UK immigration debate intensifies over "indefinite leave to remain"

The UK’s immigration debate is shifting focus from cultural integration to economics, with “Indefinite Leave to Remain” (ILR) now at the centre of political attention. The term itself – a curious paradox, described by one radio host as sounding like “a vote during the Brexit referendum to keep all options open” – has become a flashpoint in discussions around the financial impact of immigration.

ILR, the UK’s term for permanent residency, allows migrants to live and work in the country indefinitely and access public benefits. It was once a technicality known mainly to visa holders and their families. But as Bloomberg's recent opinion piece points out, it’s now at the heart of a fractious immigration debate.

This renewed attention is largely driven by the findings of a 275-page study from the University of Amsterdam titled Borderless Welfare State: The Consequences of Immigration for Public Finances. Published in 2023, the study estimated that immigrants to the Netherlands between 1995 and 2019 cost the Dutch state €400 billion – more than its natural gas revenues since the 1960s.

It argued that migrants, particularly from non-Western countries, contribute less in taxes and require more public spending in areas like healthcare, welfare and education.

"Migrants from Japan or Switzerland make a net contribution of €200,000 per person,” it noted, while “those from Sudan cost the public purse €600,000 each.”

These findings have been “weaponised” in the UK immigration discourse, writes Jonathan Thomas of the Social Market Foundation. Following the Dutch report, UK political parties including Labour, the Conservatives, and Reform UK have proposed changes to ILR – from doubling the qualifying period to scrapping it entirely.

Reform UK’s leader Nigel Farage cited a now-withdrawn £234 billion estimate from the Centre for Policy Studies, which itself was heavily based on the Dutch research. Farage’s proposal to abolish ILR altogether signals the growing influence of these economic arguments, even when based on contested figures.

The debate takes on urgency as the first wave of post-Brexit non-EU migrants, who began arriving in 2020, will become eligible for ILR in early 2025. Until then, they are ineligible for most public benefits – a status highlighted by the “NO PUBLIC FUNDS” stamp once printed on residency cards.

According to Bloomberg, there is still a window to postpone or — if ruthless or unscrupulous enough — disown completely this unbudgeted and unwelcome fiscal responsibility.

This shift in immigration’s framing reflects broader political pressures. The piece notes the optics of admitting large numbers of migrants to the welfare system are clearly difficult when the government has been trying to cut benefits for British citizens.

At the same time, there are fears that such moves could deter skilled migrants and damage the UK’s economic prospects. It already feels like a less tolerant country than when my family moved here from Asia three years ago, the columnist observes.

Ultimately, the piece warns of the political risks in failing to address immigration concerns.

“If they fail to do so,” wrote former Australian foreign minister Alexander Downer in a think tank report quoted by Bloomberg, “we can be sure populists and extremists will get elected who promise to do it.” It’s a warning the article says is “only getting louder.”

By Sabina Mammadli