Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood is facing a mounting wave of resistance from within her own Labour Party and beyond over plans that would dramatically extend the wait for migrant workers to settle permanently in the UK. The controversy centers on proposals unveiled on February 12, 2026, which would double the time required for most migrant workers to secure indefinite leave to remain—from five to ten years—and introduce an even longer, 15-year wait for so-called "low-skilled" workers, including those in the already-strained social care sector. The new rules, set to be enforced from April, would also apply retrospectively, upending the lives of thousands of families who have already mapped out their futures under the current system.
The backlash has been swift and broad. More than 100 MPs, peers, and union leaders—including at least 30 Labour backbenchers—have signed a letter demanding Mahmood pause the reforms, citing fears that the changes will push key sectors like social care, which currently faces around 110,000 vacancies, closer to "breaking point." The letter, coordinated by Labour MP Neil Duncan-Jordan, calls for a halt to the plans until a full impact assessment is published. It also insists that the Home Office must rule out any retrospective application of the policy, warning that such a move would disrupt the lives of families who have made long-term plans based on the existing rules.
The letter, posted on social media and signed by cross-party figures including British Indian MPs Navendu Mishra, Nadia Whittome, and Warinder Juss, as well as 21 peers and 33 civil society organizations, brands the proposals as "unfair towards migrant workers who have put down roots, contributed to their communities and built lives here," according to BBC. The signatories argue, "The British public believe in fair play: that if you work hard, follow the rules and contribute, government should tread lightly on your life. The government must uphold its promises—we cannot simply change the rules halfway through an agreed process."
Union leaders have also voiced strong opposition. Andrea Egan, general secretary of Unison, the UK’s biggest trade union, has emerged as a prominent critic of the Starmer administration since her election last year. She stated, "You cannot move the goalposts and retrospectively extend the qualifying period to people who came to the UK under existing rules." Civic leaders fear the reforms will leave migrants vulnerable to exploitation, requiring them to remain tied to employers for up to a decade or more, with little opportunity for advancement. Dr Dora-Olivia Vicol, CEO of the Work Rights Centre, warned, "These plans condemn migrant workers to at least a decade of sponsorship, tied to employers for years with no opportunity for upward mobility, and at risk of exploitation."
The government’s rationale for the overhaul is rooted in concerns about the scale of migration since Brexit. Mahmood, who has described the reforms as her "moral mission," pointed to the arrival of more than 2 million migrants in the UK since 2021—a period dubbed the "Boriswave" after then-prime minister Boris Johnson. The Home Office has called the changes the "biggest overhaul" of the UK's legal migration system in half a century, aiming for an "earned settlement" model that rewards those who make the greatest contributions to British society. Mahmood told MPs, "I think at five years, that’s actually quite a short period before people can be permanently settled in the country with all of the benefits that that brings. I think it’s right therefore that we extend it. And in the range of proposals that we’ve set out there are some things that could help you bring that qualifying period down."
But critics say the reforms are not only unfair but risk undermining the very sectors the government claims to protect. The letter to Mahmood explicitly warns that the proposals could exacerbate the social care crisis: "Adult social care already faces around 110,000 vacancies, and as we await the Casey Review and the Fair Pay Agreement, these proposals risk pushing the sector closer to breaking point." The changes would affect an estimated 1.6 million people qualifying for indefinite leave to remain between 2026 and 2030, with a peak of 450,000 expected in 2028, according to Economic Times and PTI.
Labour MP Neil Duncan-Jordan, who has led the campaign against the proposals, tabled a parliamentary motion and directly challenged party leader Sir Keir Starmer before Christmas 2025, insisting the plans were "not only unfair, but profoundly un-British." Duncan-Jordan, drawing on years of experience working with migrant care workers, said, "They’re decent, hardworking people who do a challenging job in difficult conditions, often for low pay. We shouldn’t be going after those people. It pushes a struggling sector closer to crisis and it’s just not fair."
The government, however, remains unmoved. Downing Street has confirmed it will press ahead with the plans, despite the growing opposition. A spokesperson for the Prime Minister said, "What we’re focused on is rebuilding communities and not stoking division. We are doing a number of things in that space. That’s why the Prime Minister is making it a priority to speak about the importance of English language skills. It’s about contributing to the economy and shared civic values, and that we are pressing on with reforms because we have to tackle years of failed migration policy."
The public consultation on the reforms closed on February 12, 2026, but campaigners have labeled the process a "farce" and called for it to be restarted with full transparency and a comprehensive impact assessment, including a Child Rights Impact Assessment. Dr Vicol argued, "It is simply not right to canvas the public’s view on the biggest shake-up to the immigration system in 50 years when the government has not assessed the potential impact on commutes, public services, and our economy. This consultation is a farce and it must be restarted with the full picture made available to the public."
The political stakes are high. Those in Labour who back the government’s plan believe that a tough stance on migration is the only way to counter the rising threat of Reform UK, which is currently leading in the polls and is expected to perform strongly in the upcoming Gorton and Denton by-election in Manchester. Yet, as internal divisions deepen, some rebels sense an opportunity to push the government toward a softer position, especially after the recent removal of Starmer’s chief of staff, Morgan McSweeney.
As the debate rages, affected migrant families remain in limbo, unsure whether the rules they have built their lives around will be upended. The government insists settlement is "a privilege not a right," but for many, the prospect of waiting a decade or more for stability—and the threat of having the rules changed retroactively—feels like a betrayal of the very values the UK claims to stand for.
The coming weeks will prove critical as MPs, unions, and advocacy groups continue to press for a rethink. For now, the fate of thousands of migrant workers—and the future of sectors like social care—hangs in the balance.