UK plans to double permanent settlement wait for some migrants already in the country
By Andrew MacAskill and Alistair Smout
LONDON (Reuters) - The British government is planning to make some immigrants living in the country wait up to five years longer to qualify for permanent settlement under Prime Minister Keir Starmer's plans to cut immigration numbers.
The government announced migration reforms on Monday which would, among other measures, double the amount of time required before a person automatically qualifies for the right to stay in Britain or can apply for citizenship, from five to 10 years.
It had not been immediately clear whether the rule change would apply to those already living in Britain, or for people just moving to the country and due to start the process.
Government officials said on Thursday that while those who arrived on a family visa or as a dependent would retain the five-year route, interior minister Yvette Cooper wanted the longer timeframe to apply to everyone else.
One law firm, Farrer&Co, said the change may also not apply to migrants from the European Union who applied for settled status after Brexit, because their treatment was agreed as part of Britain's departure from the bloc in 2020.
A spokesman for Starmer said that the migration plans would be consulted on before any changes are introduced.
Immigration has long been one of the most important issues for voters in Britain. Controlling the number of arrivals was a key factor in the 2016 vote to leave the EU, yet net arrivals hit record levels after it left the bloc, helping to boost Nigel Farage's right-wing, anti-immigration Reform UK party.
Starmer, in setting out proposals to reduce immigration, has been heavily criticised by some in his own party and beyond after he warned that Britain risked becoming "an island of strangers" and said immigration had run out of control.
His language has drawn parallels to a former right-wing politician Enoch Powell who warned in a now-infamous 1968 "Rivers of Blood" speech that Britons would find themselves "strangers in their own country" - a speech that is widely regarded as one of the most divisive in modern British politics.
Starmer's spokesperson said he completely rejected the comparison, adding that migrants had made a massive contribution to Britain but that numbers needed to be controlled.
Some Labour members of parliament have also raised concerns about the possibility of longer qualifying periods applying to people already in Britain.
Florence Eshalomi, a Labour member of parliament who chairs the Commons housing, communities and local government committee, said she had been contacted by several constituents, who were working towards getting permanent settlement in Britain.
She said one was now considering leaving.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Chicago Tribune
44 minutes ago
- Chicago Tribune
Nations react to US strikes on Iran with many calling for diplomacy
Several close U.S. allies urged a return to the negotiating table in the wake of American strikes on Iran that fueled fears of a wider conflict, while noting the threat posed by Tehran's nuclear program. Some countries and groups in the region, including those that support Iran, condemned the move while also urging de-escalation. U.S. President Donald Trump had said Thursday that he would decide within two weeks whether to get involved in Israel's war with Tehran. In the end, it took just days. Washington hit three Iranian nuclear sites early Sunday. US strikes 3 Iranian nuclear sites, inserting itself into Israel's war with IranWhile the amount of damage remained unclear, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said the U.S. had 'crossed a very big red line,' the time for diplomacy was over and Iran had the right to defend itself. Some have questioned whether a weakened Iran would capitulate or remain defiant and begin striking with allies at U.S. targets scattered across the Gulf region. Here is a look at reactions from governments and officials around the world. U.N. Secretary General Antonio Guterres said he was 'gravely alarmed' by the use of force by the United States. 'There is a growing risk that this conflict could rapidly get out of control — with catastrophic consequences for civilians, the region, and the world,' he said in a statement on the social media platform X. 'I call on Member States to de-escalate.' 'There is no military solution. The only path forward is diplomacy.' British Prime Minister Keir Starmer called for Iran to return to the negotiating table to diplomatically end the crisis, saying stability was the priority in the volatile region. The U.K., along with the European Union, France and Germany, tried unsuccessfully to broker a diplomatic solution in Geneva last week with Iran. Starmer said Iran's nuclear program posed a grave threat to global security. 'Iran can never be allowed to develop a nuclear weapon and the U.S. has taken action to alleviate that threat,' Starmer said. Dmitry Medvedev, who serves as deputy head of President Vladimir Putin's Security Council, said several countries were prepared to supply Tehran with nuclear weapons. He didn't specify which countries, but said the U.S. attack caused minimal damage and would not stop Tehran from pursuing nuclear weapons. Russia's Foreign Ministry said it 'strongly condemned' the airstrikes and called them a 'a gross violation of international law, the U.N. Charter, and U.N. Security Council resolutions.' The Iraqi government condemned the U.S. strikes, saying the military escalation created a grave threat to peace and security in the Middle East. It said it poses serious risks to regional stability and called for diplomatic efforts to de-escalate the crisis. 