What's new

UK announces radical changes to its immigration rules

mominsaigol

ODI Star
Joined
Apr 14, 2021
Runs
33,090
Post of the Week
2
Amidst the recent chaos, UK has now tightened immigration laws surrounding their country. Here are the recent changes.

1) In order to become a UK citizen you must live in the country for 10 years rather then 5 which was the standard on an Indefininte Leave to Remain.

2) It is now longer possible to hire overseas workers if they are outside the UK ensuring that someone can only be sponsored if they are on a Student Visa.

3) Students after graduation now have even less time to find work and get sponsored after graduation. Previously it was 2 years currently it's 18 months.

4) Employee Sponsorship prices have increased discouraging UK employers from sponsoring candidates and look for PR/Citizenship holders.


The reason i am making this thread is because this announcement came coincidentally after the Pakistan and India ceasefire happened.

Previously their was zero indication that the rules would have changed, my guess is UK is reacting to the war as India and Pakistan are their largest migrant pool surpassing any other migrant pool who wishes to immigrate to the UK.

@Rana @DeadlyVenom @gazza619 @Rajdeep @shaz619 @emranabbas
 
What i don't get is why UK is doing this? Tue sole reason Foreign students wish to study is to eventually immigrate.

With such laws the government will lose a ton of money 💰, as no foreign student will want to study in UK anymore.

10 years is too much, no one wants to work for a single employer for 10 years on a sponsorship and get a passport by year 11. That's more then 10% of your life your wasting away for immigration?

This is why you have to appreciate Canada and Australia for making their immigration laws comparatively easy.

Granted both countries are gradually making it harder but it's still somewhat easy for now.
 
What i don't get is why UK is doing this? Tue sole reason Foreign students wish to study is to eventually immigrate.

With such laws the government will lose a ton of money 💰, as no foreign student will want to study in UK anymore.

10 years is too much, no one wants to work for a single employer for 10 years on a sponsorship and get a passport by year 11. That's more then 10% of your life your wasting away for immigration?

This is why you have to appreciate Canada and Australia for making their immigration laws comparatively easy.

Granted both countries are gradually making it harder but it's still somewhat easy for now.

I don't know about Australia but Canada has made immigration a bit tougher lately (even though liberals are still in charge).

To be fair, it was expected because Canada was experiencing issues like housing crisis, job crisis, worsening healthcare, increased crimes etc.
 
I don't know about Australia but Canada has made immigration a bit tougher lately (even though liberals are still in charge).

To be fair, it was expected because Canada was experiencing issues like housing crisis, job crisis, worsening healthcare, increased crimes etc.
Australian immigration is not that hard assuming you know what you're doing.

Basically their 2 main visas, 190 and 491. 190 is very hard to get as the points are competitive. 491 is extremely easy to get.

With 190, you will get pr and passport after 4 years, and with 491 it's the same. The difference is that 491 is regional and after 3 years it gets converted into 191 full time pr and then passport is granted.

As long as you're willing to work and live in regional Australia, you will get 491 and then passport and 491 is extremely easy to get.

The goverment classifies all of Australia as regional except Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane. Basically Australian government is sick of people migrating to Sydney Melbourne and Brisbane and they want areas like Perth, Adelaide, Hobart, Canberra, Gold coast etc etc to be populated.

So as long as you're willing to work anywhere other then brisbane, Sydney and Melbourne you will get it.

Infact aussie goverment is putting all their attention on Perth and Gold coast atm. WWE and Taylor Swift and all these celebrities keep coming to Perth and Right now the goverment is developing Gold coast to extend all the way to Brisbaje and eventually become a cosmopolitan.
 
I don't know about Australia but Canada has made immigration a bit tougher lately (even though liberals are still in charge).

To be fair, it was expected because Canada was experiencing issues like housing crisis, job crisis, worsening healthcare, increased crimes etc.
Also Canada immigration isn't that tough lol. First and foremost Australia and Canada are the only 2 countries in the world that instantly grant PR as soon as you complete PHD.

In Canada if you complete PHD in any area of Ontario you get PR and in Aus if you complete it from any area of ACT you get it.

Secondly the points system for Aus and Express entry system for Canada ensures that highly qualified skilled professionals that contribute to their economy can get access.

Lastly their extremely generous with temporary graduate visas for undergraduate students.

The only thing Canada and Australia have done is that they have stopped letting any tom dick and Harry immigrate, they obviously want degree holders with 1 to 5 years of work experience and ideally are unmarried or recently married with a wife/husband who is equally as qualified as they are.

Canada and Australia just got sick of letting Indian janitors or village idiots immigrate.

Their immigration system is extremely fair when you consider that.

Compare that to USA or UK that are tightening laws for no reason. UK's laws of staying in the country on visa sponsorship basically makes it impossible to immigrate now.

No student is going to want to stay in one company for 10+ years lol. Same with USA their immigration system is nonsense.

