The Boriswave Indefinite-Leave-to-Remain time bomb is about to go off
This week, the Telegraph is running a series of essays on immigration, one of the great issues of our times. The full list of published essays appears at the bottom of this article
Those concerned about immigration often focus on the number of people coming to Britain, and rightly so. Incoming migration is far too high, and has been for many years. In 2022, 2023, and 2024, gross migration ran at more than 1 million – a population the size of Birmingham, each year.
But quantity is not the only consideration. We must also think about the terms on which immigrants come to Britain, the rights that they have once they are here – and what, if anything, we can do to remove those migrants who do not contribute to our society.
Under the current system, most migrants on work or family visas will be eligible for Indefinite Leave To Remain (ILR) after just five years in the UK. After ten years here, almost all migrants are eligible to apply for ILR – an eligibility period which includes time spent on a student or graduate visa. Once they have ILR, migrants can access Universal Credit, social housing, and other benefits. It also puts them on the path to citizenship, and entitles them to surcharge-free access to the NHS.
The number of people receiving ILR is already ticking up, as the long-term impact of Britain's migration failure filters through the system. In 2024, 147,053 people were granted ILR, up 31 percent on the 2023 figure.
But a much bigger threat now looms, which could permanently damage our economy, our public services, and our society as a whole. Those who came to Britain in the migration explosion of the last few years – dubbed the 'Boriswave' by some commentators – will soon become eligible for ILR. Those who arrived in 2021's record-breaking migration wave will start to become eligible from 2026, with the number of eligible migrants growing with each passing day.
This will, in effect, bake in the 'Boriswave', making it much harder to reverse the damage of our immigration failure over the past few years. These newly-minted ILR recipients will be able to access our already-stretched public services, and will begin to receive taxpayer-funded welfare. With just five per cent of migrants from the 2022-23 cohort expected to be high earners, the vast majority of these new ILR holders will not be net lifetime contributors. In other words, we will be adding enormous strain to our public services, and paying for the privilege.
How many migrants from the Boriswave will actually claim ILR? Incredibly, we don't know. The Government has issued no official prediction about the number of people who could receive ILR over the course of this Parliament, nor any prediction of the impact that these people will have on public services over their lifetimes.
As such, we must rely on estimates. According to research from the Centre for Policy Studies, more than 800,000 migrants could receive ILR over the course of this Parliament, at a lifetime cost of £234 billion. That's equivalent to £8,200 per household, or six times our annual defence budget. This represents an enormous opportunity cost, and will be financed by either increased taxes or borrowing. Why should working people, already squeezed by historically high tax rates, be forced to pay more in order to cover the costs of an immigration wave that they did not consent to?
We must act now, and act decisively. The eligibility period for ILR must be extended, to at least 10 years – and ideally longer. As I argued in December, a 15-year eligibility period would be preferable, giving a future Government more time to decide whether or not to issue new visas to those who arrived in the past few years.
Extending the eligibility period for ILR would make it possible to withhold visas from those who have come to the UK legally, but have not contributed enough. Those who are not expected to be net lifetime contributors should simply be refused a visa extension and compelled to leave. We should not add more pressure to an already-strained public purse. As Nick Timothy MP has so rightly argued, the future of immigration policy must not only be about who comes here, but about who we decide must leave.
There is precedent for such a change. In 2006, then-Home Secretary Charles Clarke extended the qualifying period for ILR, a change which applied retroactively to those already moving through the settlement process. Since 2006 our activist judiciary has expanded its scope significantly, but this is not an insurmountable hurdle by any means. Cleverly-drafted legislation, and a well-placed ouster clause, can thwart even the most skilful judicial meddling. Like it or not, Parliament is still sovereign.
But times have changed, and our present situation is significantly more precarious than it was in 2006. We can, and should, go further. We should expand the conditions under which ILR can be revoked, allowing us to exclude criminals, low-earners, and welfare claimants from permanent settlement. We should also tighten eligibility rules for future migrants, restricting ILR status to high earners, with an in-built preference for those from culturally compatible societies. Settled status must work, and continue to work, in the interests of Britain.
These are not radical steps. They would simply reflect the expressed wishes of the British people, who have, at every election in living memory, voted for an immigration system which is selective, limited, and tailored to our needs. Time and time again, politicians have failed to deliver such a system – but it is not too late to do so. If, as the Prime Minister himself has said, our 'open borders experiment' was a mistake, then we should endeavour to reverse that mistake.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
South Wales Guardian
24 minutes ago
- South Wales Guardian
Murray hails ‘brilliant opportunities' of UK Government's industrial strategy
Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer unveiled the document on Monday, pinpointing key industries believed to have the most potential for growth such as artificial intelligence, offshore wind and batteries for electric vehicles. The 160-page document put Scotland 'at the heart of the UK's energy transition', as well as talking up commitments to a £750 million supercomputer in Edinburgh and £200 million in development funding for the Acorn carbon capture and storage facility in Aberdeenshire. The Prime Minister also announced a cut to electricity bills for industrial businesses, £30 million for the video games sector – with a number of high profile developers based in Scotland – and £30 million for research and development for each of the devolved nations. Delighted to be in Cockenzie, East Lothian for the launch of the UK Industrial Strategy today. Lots of brilliant opportunities for Scotland from the 8 growth sectors. Jobs, investment, regeneration and skills. — Ian Murray MP (@IanMurrayMP) June 23, 2025 In a post on X following a visit to the promote the strategy, the Scottish Secretary said: 'Delighted to be in Cockenzie, East Lothian, for the launch of the UK industrial strategy today. 'Lots of brilliant opportunities for Scotland from the eight growth sectors. 'Jobs, investment, regeneration and skills.' The strategy was also praised by Scottish Labour leader Anas Sarwar. 'Labour's industrial strategy delivers for Scotland – unlocking economic potential, raising wages, boosting living standards, and delivering the growth we need,' he said. Asked about his response to the UK Government's announcement on Monday, First Minister John Swinney touted his own Government's work on industry. 'Of course, we have in Scotland our own approach to industrial strategy, which involves working with our universities, with our economic development agencies to ensure that we attract investment and can support development within the economy,' he told the PA news agency. 'Last week, we saw that Scotland, for the 10th year in a row, was the most successful part of the United Kingdom for the attraction of inward investment other than London and the south east. 'So that's an indication that the Scottish Government's got its priorities correct, its focus correct on the attraction of investment, because we're contributing to make Scotland an incredibly successful investment location.'
