On September 22, 2025, Nigel Farage and Reform UK unveiled a sweeping overhaul of Britain’s immigration system, pledging to abolish the right for migrants to settle in the UK without citizenship—a move that has ignited fierce debate across the political spectrum, business community, and public sector. The party’s plan to scrap indefinite leave to remain (ILR) and replace it with a renewable five-year visa, alongside stricter requirements for citizenship and a ban on welfare benefits for non-citizens, has drawn both applause from some voters and condemnation from experts, NHS leaders, and business groups.
Farage, flanked by Reform UK’s head of policy Zia Yusuf at a central London press conference, declared that the current system had failed the country. "Far too many that have come don’t work, have never worked and never will work. The ability to bring dependents of all kinds, and when you realise that most that come are very low-skilled, and on very low wages, you start to get a very, very different picture. In fact, you start to get a massive benefits bill," Farage asserted, as reported by The i Paper and Nation Cymru. He argued that mass, unskilled migration had suppressed wages, stating, "Under our proposals, would pay go up, yes it would go up a bit, and I think that’s a good thing, not a bad thing. Would our proposals help train British people for jobs? It would."
Reform’s proposals would require all migrants—current and future—to reapply for a five-year visa, with the salary threshold for eligibility raised from £38,700 to around £60,000. The residency requirement for citizenship would increase from five to seven years, and applicants would need to renounce other citizenships. The party would also ban anyone who is not a UK citizen from claiming benefits, though settled EU citizens would be exempt. However, Yusuf indicated that a Reform government would seek to renegotiate the EU withdrawal agreement to curb welfare rights for EU nationals in the future.
According to the Migration Observatory at the University of Oxford, these changes could impact around 430,000 people who currently hold ILR, many of whom have lived in the UK for years or even decades and have British children or spouses. Ben Brindle, a researcher at the Observatory, warned The i Paper, "The newly announced policies imply the possibility that British citizens’ spouses, and parents who have children who are British citizens, could be removed irrespective of whether this separates them from their British children. As things stand, the policy would break parts of both domestic and international law, but Reform have said they would disapply these laws and pass new legislation to make it legal. With a parliamentary majority, that’s something they could do."
The human cost of these proposals has not gone unnoticed. Luke Tryl of More in Common UK described the policy as so sweeping "that it goes against the notion of fairness," adding, "It’s also likely to be much more personal than illegal migration. This is people that people will know and work with and will touch their lives, while illegal migration feels more abstract." Healthcare leaders were particularly alarmed. Daniel Elkeles, chief executive of NHS Providers, called the policy "a kick in the teeth to all the hard-working international staff who give so much to our health and care services and who have made this country their home." The Royal College of Nursing went further, labeling the plans "abhorrent beyond words" and warning that "the policy of retrospectively removing people’s rights in this way would be unprecedented, leaving migrant nursing staff unable to work or access welfare, despite having paid tax. Without them, services would simply cease to function."
Businesses, too, voiced concern. The British Chambers of Commerce reported that 73% of firms are already struggling to hire staff amidst rising labor costs and a persistent skills crisis. Patrick Milnes of the BCC cautioned, "It’s vital that any changes in the immigration system do not cut off access to global talent before other options are implemented." Reform’s Yusuf acknowledged that some businesses might have to pay higher wages as a result, but denied the policy would adversely affect adult social care.
The economic rationale behind Reform’s proposals has come under fire. Farage claimed the plan would save taxpayers “considerably larger” sums than the £230 billion previously cited by the Centre for Policy Studies (CPS), even though the think tank has since disowned the figure after revisions by the Office for Budget Responsibility. Chancellor Rachel Reeves dismissed Reform’s numbers, stating, “The numbers that Reform have come out with overnight have already begun to disassemble. I want to bring down illegal migration. This Government is bringing down migration. We have sent a record number of people who have no right to be in our country home.” Reeves characterized the proposals as "simple gimmicks…that have no basis in reality and where the numbers just fall apart." Conservative shadow home secretary Chris Philp echoed these criticisms, calling the policy "half-baked and unworkable." He argued, "They lift our policies but strip away the detail that makes them enforceable. Mass low-skill migration carries real fiscal costs – in housing, welfare, and public services – which is why Britain needs a system that rewards contribution and stops abuse."
Political opponents also pointed to the risk of family separation and social division. Labour Party chairwoman Anna Turley was blunt: "Farage is unable to say how many families his policy would break up, what the cost to businesses would be, what would happen to pensioners and how long it would take to implement — basic questions that any serious political party would know the answers to before making an announcement like this." A former Home Office insider, speaking to The i Paper, described the policy as sounding "like it was made up at the pub," warning it would lead to "loads of case studies" of families being broken up "which people would be really angry about."
Despite the controversy, polling firm Savanta suggested the policy would be popular among Reform’s core supporters. Chris Hopkins of Savanta told The i Paper, "I think on the face of it the policy will appear popular, and that’s all that matters to Reform. But really Reform are probably just preaching to the converted to some extent – the types of people that will already vote for them will probably back this sort of policy, I’m not sure it will win them any new voters or even necessarily hugely shore up the existing set."
London Mayor Sadiq Khan condemned the plans, saying, "Threatening to deport people living and working here legally is unacceptable." Farage, however, pushed back: "What about the ones that aren’t working? What about the ones who have never and never will work? What about having an honest debate about those we’ve let into this country, many of whom are great people, fine, we understand that but too many of whom are not."
Looking ahead, Reform UK’s proposals would not affect settled EU citizens for now, with government sources noting that 777,000 foreign universal credit claimants under the EU settlement scheme would be exempt. However, Yusuf made clear that a future Reform government would seek to renegotiate these terms with Brussels.
As the debate rages, one thing is clear: Reform UK’s radical immigration proposals have thrust the future of Britain’s migration and welfare systems into the spotlight, with profound consequences for families, businesses, and public services alike.