Atleast Canada and Australia are ensuring that if you are educated and have work experience then you can stay as they value those who can genuinely contribute towards their economy
 
Also Canada immigration isn't that tough lol. First and foremost Australia and Canada are the only 2 countries in the world that instantly grant PR as soon as you complete PHD.

In Canada if you complete PHD in any area of Ontario you get PR and in Aus if you complete it from any area of ACT you get it.

Secondly the points system for Aus and Express entry system for Canada ensures that highly qualified skilled professionals that contribute to their economy can get access.

Lastly their extremely generous with temporary graduate visas for undergraduate students.

The only thing Canada and Australia have done is that they have stopped letting any tom dick and Harry immigrate, they obviously want degree holders with 1 to 5 years of work experience and ideally are unmarried or recently married with a wife/husband who is equally as qualified as they are.

Canada and Australia just got sick of letting Indian janitors or village idiots immigrate.

Their immigration system is extremely fair when you consider that.

Compare that to USA or UK that are tightening laws for no reason. UK's laws of staying in the country on visa sponsorship basically makes it impossible to immigrate now.

No student is going to want to stay in one company for 10+ years lol. Same with USA their immigration system is nonsense.

Atleast Canada and Australia are ensuring that if you are educated and have work experience then you can stay as they value those who can genuinely contribute towards their economy

Canada decided to accept less immigrants last year. See this link: https://www.canada.ca/en/immigratio...government-of-canada-reduces-immigration.html.

Things have become stricter compared to 4-5 years ago.

It is still pretty relaxed compared to USA. I agree.
 
This was bound to happen as Western economies themselves are facing downturn. Lack of jobs, decline in growth and rising inflations has made situation difficult. Further illegal immigration and large asylum seekers from middle east and Africa is destroying the social benefits system there.

I think crackdown should begin from there with tightening legal immigration being second priority.

Job market is going to get only tighter and local people will sure revolt in the next 10 years.

Western economies are tightening foreign investment now. So, MNCs will only be willing to invest for a huge foreign markets in a target country rather than cheap manufacturing for their own domestic country.

China grew its auto manufacturing so much in 10 years that, US and Europe have put protective tariffs for Chinese made auto imports.

Countries like India, Vietnam and even Pakistan can only improve their domestic markets else, face even more dwindling FDIs in future which will directly impact their job markets.
 
Canada decided to accept less immigrants last year. See this link: https://www.canada.ca/en/immigratio...government-of-canada-reduces-immigration.html.

Things have become stricter compared to 4-5 years ago.

It is still pretty relaxed compared to USA. I agree.
It's reducing immigrants because they are selecting only those that can actually contribute aka those with degrees + work experience + spouses who are equally skilled.

They don't want Indian village boys or Indian janitors to come anymore.

Previously express entry was a joke where every tom dick and Harry could get in. Now they obviously want skilled individuals.
 
What i don't get is why UK is doing this? Tue sole reason Foreign students wish to study is to eventually immigrate.

With such laws the government will lose a ton of money 💰, as no foreign student will want to study in UK anymore.

10 years is too much, no one wants to work for a single employer for 10 years on a sponsorship and get a passport by year 11. That's more then 10% of your life your wasting away for immigration?

This is why you have to appreciate Canada and Australia for making their immigration laws comparatively easy.

Granted both countries are gradually making it harder but it's still somewhat easy for now.
Anti migrant sentiment and racism has never been higher in the UK. Language that appeared to be dead and buried is now suddenly acceptable to use again.
 
Indian Immigration is a biological weapon, 1.5 billion of them, every country must protect themselves for them.
 
Also Canada immigration isn't that tough lol. First and foremost Australia and Canada are the only 2 countries in the world that instantly grant PR as soon as you complete PHD.

In Canada if you complete PHD in any area of Ontario you get PR and in Aus if you complete it from any area of ACT you get it.

Secondly the points system for Aus and Express entry system for Canada ensures that highly qualified skilled professionals that contribute to their economy can get access.

Lastly their extremely generous with temporary graduate visas for undergraduate students.

The only thing Canada and Australia have done is that they have stopped letting any tom dick and Harry immigrate, they obviously want degree holders with 1 to 5 years of work experience and ideally are unmarried or recently married with a wife/husband who is equally as qualified as they are.

Canada and Australia just got sick of letting Indian janitors or village idiots immigrate.

Their immigration system is extremely fair when you consider that.

Compare that to USA or UK that are tightening laws for no reason. UK's laws of staying in the country on visa sponsorship basically makes it impossible to immigrate now.

No student is going to want to stay in one company for 10+ years lol. Same with USA their immigration system is nonsense.

Atleast Canada and Australia are ensuring that if you are educated and have work experience then you can stay as they value those who can genuinely contribute towards their economy
I think you are very much misinformed on the Canadian immigration. You don't automatically get PR after completing your PhD in Canada. Canada is currently prioritizing French speakers and in demand occupations. Skills and qualifications are loosely tied to immigration pathways now. The express entry stream is extremly competetive now due to its high demand and sporadic draws.

