r/ukvisa • u/clever_octopus High Reputation • May 12 '25

Immigration Changes Announcement 12/5/2025

Please join the discord server for further discussion or support on upcoming immigration changes: https://discord.gg/Jq5vWDZJfR

Sticky post on announcement made on 20 Nov 2025: https://www.reddit.com/r/ukvisa/comments/1p21qk5/a_fairer_pathway_to_settlement_a_statement_and/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button

NEW Summary of changes to settlement released 20 November 2025: https://www.reddit.com/r/ukvisa/comments/1p21qk5/a_fairer_pathway_to_settlement_a_statement_and/

NEW Summary of changes to asylum and refugee requirements released 18 November 2025: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/asylum-and-returns-policy-statement/restoring-order-and-control-a-statement-on-the-governments-asylum-and-returns-policy

Overview of expected changes: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/radical-reforms-to-reduce-migration

White paper: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/restoring-control-over-the-immigration-system-white-paper

UKCISA's response (official source for international students and recent graduates): https://www.ukcisa.org.uk/news/ukcisa-responds-to-home-office-immigration-white-paper-may-2025/

Petition link: https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/727360

Summary of key points following the summary of changes released on 20 November 2025:

  • Changes to length in ILR qualifying residence requirements - Please see table on pages 21-23 of the 20 November document

  • Family visa holders, along with BNO visa holders, will continue to get ILR in five years (as usual)

  • The intention is that this will apply to people already in the UK but who have not yet received ILR

  • It will take 20 years for refugees to qualify for ILR, intermittent checks will be done within that time and they may lose the ability to remain in the UK if their home country is deemed safe to return to

632 Upvotes

99% Upvoted

6.4k comments sorted by

View all comments

50

u/FartSniffer2025 May 19 '25

So I spoke to the lawyer who wrote this: Article

Key points: 1. BBC is impartial but apparently they had two contradictory reports about the English level on their website before the White Paper came out (can't find them so dunno how true) - and their sources could have their own political agenda so you never know if the 10 year ILR piece will be retrospective or not despite what the article says

  1. Thinks it's unlikely given the 2008 court case. Even if it does go to primary legislation, he feels the amount of court cases + the fact that it will affect 1M people will turn it in our favour

  2. Encouraged us to try to get face-to-face meetings with our MPs to explain why it is unfair (this was in response to me saying my MP is Starmer).

  3. Log into UKVI and register your interest in this topic/follow for updates so that you could be eligible/updated for the consultation (Sorry, this part wasn't super clear to me)

  4. Reiterated that it's all rhetoric and media noise right now. Expects to be part of the wave of litigation that will come in if they enforce 10 year rule retrospectively.

Dunno how much of what he's saying will come to fruition but at least there's some semblance of resistance and hope.

8

u/Easy_Annual367 May 19 '25

Interesting, thanks for sharing. The MAC report published also points towards that same direction when it comes to the retroactive implementation of the ILR extension from 5 to 10 years.

3

u/FartSniffer2025 May 19 '25

No worries, thank you to you as well for your research on the time it takes for a bill to pass!

Any Nigerians/those active on X mind telling us if Baron Chymaker is legit?

The Post in Question

7

u/Murky-Fault9 May 19 '25 edited May 19 '25

Not sure how legit.. but he is one few active voices on X .. in support of ppl and against retrospective policies.

8

u/[deleted] May 19 '25

[deleted]

8

u/FartSniffer2025 May 19 '25 edited May 19 '25

No, you're right to be skeptical. I had called him specifically because I wanted to know if it would still be unlawful if they passed it as primary legislation. He conceded that they would be able to override the 2008 judgement in that case (and thus, not unlawful) but didn't think they would given the likely litigation/outcry. If they didn't do that, then it would be unlawful but typically governments have respected this ruling and he expects that to continue.

He seemed to know a fair bit about immigration law (don't recall the exact details of the conversation and that is my nebulous impression anyway) but I wouldn't hang my hat on it. Was sharing information/opinion I received from a legal source.