'The continuation of such attacks risks dangerous escalation with consequences that extend beyond the borders of any single state, threatening the security of the entire region and the world,' government spokesman Bassem al-Awadi said in the statement. Saudi Arabia expressed 'deep concern' about the U.S. airstrikes, but stopped short of condemning them. 'The Kingdom underscores the need to exert all possible efforts to exercise restraint, de-escalate tensions, and avoid further escalation,' the Foreign Ministry said in a statement. Saudi Arabia had earlier condemned Israel's strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities and military leaders. Qatar, which is home to the largest U.S. military base in the Middle East, said it 'regrets' escalating tensions in the Israel-Iran war. Its Foreign Ministry in a statement urged all parties to show restraint and 'avoid escalation, which the peoples of the region, burdened by conflicts and their tragic humanitarian repercussions, cannot tolerate.' Qatar has served as a key mediator in the Israel-Hamas war. Both the Houthi rebels in Yemen and Hamas have condemned the U.S. strikes. In a statement on Sunday, the Houthi political bureau called on Muslim nations to join 'the Jihad and resistance option as one front against the Zionist-American arrogance.' Hamas and the Houthis are part of Iran's so-called Axis of Resistance, a collection of pro-Iranian proxies stretching from Yemen to Lebanon that for years gave the Islamic Republic considerable power across the region. Lebanese President Joseph Aoun said the U.S. bombing could lead to a regional conflict that no country could bear and called for negotiations. 'Lebanon, its leadership, parties, and people, are aware today, more than ever before, that it has paid a heavy price for the wars that erupted on its land and in the region,' Aoun said in a statement on X. 'It is unwilling to pay more.' Pakistan blasted the U.S. strikes as a 'deeply disturbing' escalation just days after it nominated Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize for his diplomatic intervention with the India-Pakistan crisis. 'These attacks violate all norms of international law,' the government said in a statement. 'Iran has the legitimate right to defend itself under the U.N. Charter.' China condemned U.S. strikes on Iran, calling them a serious violation of international law that further inflamed tensions in the Middle East. In a statement, the Chinese Foreign Ministry urged all parties — especially Israel — to implement a cease-fire and begin dialogue. 'China is willing to work with the international community to pool efforts together and uphold justice, and contribute to the work for restoring peace and stability in the Middle East,' the ministry said. The European Union's top diplomat said Iran must not be allowed to develop a nuclear weapon, but she urged those involved in the conflict to show restraint. 'I urge all sides to step back, return to the negotiating table and prevent further escalation,' EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas said in a post on social media. Foreign Minister Antonio Tajani said Iran's nuclear facilities 'represented a danger for the entire area' but hoped the action could lead to de-escalation in the conflict and negotiations. President Antonio Costa said he was 'deeply alarmed' by the bombings and called on all parties to 'show restraint and respect for international law and nuclear safety.' 'Too many civilians will once again be the victims of a further escalation,' Costa added. 'The EU will continue engaging with the parties and our partners to find a peaceful solution at the negotiating table.' Dutch Foreign Minister Caspar Veldkamp, whose country is hosting a summit of NATO leaders including Trump on Tuesday and Wednesday, said the government's national security council would meet later to discuss the issue. He said said the U.S. attacks amounted to 'a further escalation of a worrying situation in the Middle East.' Japanese Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba told reporters Sunday that it was crucial to calm the situation as soon as possible, adding that the Iranian nuclear weapons development also must be prevented. Ishiba, asked if he supports the U.S. attacks on Iran, declined to comment. Pope Leo XIV made a strong appeal for peace during his Sunday Angelus prayer in St. Peter's square, calling for international diplomacy to 'silence the weapons.' After an open reference to the 'alarming' situation in Iran, the first American pontiff stressed that 'today more than ever, humanity cries out and invokes peace and it is a cry that demands reason and must not be stifled.' Pope Leo urged every member of the international community to take up their moral responsibility to 'stop the tragedy of war before it becomes an irreparable abyss.'
The Hill
an hour ago
- The Hill
Good news: We've already been king-free for 810 years. But there's also bad news.