Also you are making Australian parmanent immigration sound so easy which i highly doubt it is. The 491 you are referring to, i'm sure it's not as simple as "move to a remote region is Australia to obtain it". Desis would gladly live on trees for the rest of their lives if a PR was offered to them. I have close friends in Auatrlia who are fairly qualified, have bachelors degrees and work experience and have been in Australia for more than a decade yet they are not citizens. They are relying on the employer to sponsor them for PR
 
I think you are very much misinformed on the Canadian immigration. You don't automatically get PR after completing your PhD in Canada. Canada is currently prioritizing French speakers and in demand occupations. Skills and qualifications are loosely tied to immigration pathways now. The express entry stream is extremly competetive now due to its high demand and sporadic draws.

Also you are making Australian parmanent immigration sound so easy which i highly doubt it is. The 491 you are referring to, i'm sure it's not as simple as "move to a remote region is Australia to obtain it". Desis would gladly live on trees for the rest of their lives if a PR was offered to them. I have close friends in Auatrlia who are fairly qualified, have bachelors degrees and work experience and have been in Australia for more than a decade yet they are not citizens. They are relying on the employer to sponsor them for PR
For Canadian you may or may not be right, but ontario has a PHD ontario nomination stream. You graduate and you get it.

As for 491, idk about your desi friends but they must be pretty stupid if their taking over 10 years to obtain it.

491 is also points based but the points system is far more relaxed then the 190. 30 points for age if under 33, 20 points for Ielts, 15 for nomination, 5 for work experience, 15 to 25 points for education depending on qualifications, and 5 for naati is usually more then enough to secure 491.

Most people get it with 70 to 85 points, 90 to 115 is overkill.

Your desi friends must all be village idiots working janitor jobs and not have roles on skilled occupational lists if they haven't been able to secure aus PR In 10 years.

I have lived here and I'm telling you it is Impossible what you are claiming, so either your friends are morons or you're lying.

The Canadian one I won't say anything, but im certain that Canadian giverment would not be lying about OINP stream
 
I think you are very much misinformed on the Canadian immigration. You don't automatically get PR after completing your PhD in Canada. Canada is currently prioritizing French speakers and in demand occupations. Skills and qualifications are loosely tied to immigration pathways now. The express entry stream is extremly competetive now due to its high demand and sporadic draws.

Also you are making Australian parmanent immigration sound so easy which i highly doubt it is. The 491 you are referring to, i'm sure it's not as simple as "move to a remote region is Australia to obtain it". Desis would gladly live on trees for the rest of their lives if a PR was offered to them. I have close friends in Auatrlia who are fairly qualified, have bachelors degrees and work experience and have been in Australia for more than a decade yet they are not citizens. They are relying on the employer to sponsor them for PR
I have close friends in Auatrlia who are fairly qualified, have bachelors degrees and work experience and have been in Australia for more than a decade yet they are not citizens. They are relying on the employer to sponsor them for PR

^^ This isnt even possible, if they have not been sponsered how are they even staying in aus for that long?

Temporary graduate for bachelors is 2 years? After that you need a sponsor to stay and 482 sponsorship is 5 years.

You're claiming they have not been sponsored yet their somehow able to legally live in Australia for 10 years?

That's impossible.

Unless their automatically PR holders in which case they should have easily gotten it.

A classic example of an Indian lying through their teeth.
 
For Canadian you may or may not be right, but ontario has a PHD ontario nomination stream. You graduate and you get it.

As for 491, idk about your desi friends but they must be pretty stupid if their taking over 10 years to obtain it.

491 is also points based but the points system is far more relaxed then the 190. 30 points for age if under 33, 20 points for Ielts, 15 for nomination, 5 for work experience, 15 to 25 points for education depending on qualifications, and 5 for naati is usually more then enough to secure 491.

Most people get it with 70 to 85 points, 90 to 115 is overkill.

Your desi friends must all be village idiots working janitor jobs and not have roles on skilled occupational lists if they haven't been able to secure aus PR In 10 years.

I have lived here and I'm telling you it is Impossible what you are claiming, so either your friends are morons or you're lying.

The Canadian one I won't say anything, but im certain that Canadian giverment would not be lying about OINP stream
No need to insult my friends like that. The friend I'm referring to is a Project manager living in Sydney. Just because you were lucky to get your PR doesn't mean anyone can. If that were that case, you have a huge market to sell the PR to (India)

As for the OINP stream, it's just a PNP immigration pathway. Completing phD in Ontario only makes you eligble to apply. You still need the province to pick you so you can apply for PR
 
No need to insult my friends like that. The friend I'm referring to is a Project manager living in Sydney. Just because you were lucky to get your PR doesn't mean anyone can. If that were that case, you have a huge market to sell the PR to (India)

As for the OINP stream, it's just a PNP immigration pathway. Completing phD in Ontario only makes you eligble to apply. You still need the province to pick you so you can apply for PR
Not insulting, but im claiming that what you claimed is logically impossible.

