Nigel Farage’s recent initiative to restrict migrants’ ability to seek permanent residency has encountered setbacks due to an error concerning savings estimates.
The leader of Reform UK is set to propose the elimination of indefinite leave to remain (ILR) in the event of his party gaining authority. Presently, migrants can apply for ILR after five years, but Farage intends to mandate visa renewal every five years under Reform UK’s governance.
Prospective applicants would need to fulfill specific requirements, such as a raised salary threshold and improved English proficiency. The residency period in the UK would be extended to seven years from the current five, with stricter regulations on the entry of spouses and children. Additionally, the proposed visa would prohibit access to benefits, as stated by the party.
Both Nigel Farage and Zia Yusuf, Reform’s policy head, have asserted that the taxpayer savings could surpass £230 billion. Farage emphasized that the alterations would secure a minimum saving of £234 billion for British taxpayers over the migrants’ lifetimes, a figure significantly larger than defense or education expenditure.
However, the projected savings are derived from a February report by the Centre of Policy Studies, which the think-tank has deemed inappropriate for use.
In response, a source from the Labour party criticized Farage’s proposal, stating that it had quickly disintegrated due to lack of credibility and foresight.
Farage is expected to declare at a press conference that welfare benefits would be exclusive to UK citizens, closing existing loopholes and rectifying what he perceives as the failures of the current government. A government spokesperson reiterated the stance on welfare for illegal residents and outlined potential changes to benefit access timelines for foreign nationals.
A spokesperson from Reform UK contested the cost estimates, highlighting potential inaccuracies in the analysis and the likelihood of higher expenses due to specific migrant demographics.
Overall, the proposed changes in migrant residency regulations and benefits access have sparked debate and skepticism among various political factions.