visas and paid thousands of pounds in fees, and who feared they could be swept into a pledge to “Deport all illegal immigrants.”

Badenoch underscored the dividing line in her party’s position during her conference speech, vowing to target unlawful entrants and offenders rather than the lawfully resident.

“Deport all illegal immigrants immediately upon arrival and all foreign criminals. A new Force to remove 150,000 people a year with no right to be here,” she said.
The emphasis on removals has been central to the Conservatives’ Borders Plan unveiled in October 2025, which proposes a dedicated removals unit modeled on the US immigration enforcement agency ICE, with the capacity to deport 150,000 people annually who have no right to remain.

Lam’s remarks cut across that message by appearing to include long‑term residents with valid status. Liberal Democrat leader Sir Ed Davey wrote to Badenoch to demand clarity, saying:

“People who have come to the United Kingdom legally, played by the rules and made it their home do not need to ‘go home’. This is their home.”
Green Party leader Zack Polanski questioned the premise behind Lam’s comments, asking: “If we want to talk about coherency, what does this even mean? Who gets to decide what is or isn’t culturally coherent?” Labour MP Rachael Maskell urged respect for legal status and community ties, stating: “If people are granted the right to be in the UK, we must recognise the enormous contribution that they bring and ensure that they and their children are properly integrated into our communities.”

Badenoch’s team responded by drawing a clear boundary between enforcement against unlawful presence and the rights of those who are legally settled. Her spokesperson said the party’s position focuses on illegal immigrants and foreign criminals, not people with lawful status. That distinction matters for hundreds of thousands of families who have built lives in Britain under existing rules and who worried that an opposition pledge might be interpreted as a mandate to revisit settled cases or reinterpret the meaning of lawful residence.

The political row has also highlighted the financial and emotional stakes for those on formal immigration pathways. One individual described the expense of maintaining legal status across several years as a family:

“Visa fees and associated costs for my spouse and one dependent have totaled about £15,000 ($20,000) so far… ILR will cost another £6,000, if we’re eligible to apply by then.”
For many, those costs reflect a promise of stability that they feared could be undermined by signals that some who followed the rules could still be told to leave.

The Conservatives’ policy trail over the past year explains how the confusion arose. The Borders Plan, set out in October 2025, calls for tough action against people with no right to remain and foreign offenders, including a new removals force with annual deportation targets of 150,000. Earlier, in February 2025, the party floated a proposal that would prevent people from claiming permanent settled status, known as Indefinite Leave to Remain (ILR), if they were claiming benefits at the time of application. That plan did not propose deporting those already legally settled, but it signalled a more restrictive approach to future settlement. To understand ILR and eligibility, the UK government’s guidance on Indefinite Leave to Remain is published here: Indefinite Leave to Remain (ILR) guidance on GOV.UK.

The debate intensified in May 2025 when a Conservative bill proposed revoking ILR for anyone whose income falls below £38,700 for six months or more, or if they or their dependents have received any form of “social protection.” With the Conservatives in opposition, the bill has “zero chance of becoming law.” Even so, the proposal sparked concern that once-secure status could be made contingent on income and benefits rules that fluctuate with economic conditions, family size, or health needs, raising the spectre of retroactive penalties for families who arrived legally and complied with the system.

Badenoch’s intervention appears aimed at closing off that interpretation. By explicitly stating that legally settled migrants are not at risk of deportation under current Conservative policy, she has sought to reassure those holding or seeking ILR that the party’s enforcement drive is focused on people without lawful status and on foreign offenders. Her emphasis on “Deport all illegal immigrants” alongside foreign criminals forms the centrepiece of the enforcement agenda, while avoiding a clash with the principle that those who are legally settled have earned stability through compliance and contribution.

The political reaction to Lam’s interview also underscored that point. Ed Davey’s letter framed the issue around trust in the system and the social contract that underpins legal migration. Zack Polanski’s question about “coherency” challenged the criteria by which anyone might judge who belongs, while Rachael Maskell’s emphasis on integration pointed to the local realities of schools, workplaces, and neighbourhoods that rely on people who have settled here under the rules. The cross‑party chorus reflects a broader concern that blurring the lines between lawful and unlawful status would weaken Britain’s reputation for fairness and due process.

For families watching from the sidelines, the lines matter. People who are legally settled have structured mortgages, jobs, and school runs around published rules, timetables and fees. They cite the paper trail—visa records, biometric enrollments, employer checks, school admissions—that comes with lawful status. The individual who put their combined visa costs at about £15,000, with another £6,000 anticipated for ILR, exemplified a wider message from applicants who say the point of paying and complying is certainty. The idea that a person could still be told to “go home” despite having followed every step rattled many in the days after Lam’s comments.

Within Conservative ranks, the core policy thrust remains removals of people who have no permission to stay and of foreign criminals, and the creation of a dedicated enforcement apparatus with a 150,000‑a‑year deportation capacity. Badenoch’s conference line—

“Deport all illegal immigrants immediately upon arrival and all foreign criminals. A new Force to remove 150,000 people a year with no right to be here”
— is the shorthand her party will likely continue to use. Her office’s confirmation that this does not include people who are legally settled is intended to blunt the fallout from the Lam interview and reset the conversation on to border control and criminal removals.

Yet the episode has left a mark. Opponents argue that even floating ideas about retrospectively toughening conditions for ILR damages confidence and may deter skilled workers and families who weigh not just salaries and schools but also the stability of the rules. Supporters of stricter curbs, meanwhile, say the immigration system should be more selective and responsive to pressures on housing, services, and wages. Lam’s phrase about a “mostly but not entirely culturally coherent group of people” added a cultural dimension to an argument that had been cast primarily in legal and enforcement terms, triggering questions about who defines the nation’s social fabric and on what basis.

As of October 30, 2025, the Conservative position is that there are no plans to deport legally settled migrants, and that proposals to revoke settled status for legal migrants are not government policy. Badenoch’s office has made plain that the priority is to remove those in the country unlawfully and foreign offenders, and to build the capacity to do so at scale. That restated line is designed to reassure people who are legally settled while maintaining a hard edge on irregular migration—a balance the party hopes to keep as it pushes its Borders Plan and distances itself from the turmoil around Katie Lam’s remarks.

For now, the dividing line the Conservatives want to draw is simple: tough enforcement against those here unlawfully and foreign offenders, protection for those here legally. The political test will be whether that message holds as debates over thresholds, benefits, and integration return to the fore, and whether trust, once shaken by talk of asking people who “came here legally” to “go home,” can be restored by a promise not to reach beyond the pledge to Deport all illegal immigrants.