Visa schemes in UK leave Ukraine's war refugees in limbo
Lidiia, a 36-year-old Ukrainian refugee, is facing the daunting prospect of returning to her war-torn homeland after rebuilding her life in Britain. Fleeing Ukraine in 2022 with her newborn and toddler, she now fears that the lack of a clear path to permanent residency will force her back next year.
"Even if they say there's a ceasefire ... I will have in my mind that in five, six years, (the Russians) are going to be back," she said. "And then my son will have to be a soldier. My daughter might be killed or raped."
Lidiia, who requested anonymity to protect her privacy, is among the 218,000 Ukrainians who sought refuge in Britain under special visas since 2022.
As her initial visa nears expiration, and with only an 18-month extension on offer, her future remains uncertain.
According to a 2024 Office for National Statistics (ONS) survey, nearly 70 per cent of Ukrainians in Britain wish to remain, but without a clear legal status, many may be compelled to seek refuge elsewhere or return to their homeland.
With Ukraine urging citizens to come back - it created the Ministry of National Unity last December to facilitate the return of nearly 7 million citizens - and Britain offering no permanent resettlement process, Lidiia feels trapped.
She says her children feel more British than Ukrainian and have close bonds with their community in northern England.
"I want to stay in the UK, 100 per cent. If the UK doesn't want us to stay, I will go back to Ukraine and just hope that we'll survive. There is no other choice," said the charity worker.
'Give people a choice'
Britain has two visa schemes for Ukrainian refugees: one for those with family already in the UK - a route that has now closed - and the Homes for Ukraine sponsorship scheme that allowed Britons to offer accommodation to those fleeing the war.
In February this year, the government opened an 18-month Ukrainian Protection Extension visa to those whose initial three-year visas were due to expire this year.
But none of these schemes offer the option of staying permanently and the Home Office, or interior ministry, has yet to propose further visa extensions.
"Our offer of temporary sanctuary is in line with the Ukrainian government's strong desire for the future return of its citizens, and does not lead to settlement," a Home Office spokesperson said in emailed comments.
Ukrainian support charity Opora said Ukrainians should have the choice to resettle in Britain and could help rebuild Ukraine from afar by, for example, sending back remittances.
"Ukraine will need people going back to rebuild, of course, but closing off options and thereby forcing people to go back will not build a happy cohort of returnees. So give people a choice," said managing director Stan Beneš.
Route to resettlement?
In early June, the European Commission proposed extending temporary protection for around 4.26 million Ukrainian refugees in the European Union until March 2027.
It also recommended member states start transitioning those who want to stay to other legal statuses, for instance by offering work permits and student visas.
Settled, a charity that supports EU citizens and Ukrainians in Britain, urged London to follow suit and increase the duration of the extension visa to 36 months from 18, and also offer resettlement possibilities, as is the case for Afghans and Hong Kongers.
"Ukrainians should be given a path to settlement. We have children who have been born and are growing up in the UK. English is their first language," said Yuliia Ismail, an immigration adviser at Settled.
She said she had seen an increase in Ukrainians wanting to apply for asylum, despite a record backlog, because if they were successful they would be able to stay indefinitely.
In the first quarter of 2025, there were nearly 380 asylum claims by Ukrainians, compared to 570 in all of 2024 and around 100 the year before, according to official data.
"This uncertainty pushes people to the asylum system," Ismail said.
Stuck in limbo
Even with an 18-month visa extension, many Ukrainians are unable secure rental accommodation or work contracts because of uncertainty over their ultimate status, charities say.
More than a third of Ukrainians surveyed by the ONS in 2024 said they were looking for work, and only a third said they were working in the same sector as they did in Ukraine.
A February report by the British Red Cross said without jobs, many Ukrainians were unable to rent properties and were more than twice as likely to be homeless than the general population.
Maria, a 40-year-old single mother from Kyiv living in Scotland, said she could not find teaching work despite retraining to get local qualifications and applying for around 100 jobs.
Maria, who also used a pseudonym for privacy, said employers were not interested in hiring Ukrainians for longer-term jobs.