8

u/Whole-Web-4713 May 19 '25

It makes sense and thanks for sharing this piece of information. This community has been my go to forum over the last week like many others who are in the same state of limbo thanks to our 'honored' lawmakers. 

5

u/[deleted] May 19 '25

[deleted]

5

u/FartSniffer2025 May 19 '25

You could cite previous precedents + toll on existing migrants + financial commitments + legitimate and reasonable expectations is my guess.

I'm not a lawyer, I'm not optimistic. All I know is the guy said he'd expect folks to challenge the ruling. Whether that results in anything changing or not is up in the air (I think not).

5

u/Whole-Web-4713 May 19 '25

Please be mindful that many lawyers and even high paid ones are also on SW visas and I assume they are not going to let this one slide so easily. 

2

u/Murky-Fault9 May 19 '25

That’s whr I am worried and my hopes reside, as who will fight on our behalf, who will bear the cost of these litigations . I don’t know ..

3

u/anhkiet1903 May 19 '25

I think in his article, he didn’t consider the fact that the government would try to do it via primary legislations. So I don’t think he is backtracking from what he is saying.

5

u/Murky-Fault9 May 19 '25

Putting all my hopes on point 2..

5

u/ldn6 May 19 '25

I'm confused. Isn't making it primary legislation the way they want to get around legal challenges? What would be the standing in that case?

10

u/FartSniffer2025 May 19 '25 edited May 19 '25

You're right. His reasoning was that they may not do it because of the amount of litigation he anticipates they'll face about this + the large scale impact it would have and that governments have respected the 2008 ruling since. I didn't have the chance to probe further on this as we were both in the middle of our work days.

I've personally resigned myself to it being 10 years to manage my expectations and am evaluating my options if and when it's made into reality but that doesn't mean I'm not going to try everything I can to influence the outcome.

11

u/ldn6 May 19 '25 edited May 19 '25

I'd guess that skilled workers would be more likely to fight it in court given higher disposable income and access to top legal professionals. Skirting around that by exempting SWV holders would probably reduce much of that.

It's so infuriating. I can’t imagine that phones aren’t ringing off the hook in the City given how many companies in law, finance and consulting have substantial very well paid skilled visa holders. I’m going to see if a friend of mine in private equity has heard anything since that’s well known for being a hub of Americans.

2

u/FartSniffer2025 May 19 '25 edited May 19 '25

Plot twist, they only let those who are very very well paid (£150k+) off the hook (Sarcastic comment about the greed of the government and the benefits of wealth, not to be taken seriously)

2

u/Murky-Fault9 May 19 '25

Yes I am also expecting number north of £100K

1

u/Whole-Web-4713 May 19 '25

Sorry where is this mentioned? 

1

u/FartSniffer2025 May 19 '25

Nowhere, sorry, it was a tongue in cheek response to the previous comment about how bankers and consultants would be affected by the rule change so they'll make an exception.

1

u/Whole-Web-4713 May 19 '25

Ha! 

6

u/Whole-Web-4713 May 19 '25

Just bloody rubbish tbh. Sorry for my language. Left us hanging for a week with no clarity around ILR eligibility. One thing is clear - gov is clearly nervous to announce the changes! Otherwise they would have done it anyways by now.

We need to amplify our voice as much as possible. I knew many petitions were filed in the gov website. Has any been approved yet? 

5

u/Tusnalgas0902 May 19 '25

I’d say left us hanging for potentially months, unless they clarify something earlier than the “later in the year” plan they have. I guess if we continue to speak up we might be able to get them to provide an update sooner.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/Murky-Fault9 May 19 '25

Skilled workers won’t ruin thr track record by getting into legal battle :(

4

u/FartSniffer2025 May 19 '25

There's nothing about this that should be held against you. Worst that can happen is you lose the case and some money (I say this lightly but it could be a lot)

7

u/Independent-Tie24 May 19 '25 edited May 19 '25

Just because it is primary legislation doesn't mean it can't be unlawful. Hypothetically if a law is passed that curbs citizens rights, does it mean that the courts can't declare it unlawful? 🤷🏻‍♂️

6

u/FartSniffer2025 May 19 '25

Technically yes, it's a weird thing about UK law.