Sydney is NSW meaning he would require state nomination + skills assessment + points to apply. He is not eligible for 491 as Sydney is not a regional area.

Secondly their are 2 project manager occupations in Australia. ICT Project Manager + Construction project manager.

Construction project manager is on 189 meaning if he's a Construction project manager he should be able to self sponser. Im assuming he's under 45, has done his bachelor from Aus, has work experience under his belt and probably has done his ielts and Naati, hence he should have acquired it.

If he is ICT project manager then ICT project manager is not on NSW list. It's on 190 but it's not on NSW migration list.

Meaning I will still call him a moron since he's chosen the most difficult state to acquire PR in.

Easiest state in SA and Victoria. Tell him to move to victoria and lodge it from their and problem solved.

Lastly it's not even possible for him to live their 10 years. If he's in Construction then yes his 482 can be extended indefinitely if the employer wishes it, although it's funny why the employer just hasn't given him the 186.

But if he's an ict manager you cant extend it, in other words he should have been kicked out of Australia by now.

So what you're saying is not logically possible.
 
Not insulting, but im claiming that what you claimed is logically impossible.

Sydney is NSW meaning he would require state nomination + skills assessment + points to apply. He is not eligible for 491 as Sydney is not a regional area.

Secondly their are 2 project manager occupations in Australia. ICT Project Manager + Construction project manager.

Construction project manager is on 189 meaning if he's a Construction project manager he should be able to self sponser. Im assuming he's under 45, has done his bachelor from Aus, has work experience under his belt and probably has done his ielts and Naati, hence he should have acquired it.

If he is ICT project manager then ICT project manager is not on NSW list. It's on 190 but it's not on NSW migration list.

Meaning I will still call him a moron since he's chosen the most difficult state to acquire PR in.

Easiest state in SA and Victoria. Tell him to move to victoria and lodge it from their and problem solved.

Lastly it's not even possible for him to live their 10 years. If he's in Construction then yes his 482 can be extended indefinitely if the employer wishes it, although it's funny why the employer just hasn't given him the 186.

But if he's an ict manager you cant extend it, in other words he should have been kicked out of Australia by now.

So what you're saying is not logically possible.
I can't speak on what efforts he made and what went wrong for him but don't be so arrogant to judge someone as you don't know about their personal circumstances. Even speaking in general terms, you just can't claim that "anyone" can obtain PR in Australia. Also to suggest someone uproot their life and move to a new place just so they become PR is unreasonable.

Not everyone goes to Australia/Canada/USA for the sole purpose of becoming a citizen. Getting PR in those countries requires a fair amount of luck for example the short window during Covid period when the Liberal government in Canada decided to give PR to just about anyone. Many people who never dreamed to become citizens in Canada got their PRs. Same was the case with many asylm seekers in the US that were pardoned and granted status during the Biden adminstration.

According to statistics, only 16 percent students get their permanent status in Australia so your claim about easy PR is not even remotely close to the reality.

 
I can't speak on what efforts he made and what went wrong for him but don't be so arrogant to judge someone as you don't know about their personal circumstances. Even speaking in general terms, you just can't claim that "anyone" can obtain PR in Australia. Also to suggest someone uproot their life and move to a new place just so they become PR is unreasonable.

Not everyone goes to Australia/Canada/USA for the sole purpose of becoming a citizen. Getting PR in those countries requires a fair amount of luck for example the short window during Covid period when the Liberal government in Canada decided to give PR to just about anyone. Many people who never dreamed to become citizens in Canada got their PRs. Same was the case with many asylm seekers in the US that were pardoned and granted status during the Biden adminstration.

According to statistics, only 16 percent students get their permanent status in Australia so your claim about easy PR is not even remotely close to the reality.

By anyone i mean skilled migrants who do a bit of legwork.

First and foremost anyone can apply for immigration. You go to the website and lodge it. As a result Australia gets alot of applications from underqualified applicants which they automatically deny.

Secondly it depends on the state but I'll list the criteria.

NSW: Must have a skills assessment + occupation on NSW list of which case only 189 priority occupations are listed.

SA: Either graduated from a sa uni or worked in sa for one year of worked offshore for 3 years.

Queensland: worked in queensland for atleast 6 months

Victoria: Need to write a strong ROI that proves why you're a good candidate, job offer not required nor do you have be onshore. Best route is to get a good immigration lawyer to write one for you.

As for the rest, no clue. Idk how tasmania, NT or WA runs things.

State nomination gives you 5 points if you are applying for 190 and 15 if you are applying for 491.

To apply for PR you need skills assessment + State nomination. Once these 2 things are granted you then apply but to recieve an ITA it will depend on your points.

You need a minimum of 65 to apply for 190 and 55 to apply for 491.

However to be competitive you need atleast 90-95 for 190 and 75-80 for 491. If you have > 100 in both then most likely you will get it.