"It really distresses me. We cannot buy anything new for our home like a wardrobe, even an extra spoon. What will we do if we need to leave? Everyday life is just unstable. I cannot think about what tomorrow will be," she said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Sky News
2 hours ago
- Sky News
Putin says 'Ukraine is ours' and threatens nuclear strike - showing how he feels about Trump
He may have been speaking at an economic forum, but that didn't stop Vladimir Putin from issuing his most hawkish comments on Ukraine in a very long time. During a Q&A at Russia's flagship investment event in St Petersburg, the Kremlin leader was asked what his end game was in the conflict. He replied: "I have said many times that I consider the Russian and Ukrainian people to be one nation. In this sense, all of Ukraine is ours." The answer received rapturous applause from an auditorium full of fawning politicians and business figures. And there was more. "There is an old rule," he said. "'Where a Russian soldier sets foot, that is ours'." In short, he was saying that he wants the whole lot. The comments came as a surprise because they are in sharp contrast to the Kremlin's recent rhetoric. Ever since Donald Trump began his push for a peace deal, Moscow has adopted a softer tone, more conciliatory - in an apparent attempt to show Washington that it is interested in a settlement. But there was none of that kind of language here. Quite the opposite. The Russian president even, for the first time in months, threatened a nuclear strike on Ukraine. Asked how Moscow would respond if Kyiv used a dirty bomb against Russian forces, he promised "catastrophic" consequences for his enemy. "This would be a colossal mistake on the part of those whom we call neo-Nazis on the territory of today's Ukraine," he said. "It could be their last mistake. "We always respond and respond in kind. Therefore, our response will be very tough." The Kremlin's nuclear sabre-rattling was an almost weekly feature during the last days of the Biden administration, but the sabres stilled when Mr Trump came to power. But now, all of a sudden, he's returned to it. It felt like a very deliberate message from Vladimir Putin that, despite peace talks, Russia has no intention of backing down, neither on the battlefield nor at the negotiating table. I think it shows that Moscow is not too worried about upsetting Donald Trump. The American leader appears to have distanced himself from trying to mediate the conflict, but still seems to be pursuing warmer ties with Moscow.
The Independent
2 hours ago
- The Independent
Stunning map shows the lengths pilots go through to avoid conflict zones
A stunning map of current global flight routes has shown the lengths pilots have to go through to avoid conflict zones. As the Russia-Ukraine war rages on and the Israel-Iran conflict intensifies, the world has become more chaotic, and so has its airspace. A live flight tracking map from Flightradar24 showed planes bustling in western Europe and most of Asia. But there are startling holes in the map, which happen to be where the world's major conflicts are currently taking place. Ukraine had no planes in its airspace, and there were very few planes flying over Russia late Friday afternoon, according to Flightradar24's map. Some Middle Eastern countries, including Israel, Iran and the surrounding nations of Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Kuwait, also had no flights coming in or out based on the map. The lack of air travel can be linked to the air strikes Russia and Ukraine as well as Israel and Iran have been launching against each other in respective conflicts. It's been more than three years since Russian President Vladimir Putin launched a full-scale invasion of Ukraine. The missile and drone strikes and their counterattacks have been non-stop. Earlier this week, Russia launched an overnight attack on Kyiv, killing 28 people and injuring over 100 more, The Associated Press reported, citing local officials. Israel had already been at war with Hamas when it struck Iran's nuclear facilities and hit military targets in the region last Friday. The attacks killed several of Tehran's top military leaders and leading nuclear scientists, and Iran subsequently launched heavy retaliatory strikes against Israel. Besides man-made conflict, natural disasters can also make the jobs of pilots more difficult. 'Airspace closures have become quite common,' Singapore -based aviation consultant Brendan Sobie told CNN. 'It's almost like the new normal for airlines to have to navigate this kind of thing.'