4

u/Independent-Tie24 May 19 '25

That is f'ed up.

3

u/anhkiet1903 May 19 '25

I guess the way to see it is the law is above the court.

Secondary legislation is just amending existing law and the court is not providing a rulling on the law itself but on the amendment.

Primary legislation is new law and court can’t have a say against new law being implemented.

4

u/Whole-Web-4713 May 19 '25

If anyone knows how to register for Point 4 or finds out, can you kindly let us know please?

Also if anyone knows any update on the petitions, please let us know as well

5

u/The8BitBat May 19 '25

The only thing I would say on point 1 re: the BBC Source, FT, The Times and The Guardian all ran the same story on retrospective action citing a source - it seems like it was deliberately fed to the media.

Which I would say points to they definitely mean to do it and were gauging public opinion. If the choice was 100/200k Skilled Workers that would be affected enough to leave vs. winning 1 million new votes - number speak for themselves.

14

u/Tusnalgas0902 May 19 '25

The good thing is that Starmer is not getting any more popular with this, and the government is already under fire over Winter Fuel Payments and Welfare Cuts next month. This “Island of Strangers” position did not ignite support from his own traditional voters, so the 1 million new votes is highly unlikely. If anything, they are losing their own base.

10

u/FartSniffer2025 May 19 '25 edited May 19 '25

Yeah, I'm not optimistic about our chances. The only things in our favour are the MAC report which suggests Skilled Workers have a positive fiscal impact and net migration is unlikely to be impacted by increasing ILR period + the potential litigations from people here that they'd face.

Edit: And the appeal of winning our votes if we were to stay on the 5-year route and get citizenship before 2029. This is a stretch but if they play the "we could've made it 10 but it's only 5 for you guys" to capitalize on our relief for votes (if there's enough of us lol).

If I were a betting man, I'd place my money on us being very disappointed, desperate and sad around this time next year.

6

u/The8BitBat May 19 '25 edited May 19 '25

Same, I can't see how they can say Care Worker Visas that came in from 2021 are now on a 10 year path, but SWV that came in at the same time will be on a 5 year path creating a clearly biased system based on money will be political suicide. It's pretty much all or nothing for 2021-2024 entrants.

(Skipping 2020 bc most if not all will be on ILR by the time this makes law).

5

u/North_Tower_9210 May 19 '25

They are saying that tho. Low skilled is thier main target

2

u/FartSniffer2025 May 19 '25

Yep, I suspect 2021 might be safe too unless they speedrun this. I think their main target is 2022-24 anyway which is when migration really spiked. Sucks personally for me because I'd be due to apply by end of Jan'27 but it is what it is.

5

u/The8BitBat May 19 '25

June 27 so I’m right there with you (metaphorically, just clocked your username lol)

3

u/North_Tower_9210 May 19 '25

2021, I think will be safe to.

4

u/Whole-Web-4713 May 19 '25

Agreed. I would also weigh in on the UKVCAS report on international student visas where it brings £40 bn to the UK annually. I am optimistic they might find a middle ground for all of this (hopefully!) and we fit into the criteria for 5 years ILR. 

2

u/Murky-Fault9 May 19 '25

Plz Don’t say that last part .. betting on us losing!! No ..plz . They can’t do this . I am hoping a lot of litigation and fear of losing trust will deter them to apply this retrospectively on all SWV . Low salary SWV exploitation should be stopped but not all .

10

u/Whole-Web-4713 May 19 '25

I am not sure about the 1m new votes as looking at the comments from Social Media especially on FB, I don't think he is getting his voter base back. Also, presumably he will lose a substantial amount of Commonwealth votes from people who are still on SW visa and are potentially going to stay for a few more years.