Here are how the points are calculated

Age: 18-24 = 25 points, 25 to 32 = 30 points, 33 to 44 = 25 points.

English language proficiency: Ielts 6.0 and > = 5 points, 7.0 and > = 10 points, 8.0 and > = 20 points

Education = Bachelor = 15, Masters by coursework= 15, PHD or Masters by research in STEM = 20

Partner points = 10 if unmarried or 10 if partner has skills assessment + Ielts > 6.0, 5 or 0 if married and partner has none of the >.

Study in regional aus = 5 points

Study in Australia from an aussie uni = 5 points

Naati test = 5 points

Work experience in aus = 5 points for 1 year, 10 for 3, 15 for 5 and 20 for 8 and >.

Work experience overseas = 5 for 3 years, 10 for 5, 15 for 8, 20 for 15 and >

State nomination = 5 for 190 and 15 for 491

^^ This is how the points are calculated However I've never heard of anyone getting rejected if they have 90 points or > especially for 491.

As you can see uneducated people with zero experience won't get accepted for obvious reasons.
 
Indian Immigration is a biological weapon, 1.5 billion of them, every country must protect themselves for them.
In that sense, countries can also think about Muslims the same way right?
Such hatred lol.
I mean Hindus never want to implement a parallel society like Sharia law when they migrate to other nations. So, this biological weapon concept is more applicable to Muslims when they openly claim that, when their population reaches to a certain level, western nations doest have a choice but to accept.
 
UK being one of our best friends in the Muslim world, I fully support this move.
 
In that sense, countries can also think about Muslims the same way right?
Such hatred lol.
I mean Hindus never want to implement a parallel society like Sharia law when they migrate to other nations. So, this biological weapon concept is more applicable to Muslims when they openly claim that, when their population reaches to a certain level, western nations doest have a choice but to accept.
India and China is at fault the most though for strict immigration laws.

Despite having a combined population of over 2.5B they just don't wish to stay in their own country.

It's crazy to think that their total count is far higher then 2.5B as 2.7B is the no of people living in China and India alone, it doesn't count the migrant population in other countries.

If these 2 nations didn't wish to immigrate in such high numbers, immigration laws would be more relaxed
 
India and China is at fault the most though for strict immigration laws.

Despite having a combined population of over 2.5B they just don't wish to stay in their own country.

It's crazy to think that their total count is far higher then 2.5B as 2.7B is the no of people living in China and India alone, it doesn't count the migrant population in other countries.

If these 2 nations didn't wish to immigrate in such high numbers, immigration laws would be more relaxed
These 2 countries are the world’s oldest civilizations existing now.
Immigration is a natural way of flowing from higher density to lower density right?

As long as its legal and it doesnt hurt the country, its fine. If people are messing it up there, they should be deported. Somewhere, I can understand where you are coming from.

You have migrated to a better place and now you are part of it. And you dont like getting it messed up. So, tighter immigration laws are needed. Sovereignty and borders should be maintained for a society to be civilized.

Indians and Chinese should learn this.
I dont mean to pull the leg but, Africa and Middle east are becoming the culprits here with Pakistan also topping it. I read a stat where Pakistan had more migration last year in 2024 in Asia.
 
What i don't get is why UK is doing this? Tue sole reason Foreign students wish to study is to eventually immigrate.

With such laws the government will lose a ton of money 💰, as no foreign student will want to study in UK anymore.

10 years is too much, no one wants to work for a single employer for 10 years on a sponsorship and get a passport by year 11. That's more then 10% of your life your wasting away for immigration?

This is why you have to appreciate Canada and Australia for making their immigration laws comparatively easy.

Granted both countries are gradually making it harder but it's still somewhat easy for now.

Because they are losing votes to the Reform Party which also panders to people looking for simple solutions. These solutions never really stand up in the light of day when examined properly. It is not even clear how Farage would actually implement half the stuff he has promised.
 
Amidst the recent chaos, UK has now tightened immigration laws surrounding their country. Here are the recent changes.

1) In order to become a UK citizen you must live in the country for 10 years rather then 5 which was the standard on an Indefininte Leave to Remain.

2) It is now longer possible to hire overseas workers if they are outside the UK ensuring that someone can only be sponsored if they are on a Student Visa.

3) Students after graduation now have even less time to find work and get sponsored after graduation. Previously it was 2 years currently it's 18 months.

4) Employee Sponsorship prices have increased discouraging UK employers from sponsoring candidates and look for PR/Citizenship holders.


The reason i am making this thread is because this announcement came coincidentally after the Pakistan and India ceasefire happened.

Previously their was zero indication that the rules would have changed, my guess is UK is reacting to the war as India and Pakistan are their largest migrant pool surpassing any other migrant pool who wishes to immigrate to the UK.