Resistance to tyranny, suspicion of concentrated power, and a firm belief in the democratic ideals that birthed this republic. It's a noble struggle. But for all their passion and theatrical flair, the historical literacy behind the 'No Kings Since 1776' slogan leaves much to be desired. In fact, the protestors missed the mark by several centuries. Yes, the U.S. declared independence from the British Crown in 1776. But the kind of 'king' these protesters seem to fear had already ceased to exist in Britain long before that. By the time George III ascended the throne, British kings were largely figureheads, bound by constitutional limits and dependent on Parliament to govern. The Glorious Revolution of 1688 had already drastically curtailed the powers of the monarchy. And indeed, if you want to pinpoint when monarchs lost their teeth, you need to look even further back, to 1215, when rebellious English barons forced King John to sign the Magna Carta. That document didn't create democracy, but it did begin a centuries-long process of transferring power away from the crown and into the hands of parliaments and assemblies. So, by the time the American colonies revolted, they were not really rising up against a tyrannical king, but against an unresponsive and overreaching Parliament. The rallying cry of the American Revolution — 'No taxation without representation' — wasn't an anti-monarchist slogan. It was an anti-parliamentarian slogan. The colonists didn't object to authority per se — they objected to being taxed and ruled by a body in which they had no voice. And they weren't demanding the abolition of kingship. They were demanding accountability, proportionality, and representation. They were asking for a seat at the table. Fast-forward to today, and that slogan might resonate more than ever. We don't live under a king, but we do live under a political system that often behaves as if it's immune to public influence. Our Congress — designed to be the voice of the people and a check on executive power — is frequently in lockstep with the president, regardless of which party is in office. Whether through partisan loyalty or political cowardice, our legislators often abdicate their role as a balancing force. They don't deliberate. They defer. They don't question. They rubber-stamp. The real issue isn't kingship but representation. And in the absence of real legislative independence, the presidency has become more monarchical than anything George III ever imagined. And this didn't start in 2025 or even in 2017. Every American president in modern history has wielded powers the British monarch couldn't have dreamed of: Executive orders, foreign military interventions without Congressional approval, surveillance regimes, and massive influence over the national budget. If protesters truly want to challenge creeping authoritarianism, the more accurate message would be: 'No taxation without genuine representation.' That would strike at the heart of the issue. If Congress does not act independently, if it does not reflect the interests and concerns of the people, then we are not truly being represented. And if we are not being represented, then why are we funding the machine? Of course, no one is seriously proposing that Americans stop paying taxes overnight. Civil disobedience has its limits. But protest must have a point, and slogans must have meaning. A movement that aims to hold power accountable must aim at the right target. 'No Kings' is, at best, historically inaccurate, and at worst, a distraction from the deeply rooted, troubling democratic predicament in which we find ourselves. A government system that would have the Founding Fathers turning in their graves. Imagine if all that energy, creativity, and public spirit were channeled instead into a campaign to restore Congressional independence, to demand term limits, to break the iron grip of lobbyists, to push for electoral reform, or to hold legislators to account for every vote they cast. That would be a revolution worth marching for. So, to the protesters in the streets: your instincts are right. Power must be kept in check. But your history is off, and your slogan is weak. Don't fear a king who never ruled you. Fear a Congress that no longer represents you. Daniel Friedman is professor of political science at Touro University.
The Hill
2 hours ago
- The Hill
Iran: US ‘decided to blow up' diplomacy
Iran's top diplomat said the U.S. 'decided to blow up diplomacy' to end fighting with Israel by joining strikes against the country late Saturday night. Iran's Foreign Minister Abbas Aragaci further warned of 'everlasting consequences' as the region is thrust into an unpredictable conflict following President Trump's announcement that the U.S. had carried out multiple strikes against at least three of Iran's primary nuclear facilities. 'The events this morning are outrageous and will have everlasting consequences,' Aragachi posted on the social media site X shortly after the strikes. He also warned that Iran reserves all options to defend its sovereignty, interest, and people. Trump, meanwhile, warned in a post on social media against Iran striking back against the U.S. and has called for Iran to make 'peace.' 'ANY RETALIATION BY IRAN AGAINST THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA WILL BE MET WITH FORCE FAR GREATER THAN WHAT WAS WITNESSED TONIGHT. THANK YOU! DONALD J. TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES,' Trump posted on his social media site Truth Social. Aragachi sought to lay out the case that Trump's strike against Iran was illegal. He said the U.S. 'decided to blow up' diplomatic efforts by the European Union, France, the United Kingdom and Germany to reach a ceasefire with Israel. Aragachi suggested the U.S. was in collusion with Israel to end diplomatic talks to reach an agreement between Washington and Tehran over Iran's nuclear program. One of the main objectives of U.S. talks with Iran is to get Tehran to give up its uranium enrichment capabilities. 'Last week, we were in negotiations with the US when Israel decided to blow up that diplomacy. This week, we held talks with the E3/EU when the US decided to blow up that diplomacy. What conclusion would you draw?' he posted on X. Republicans and some Democrats have lined up behind Trump's Saturday night decision to join Israeli strikes against Iran, which began on June 13. But international officials have warned against the escalation of the conflict. British Prime Minister Keir Starmer said the U.S. took action to 'alleviate' the threat of Iran developing nuclear weapons, but warned the situation in the Middle East 'remains volatile.' He called for a return to diplomacy. 'The situation in the Middle East remains volatile and stability in the region is a priority. We call on Iran to return to the negotiating table and reach a diplomatic solution to end this crisis,' he posted on X. The director general of the international nuclear watchdog IAEA, Rafael Grossi, said he is convening an emergency meeting of the organization's board of governors for Monday. United Nations Secretary General António Guterres said in a statement that he is 'gravely alarmed' by the U.S. use of force against Iran and called for de-escalation. 'There is a growing risk that this conflict could rapidly get out of control – with catastrophic consequences for civilians, the region, and the world,' he said.