Daily Mail
2 hours ago
- Daily Mail
Lords peers vow to fight law on assisted dying as they warn it may not 'see the light of day' despite narrow backing by MPs
Campaigners last night vowed to fight the assisted dying Bill in the Lords after MPs moved to legalise it in a historic vote. In a sign of the concern about the Bill, it passed through the Commons by just 23 votes yesterday – 32 fewer than when MPs backed it in principle in November. MPs questioned whether there was a clear mandate to introduce one of the most significant social changes in Britain for decades. And peers vowed there would be an 'attritional' fight when the legislation, decried as a 'bad Bill' after multiple amendments were laid and safeguards stripped out, moves to the House of Lords. One warned that it may not 'see the light of day'. The Commons voted 314 to 291 in favour of allowing terminally ill people to end their lives with the help of the State, meaning that when abstentions are included, a majority of MPs did not back the Bill. Sir Keir Starmer and Chancellor Rachel Reeves voted in favour, while opponents included Health Secretary Wes Streeting, Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner and Tory leader Kemi Badenoch. Labour MP Kim Leadbeater's Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill will undergo further scrutiny in the Lords, but peers said there was 'no constitutional reason' why it could not be amended significantly or even thrown out by the Upper House. Following an emotional debate in the Commons, Ms Leadbeater described the vote as a 'huge moment in time' and said it would 'correct the profound injustices of the status quo and offer a compassionate and safe choice to terminally ill people'. TV presenter Dame Esther Rantzen, who has terminal lung cancer and led the campaign for assisted dying, said: 'This will make a huge positive difference, protecting millions of terminally ill patients and their families from the agony and loss of dignity created by a bad death.' But leading opponent Danny Kruger – whose mother, Dame Prue Leith, was outside Westminster campaigning in favour of the legalisation yesterday – said the vote showed support 'is ebbing away very fast'. The Tory MP added: 'I'm hopeful now, inspired by that debate and by the falling away of support for the Bill, that the Lords will feel they have a real job to do – to examine closely how the Bill will operate and to introduce their own amendments to make it safer, or to reject the Bill altogether.' Tory peer and former Cabinet minister Mark Harper said it was possible the Bill may not 'see the light of day'. Lord Harper, who is against assisted dying, told the Mail: 'It's not a government Bill and it wasn't in anybody's manifesto, so there is no constitutional reason why the Lords shouldn't do its job properly and amend the Bill considerably if required.' Baroness Tanni Grey-Thompson – a leading opponent of assisted dying – said disabled people were 'absolutely terrified' about the Bill as she vowed to add significant safeguards in the Lords. It is thought it will take four years to implement the Bill should it clear the remaining stages this year and receive royal assent, meaning the first assisted death in Britain would take place by 2029. This would mark the first time the State sanctioned a death since capital punishment was abolished in 1965, and the Government forecasts that up to 4,500 people could end their lives early each year within a decade. Under the legislation terminally ill people in England and Wales diagnosed with less than six months to live will be allowed to seek medical help to die Opening the debate in the Commons, Spen Valley MP Ms Leadbeater said her Bill proposed a 'robust process that goes further than any other piece of legislation in the world'. She added: 'Giving dying people choice about how they die is about compassion, control, dignity and bodily autonomy. Surely we should all have the right to decide what happens to our bodies and decide when enough is enough.' But after the vote, Tory MP Greg Smith said: 'It is not too late for us to step back from the brink and pull the plug on this Bill, which now lacks majority support in the Commons. I trust the House of Lords to scrutinise the Bill in depth and hope it will never reach royal assent.' Catherine Robinson, from campaign group Right To Life UK, said: 'The Bill leaves the Commons lacking a majority, with fewer than half of all MPs voting for it at its final stage. We will be fighting this Bill at every stage in the House of Lords, where we are confident it can be overturned given its continued loss of support.' The assisted dying Bill that returned to the Commons yesterday was significantly changed from the one presented to MPs at the second reading vote in November. Among radical amendments were the removal of the High Court safeguard – with a senior judge replaced by so-called 'suicide panels' made up of a lawyer, psychiatrist and social worker. The proposed legislation will allow terminally ill adults in England and Wales with fewer than six months to live to apply for an assisted death. Subject to approval by two doctors and an 'expert panel', the terminally ill person would take an approved substance, provided by a doctor but administered only by the person themselves. Religious groups expressed horror at the Bill's passing. Bishop of London the Rt Rev Sarah Mullally, who sits in the House of Lords, said her peers 'must oppose' the Bill due to the 'mounting evidence that it is unworkable and unsafe'.
