Quick Answer The UK government is planning to double the qualifying period for indefinite leave to remain from five to ten years for most migrants, and extend it to 20 years for refugees — a change that would make Britain one of the most restrictive high-income democracies in the world for settlement. The proposals, announced by Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood, do not require a parliamentary vote and could take effect without legislation.
Brighton’s EU National Community Post-Brexit Brighton has one of the largest settled EU national populations outside London. Many arrived under freedom of movement and are watching these proposals with acute anxiety about what comes next for their own status and for family members still navigating the system.
The UK government is planning what it describes as the biggest overhaul of legal migration in 50 years — and the detail, once examined, is considerably more sweeping than the headline suggests.
Under the proposals, the standard qualifying period for indefinite leave to remain would double from five to ten years for most migrants. For refugees, the wait would extend to 20 years, with no reductions available unless the person works or studies. For those who have claimed benefits, the qualifying period rises to 20 years. For anyone who entered the country irregularly or overstayed a visa, it reaches 30.
Eligibility requirements tighten simultaneously. Migrants would need a clean criminal record — removing the previous 12-month sentence threshold — a higher English language standard, and earnings above £12,570 per year for at least three years. That earnings threshold will disproportionately affect dependants of work visa holders, family visa holders and refugees, who are least likely to be in continuous full-time employment.
A tiered system runs alongside the baseline. High-skilled workers — including NHS doctors and nurses — or those earning above £125,140 could qualify after five or three years respectively. Those on family visas or demonstrating active integration through volunteering could qualify after five to seven years.
An International Outlier
The international comparison is stark. Across the EU, the standard qualifying period for long-term residence is five years with limited conditions — a threshold that countries including Germany and Italy apply through their own national schemes. Denmark, frequently cited by the UK government as inspiration for these reforms, sets its threshold at eight years, reducible to four in some cases. Ireland sets it at five.
Among Anglophone countries, the contrast is even sharper. The US green card confers permanent residence without a formal minimum years requirement. Canada has no blanket time requirement, and refugees admitted through resettlement can obtain permanent residency immediately.
A 20-year qualifying period for refugees would place the UK alongside Qatar and Japan — not among peer liberal democracies. No comparable high-income country applies such a threshold to people granted refugee protection.
The government has cited Denmark’s 40-year low in asylum applications in 2025 as evidence the approach works. That drop, however, coincided with broader EU-wide falls in asylum flows, making it impossible to attribute the decline to domestic policy alone.
What the Evidence Actually Shows
The evidence on deterrence-based migration policy is consistent: decisions to migrate are driven primarily by conditions in countries of origin, not by entitlements in destination countries. Making settlement harder does not meaningfully reduce the number of people who attempt to reach a country. It changes what happens to them after they arrive.
A specific study on Denmark found that making permanent residence harder to obtain for refugees reduced their chances of employment. People who believed they could not meet the requirements became discouraged and disengaged from the labour market — the precise opposite of the government’s stated integration objective. Brighton’s own experience with long-term refugee resettlement reflects that pattern: stability of status is directly correlated with employment outcomes and community integration.
The Home Office has confirmed the changes do not require legislation — meaning they will not face a parliamentary vote. Opponents have signalled they intend to force a symbolic vote regardless. The deepest concern centres on retrospective application: migrants who arrived and built lives under the existing five-year framework could find the goalposts moved without warning or remedy.
For the thousands of people across Brighton and Hove navigating the immigration system — skilled workers, family visa holders, refugees recognised under international law — the proposals represent not a tightening of rules but a fundamental change to the terms on which they were invited to make Britain home.
Related Stories
- Brighton and Hove’s Refugee Support Networks: Who Is Doing the Work
- Brighton’s Refugee Resettlement Programme: What the Outcomes Show
- Immigration Advice and Visa Support Services in Brighton and Hove