@Rana @DeadlyVenom @gazza619 @Rajdeep @shaz619 @emranabbas
I already posted about this yesterday bro but like in most cases another of my thread got binned. :asif

Anyway, this is a good and much needed step by Govt. You must understand and communicate in basic English if you want to stay in Britain. Also, 10 years settlement is a realistic timeframe.

This has nothing to do with Ind-Pak ceasefire though...UK couldn't care less. Starmer implemented this because he is losing grip with ever rising Reform Party and increase in popularity of Nigel Farage. Labour knows they need to act on immigration now, else they will lose next election to reform.
 
I already posted about this yesterday bro but like in most cases another of my thread got binned. :asif

Anyway, this is a good and much needed step by Govt. You must understand and communicate in basic English if you want to stay in Britain. Also, 10 years settlement is a realistic timeframe.

This has nothing to do with Ind-Pak ceasefire though...UK couldn't care less. Starmer implemented this because he is losing grip with ever rising Reform Party and increase in popularity of Nigel Farage. Labour knows they need to act on immigration now, else they will lose next election to reform.
My threads don't get binned cause im the greatest of all time on PP, the John cena on this forumn. Anyway

I disagree, and this disagreement is coming from a neutral person who has nothing to do with UK nor any intent to move or settle their.

I disagree because I feel Canada and Australia have the right idea aka give skilled migrants who can contribute to their economy a right to live and work and both countries typically give it in 4 to 5 years.

This policy is unfair for multiple reasons, First and foremost

A) Its completly unfair to UK foreign students who are coming to study here. This is exploitation from the UK goverment.

B) Secondly, the fact that they have banned or severely restricted overseas work sponsorship means that students will have to spend months looking for work, then hope that a company is willing to sponsor them for 10+ years until they get a right to remain.

It's total nonsense and im sure if you were in this situation you'd complain as well.

10+ years for one company is too much for an employer and an employee. The employer has to pay too much and the employee has to sacrifice too much.

UK should have just adopted Australia's strategy for regional Visas where they should have encouraged foreigners to populate and contribute in areas where their aren't that many people.

Areas like Coventry are severely under populated while areas like London are overpopulated.

That's what Australia is trying to achieve with its 491 visa aka encourage people to move to gold coast, adelaide, Perth and stay away from Sydney Melbourne and Brisbane.

Kicking people out is extreme.
 
So basically the easiest way to move to UK now is to become an Irish citizen 🤣🤣🤣 or marry a British citizen.
 
This will basically not net Labour any votes. these moves will decrease net migration in the future. But the problem of Reform voters is that there are too many brown people right now.

Applying these rules retrospectively will surely result in a court case , and it wont have any noticeable effect for at least a couple of years if not done retrospectively
 
My threads don't get binned cause im the greatest of all time on PP, the John cena on this forumn. Anyway

I disagree, and this disagreement is coming from a neutral person who has nothing to do with UK nor any intent to move or settle their.

I disagree because I feel Canada and Australia have the right idea aka give skilled migrants who can contribute to their economy a right to live and work and both countries typically give it in 4 to 5 years.

This policy is unfair for multiple reasons, First and foremost

A) Its completly unfair to UK foreign students who are coming to study here. This is exploitation from the UK goverment.

B) Secondly, the fact that they have banned or severely restricted overseas work sponsorship means that students will have to spend months looking for work, then hope that a company is willing to sponsor them for 10+ years until they get a right to remain.

It's total nonsense and im sure if you were in this situation you'd complain as well.

10+ years for one company is too much for an employer and an employee. The employer has to pay too much and the employee has to sacrifice too much.

UK should have just adopted Australia's strategy for regional Visas where they should have encouraged foreigners to populate and contribute in areas where their aren't that many people.

Areas like Coventry are severely under populated while areas like London are overpopulated.

That's what Australia is trying to achieve with its 491 visa aka encourage people to move to gold coast, adelaide, Perth and stay away from Sydney Melbourne and Brisbane.

Kicking people out is extreme.
What is Australia's policy?
 
What is Australia's policy?
Australia has a few options.

Option A is employment sponsorship, Option B is 189/190 PR apply and Option C is 491.

491 is a new visa introduced in 2023.

Basically to get Aussie PR you need a skills assessment done which is one year work experience, Then you need to acquire state nomination.

Each state has their own rules, so check what those are.

Once you get both documents, you apply for PR and whether you get it or not depends on your points, 65 points minimum to apply for 190 and 55 for 491.

But 491 is much easier to get as typically people get it for 70 to 80 points and the points higher, state nomination for 491 is 15 points while for 190 is 5 points.

Basically with 491 visa, you get pr after 3 years and passport the year after, but you are not allowed to work in Sydney, Melbourne or Brisbane.

Australia is sick of people moving to these 3 areas. Since areas like gold coast, canberra, Adelaide, Perth are very underpopulated with a population of 400 to 600K max.

They want .ore migrants but not in Sydney, Melbourne and brisbane that have 2M to 5M people.
 
