A fresh immigration row has erupted in British politics after Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood announced changes to the country’s settlement rules, prompting Restore Britain MP Rupert Lowe to threaten a sweeping reversal of newly granted immigration statuses.
Under Labour’s revised policy, certain care workers who arrived in Britain before May 2025 and earn at least £25,000 a year will be eligible for indefinite leave to remain (ILR) after five years. For other categories of migrants, the government has proposed a longer 10-year route to permanent settlement.
The changes have reignited the debate over Britain’s immigration system, particularly after years of high net migration and growing public pressure on the government to tighten its rules.
Rupert Lowe, leader of the anti-immigration party Restore Britain, responded by declaring that his party considers the existing immigration settlement framework invalid. He vowed that, if his party came to power, it would reverse every new grant of immigration status or citizenship issued from that day onwards.
Under his proposed approach, individuals who received settlement or citizenship would face fresh assessments under much stricter eligibility criteria. Those who failed to meet the requirements could lose their status and potentially be required to leave the country.
Meanwhile, Reform UK leader Nigel Farage has adopted a somewhat different position. Rather than promising an immediate blanket reversal, Farage has called for a review of citizenship grants, particularly those he believes resulted from Labour’s alleged reversal of its previous immigration commitments.
Farage has argued that citizenship should be reconsidered where individuals obtained it under what he describes as an ‘Open Borders’ approach, insisting that those who genuinely contribute to Britain should be allowed to remain.
The competing proposals reveal growing divisions on Britain’s political right over how far immigration restrictions should go. While both parties are seeking to capitalise on public frustration over migration, their approaches differ on whether previously granted immigration rights should be broadly revoked or individually reassessed.
With elections approaching, immigration is once again emerging as one of Britain’s most contentious political battlegrounds.
