Reform UK’s latest immigration proposals have ignited a fierce national debate, with party leader Nigel Farage vowing to abolish the right of migrants to qualify for permanent settlement in Britain after five years—a move that would upend the lives of hundreds of thousands of legal residents and send shockwaves through the country’s social, economic, and political fabric.
Announced on September 22, 2025, these plans would scrap Indefinite Leave to Remain (ILR)—the main route to British citizenship for non-citizens who have lived and worked in the UK for at least five years. Instead, migrants would be required to reapply for new visas every five years, facing tougher criteria such as higher salary thresholds and stricter English language requirements. According to BBC, Farage declared, “It is not for us to provide welfare for people coming in from all over the world.”
Under the current system, ILR grants permanent rights to live, work, and study in the UK, and opens the door to social benefits. It’s also the principal stepping stone to British citizenship. Reform UK’s proposal would not only abolish this pathway but would bar anyone except British citizens from accessing welfare, a change the party claims could save the UK £234 billion over several decades. This figure, however, has been sharply contested by economists and rival politicians.
Chancellor Rachel Reeves dismissed the projected savings, stating, “The numbers that Reform have come out with overnight have already begun to disassemble.” She pointed out that the government is already considering restricting migrants’ welfare access, but not to the sweeping extent proposed by Reform UK.
Farage’s pitch is aimed squarely at what he calls the “Boris wave”—the 3.8 million people who entered the UK after Brexit under more relaxed rules introduced by Boris Johnson’s administration. “Half the ‘Boris-wave’ migrants do not work, and never will,” Farage asserted at a press conference, according to The Independent. “At least 800,000 of them will shortly qualify for indefinite leave to remain, which gives them lifetime access to our welfare state. This is a scam on the British people perpetrated by the Tory party. Reform will avert this crisis.”
However, Ben Brindle, a researcher at the Migration Observatory at the University of Oxford, challenged Farage’s claim, noting, “It does seem from the existing—patchy—data that more than half are working. As for the ‘will never work’ part of it, I’m not sure what the basis of any prediction about the future would be. Generally, we see that employment rates go up over time for the groups who do worse in the labour market, such as family members.”
As of July 2025, there were 213,666 people with ILR claiming Universal Credit benefits, with about a third of those claimants in work, according to Department for Work and Pensions figures cited by BBC. Separate estimates from the Migration Observatory put the total population of non-EU citizens with ILR at 430,000 at the end of 2024.
Reform UK says its proposals would not apply to EU nationals whose settled status is protected under the European Union Withdrawal Agreement, but would affect other migrants, including those from Hong Kong and Ukraine who arrived under government schemes. EU citizens would also be exempt from the welfare ban, meaning only 2.7% of Universal Credit claimants would actually be impacted by the crackdown, according to The Independent.
The party’s policy chief, Zia Yusuf, argued that the changes would force “hundreds of thousands of people having to apply and ultimately losing their settled status in the UK.” Yusuf added, “Many of those who will lose their leave to remain are entirely dependent on the welfare state and will leave voluntarily upon losing access to benefits. Those that don’t will be subject to immigration enforcement as part of our mass deportation programme.”
Such rhetoric has drawn sharp criticism from across the political spectrum and civil society. Labour Party chair Anna Turley highlighted the potential human cost, saying, “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.”
Naomi Smith, chief executive of Best for Britain, warned that the plans could “tear families apart,” comparing the proposals to “Trump-style” US immigration enforcement. “You only have to look to the US to see how this kind of policy can play out where masked gangs are abducting people in the street and tearing families apart,” Smith said, as reported by The Independent.
Migration charities, think tanks, and industry leaders have also voiced concern over the economic and social fallout. Josephine Whitaker-Yilmaz, head of advocacy at Praxis, said the proposals would “tank our already-struggling economy, by disrupting the lives of millions of people who’ve been living and working legally in the UK for many years.” Nadra Ahmed, executive chair of the National Care Association, warned of “crippling labour shortages” and suggested Reform “do not understand the value of social care.” Nicola Ranger, general secretary of the Royal College of Nursing, called the plans “abhorrent beyond words,” emphasizing the vital role migrant staff play in health and care services.
The business community, too, is wary. The Liberal Democrats said Reform’s proposals were “not serious,” warning, “Businesses would be thrown into disarray, and the UK would lose billions in economic growth and tax revenues.”
Reform UK insists its policy would bring Britain in line with countries like the US and United Arab Emirates, and promises new entrepreneur and investor visa routes to “support founders, innovators, and those willing to commit significant capital to our economy.” The party also proposes an Acute Skills Shortage Visa (ASSV) scheme, which would require firms to train one domestic worker for every foreign worker hired, and plans to raise the average wait for UK citizenship from six to seven years.
Yet, questions about the legality and practicality of the proposals remain. Sunder Katwala, director of British Future, said, “Threatening to revoke the settled status of millions who already have indefinite leave is morally wrong, beyond the legal and practical chaos it would cause—it undermines the very idea of belonging in this country.”
Even within the political right, there’s skepticism. Conservative shadow home secretary Chris Philp accused Reform of “once again copying Conservative ideas, but in a way that is half-baked and unworkable.” He argued that “mass low-skill migration carries real fiscal costs,” but labeled Reform “a one-man band with no experience of government, and their reckless, left-wing economics mean more debt, more spending, more tax.”
Meanwhile, the savings figure at the heart of Reform’s argument has come under sustained attack. Labour notes that the £234 billion figure originated from a Centre for Policy Studies report, which has since been disavowed by the think tank after the Office for Budget Responsibility revised its fiscal definitions. Farage, however, doubled down, saying, “The £230bn figure, as Zia [Yusuf, head of policy] has just said, that is without a doubt too low. It underestimates things, I suspect many more than 800,000 actually will apply for indefinite leave to remain, plus it’s quite tough to get all the figures.”
As the debate rages, one thing is clear: Reform UK’s immigration proposal has thrust the question of who belongs—and who decides—into the very center of British political life, with real consequences for families, businesses, and the nation’s sense of itself.