I already posted about this yesterday bro but like in most cases another of my thread got binned. :asif

Anyway, this is a good and much needed step by Govt. You must understand and communicate in basic English if you want to stay in Britain. Also, 10 years settlement is a realistic timeframe.

This has nothing to do with Ind-Pak ceasefire though...UK couldn't care less. Starmer implemented this because he is losing grip with ever rising Reform Party and increase in popularity of Nigel Farage. Labour knows they need to act on immigration now, else they will lose next election to reform.

I don't agree with you on many posts but on this one I do. Not because I care that much about who speaks English nicely or who doesn't...simply because I do, and so does everyone in my family. If this sort of stuff helps white people feel less threatened by awful foreigners then fine by me. I don't see much of a future for the UK going down the Little England route, but again, I am not too fussed. It is similar to the USA having an identity crisis, and it's better everyone gets this out of their system same as is happening over there.
 
Amidst the recent chaos, UK has now tightened immigration laws surrounding their country. Here are the recent changes.

1) In order to become a UK citizen you must live in the country for 10 years rather then 5 which was the standard on an Indefininte Leave to Remain.

2) It is now longer possible to hire overseas workers if they are outside the UK ensuring that someone can only be sponsored if they are on a Student Visa.

3) Students after graduation now have even less time to find work and get sponsored after graduation. Previously it was 2 years currently it's 18 months.

4) Employee Sponsorship prices have increased discouraging UK employers from sponsoring candidates and look for PR/Citizenship holders.


The reason i am making this thread is because this announcement came coincidentally after the Pakistan and India ceasefire happened.

Previously their was zero indication that the rules would have changed, my guess is UK is reacting to the war as India and Pakistan are their largest migrant pool surpassing any other migrant pool who wishes to immigrate to the UK.

@Rana @DeadlyVenom @gazza619 @Rajdeep @shaz619 @emranabbas

I think this is just a reaction from Starmer to Nigel Farage & Reform doing well in the local elections, a little too late though and shows what a reactive numpty he is.
 
I don't agree with you on many posts but on this one I do. Not because I care that much about who speaks English nicely or who doesn't...simply because I do, and so does everyone in my family. If this sort of stuff helps white people feel less threatened by awful foreigners then fine by me. I don't see much of a future for the UK going down the Little England route, but again, I am not too fussed. It is similar to the USA having an identity crisis, and it's better everyone gets this out of their system same as is happening over there.

I feel like the English speaking is just a proxy of what reform voters really want to say - they dont want people who dont look like them.

This is why these measures wont net them any reform or angry Tory voters. They are unhappy with immigrants already here, changes to ILR only have a future effect
 
I feel like the English speaking is just a proxy of what reform voters really want to say - they dont want people who dont look like them.

This is why these measures wont net them any reform or angry Tory voters. They are unhappy with immigrants already here, changes to ILR only have a future effect


Most of them have never seen an England without immigrants. Even if they stop immigrants altogether, they still won't have a country with people who only look like them since there is already a big population of non-whites who have been living here for three or more generations. Maybe you could escape to some small village on the Isle of Man where you don't have to see any darker complexions. I bet life over there would be fun.
 
Thousands of Afghans were moved to UK in secret scheme after data breach

Thousands of Afghans have moved to the UK under a secret scheme which was set up after a British official inadvertently leaked their data, it can be revealed.

In February 2022, the personal details of nearly 19,000 people who had applied to move to the UK after the Taliban seized power in Afghanistan were leaked.

The previous government learned of the breach in August 2023 when some of the details appeared on Facebook.

A new resettlement scheme for those on the leaked list was set up nine months later, and has seen 4,500 Afghans arrive in the UK so far.

But the existence of the leak and relocations were kept secret after the government obtained a super-injunction stopping it from becoming public.

Details of the major data breach, the response and the number of Afghans granted the right to live in the UK as a result only came to light on Tuesday after a High Court judge ruled the gagging order should be lifted.

The leak contained the names, contact details and some family information of people potentially at risk of harm from the Taliban.

Downing Street would not confirm whether the official responsible for the leak had faced disciplinary action, with a spokesman saying they would not comment on individuals.

The government also revealed on Tuesday:

  • The MoD believes 600 Afghan soldiers included in the leak, plus 1,800 of their family members, are still in Afghanistan
  • The scheme is being closed down, but relocation offers already made to those who remain in Afghanistan will be honoured
  • The secret scheme - officially called the Afghan Relocation Route - has cost £400m so far, and is expected to cost a further £400m to £450m
  • The breach was committed mistakenly by an unnamed official at the MoD
  • People whose details were leaked were only informed on Tuesday
Speaking in the House of Commons, Defence Secretary John Healey offered a "sincere apology" to those whose details had been included in the leak, which came to light when some appeared on Facebook.

He said it was as a result of a spreadsheet being emailed "outside of authorised government systems", which he described as a "serious departmental error" - though the Metropolitan Police decided a police investigation was not necessary.