ITV News
33 minutes ago
- ITV News
Move to publish Guernsey States' accounts after election is 'severe blow to the democratic process'
One of the candidates vying to become Guernsey's next President of Policy and Resources says not seeing the full state of the island's finances ahead of the General Election has damaged the democratic process. Deputy Charles Parkinson, who finished third in the poll, says the complete States' accounts for last year should have been made a matter of public record before the election, so voters could have been better informed. He explains: "I think the States' finances are in much better health than we've been led to believe before the election. "We didn't see the 2024 accounts before the General Election, which was a severe blow to the democratic process." The States of Guernsey says deputies in the previous Assembly voted to publish the accounts on this date. The full details confirm a deficit in the day-to-day running of public services, amounting to £44 million across 2024, which was made public before Polling Day. They also show a number of other figures surrounding the state of public finances in the Bailiwick, including: The Government and all state entities, including water and Aurigny, went from an operating surplus of £37 million in 2023 to a deficit of £18 million in 2024. The overall amount of cash left over has fallen from £51 million to £21 million. Investments grew from £103 million to £129.8 million. Deputy Jonathan Le Tocq, who is also aiming to become Guernsey's next Chief Minister, believes the £44 million number was the most important to understand the overall financial picture. He says: "That is the amount we need for business as usual. This includes the running of the hospital, schools and paying the salaries of teachers and nurses." Deputy-elect Andy Sloan, the former Chief Economist for the States of Guernsey and one of the 20 new States members, says that greater transparency is needed in the process of publishing accounts. He adds: "I haven't seen the exact figures yet, but they probably aren't as bad as they were claimed to be last November. "However, they're still not great and we've got to address that deficit one way or another."
Glasgow Times
an hour ago
- Glasgow Times
Lammy urges Reform's newest MP to ‘get some help' over ‘conspiracy theories'
Sarah Pochin had asked the Foreign Secretary whether the US felt unable to use the UK-US airbase on Diego Garcia, following the Government's deal with Mauritius over the Chagos Islands. Responding during a statement on the Middle East, Mr Lammy said the MP for Runcorn and Helsby should 'get off social media'. Foreign Secretary David Lammy (Parliament TV/PA) The UK-operated base in the Chagos Islands was not used in the US strike on Iran's nuclear facilities, Foreign Office minister Stephen Doughty has said. He added that the US did not ask to use it, as he answered questions from the Foreign Affairs Committee on Monday. Speaking in the Commons, Ms Pochin said: 'Is he (Mr Lammy) able to explain to the House whether the United States felt unable to use the Diego Garcia base and have to refuel, in a highly dangerous operation three times because of that, because of your deal that you did with the with the Mauritians, that would then tell the Chinese, that would then tell the Iranians?' Mr Lammy replied: 'The honourable lady has got (to) get off social media, has got to get some help… because she is swallowing conspiracy theories that should not be repeated in this House.' The deal over the Chagos Islands follows a 2019 advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice which says the islands should be handed over to Mauritius. As well as establishing a £40 million fund for Chagossians, the UK has agreed to pay Mauritius at least £120 million a year for 99 years in order to lease back the Diego Garcia base – a total cost of at least £13 billion in cash terms. During the statement on Monday, Mr Lammy was pressed by MPs on the UK's position following the US military action. Conservative MP Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) said: 'Does His Majesty's Government support or oppose US military action against Iran at the weekend?' Mr Lammy replied: 'His Majesty's Government will continue to work with our closest ally, as I was last week in Washington DC.' Liberal Democrat MP Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) said: 'What is UK Government policy on whether regime change should be pursued in Iran?' Mr Lammy replied: 'It is not our belief that it's for us to change the regime of any country, that it must be for the people themselves.' SNP MP Brendan O'Hara (Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber) said: 'We've been here for an hour, and still the Foreign Secretary appears incapable of saying whether he supports or condemns America's actions, or whether he regards them as being legal or not. 'And nowhere in this statement does the role of international law even merit a mention. So will the Foreign Secretary take this opportunity now to tell us whether he believes that America's unilateral action was compliant with international law?' Mr Lammy replied: 'I've got to tell (Mr O'Hara), I qualified and was called to the bar in 1995, I haven't practised for the last 25 years. 'It is not for me to comment on the United States' legal validity. I would refer him to article 51 and article two of the UN Charter, and he can seek his own advice.'