Healey said the leak was "one of many data losses" related to the Afghanistan evacuation during that period, and contained the names of senior military officials, government officials and MPs.

Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch apologised on behalf of her party.

She told LBC: "Somebody made a terrible mistake and names were put out there... and we are sorry for that. That should not happen."

In a 2024 High Court judgement made public on Tuesday, Mr Justice Chamberlain said it was "quite possible" that some of those who saw parts of the leaked document in a Facebook group "were Taliban infiltrators or spoke about it to Taliban-aligned individuals".

It had earlier been feared the number of people at "risk of death or serious harm" because they appeared on the list, or because their family member did, could be as high as 100,000.

However, a review of the incident carried out on behalf of the MoD found it was "highly unlikely" an individual would have been targeted solely because of the leaked data, which "may not have spread nearly as widely as initially feared".

The MoD has declined to say how many people may have been arrested or killed as a result of the data breach.

The same review judged the secret scheme to be an "extremely significant intervention" given the "potentially limited" risk posed by the leak.

An email has been sent to those impacted by the breach, urging them to "exercise caution", and take steps like protecting their online activities and not responding to messages from unknown contacts.

Healey said those who have been relocated to the UK have already been counted in immigration figures.

'Unprecedented'

Tuesday's disclosure dates back to the August 2021 withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan, which saw the Taliban retake power and quickly surround the capital Kabul.

The leak involved the names of people who had applied for the Afghan Relocations and Assistance Policy (Arap) scheme, which the UK government set up to rapidly process applications by people who feared reprisals from the Taliban and move them to the UK.

The evacuation - which saw 36,000 Afghans moved to the UK - has already been heavily criticised in the years since it was launched, with a 2022 inquiry by the Foreign Affairs Committee finding it was a "disaster" and a "betrayal".

When the government set up a new relocation scheme last year in response to the leak, members of the press quickly learned about the plans.

The government asked a judge to impose an injunction on the media. The court then imposed a type of order which prevented outlets from reporting any detail of the leak, or even that the injunction itself existed. Healey said he was not aware of any other similar injunctions being in place.

He told the House even he had been prevented from speaking about the breach because of the "unprecedented" injunction, after being informed while still shadow defence secretary.

Reading a summary of his judgment in court, Mr Justice Chamberlain said the gagging order had "given rise to serious free speech concerns".

He continued: "The super-injunction had the effect of completely shutting down the ordinary mechanisms of accountability which operate in a democracy.

"This led to what I describe as a 'scrutiny vacuum'."

Court documents disclosed on Tuesday revealed then-Defence Secretary Ben Wallace "personally" applied for the stringent injunction in order to give the government time to do "everything it reasonably can to help those who might have been put at further risk by the data compromise".

The injunction was extended in November 2023 on the basis the Taliban may not have been aware of the leaked data's existence.

However, Mr Justice Chamberlain decided to lift it on the ground the MoD's internal review found the Taliban "likely already possess the key information in the dataset" and confirmation of its existence was "unlikely" to "substantially" raise the risk" faced by those impacted.

Shadow defence secretary James Cartlidge, who was in government when the secret scheme was established, said "this data leak should never have happened and was an unacceptable breach of all relevant data protocols".

Erin Alcock, a lawyer for the firm Leigh Day, which has assisted hundreds of Arap applicants and family members, called the breach a "catastrophic failure".

Earlier this month, the government confirmed it had offered payouts to Afghans whose information had been compromised in a separate data breach.

BBC
 
Amidst the recent chaos, UK has now tightened immigration laws surrounding their country. Here are the recent changes.

1) In order to become a UK citizen you must live in the country for 10 years rather then 5 which was the standard on an Indefininte Leave to Remain.

2) It is now longer possible to hire overseas workers if they are outside the UK ensuring that someone can only be sponsored if they are on a Student Visa.

3) Students after graduation now have even less time to find work and get sponsored after graduation. Previously it was 2 years currently it's 18 months.

4) Employee Sponsorship prices have increased discouraging UK employers from sponsoring candidates and look for PR/Citizenship holders.


The reason i am making this thread is because this announcement came coincidentally after the Pakistan and India ceasefire happened.

Previously their was zero indication that the rules would have changed, my guess is UK is reacting to the war as India and Pakistan are their largest migrant pool surpassing any other migrant pool who wishes to immigrate to the UK.

@Rana @DeadlyVenom @gazza619 @Rajdeep @shaz619 @emranabbas
Hope Australia doesn't change it for your sake bro. Stay safe.
 
meaning your usual uninformed, idiotic personal bias kicking in. thats ok, we have live with who we are.
What bias? I am the one who started this thread

Thread is about why UK is making its immigration policy harder then USA. I am the one who made a joke about kohli which you responded to.

Based of the link title considering its on lbc and not a cricket site im assuming its unrelated crap that Indians sell.

I'll be a betting boi and claim it has something to do with a Pakistani as well since I wouldnt put it beneath an Indian.

Maybe a Pakistani criminal or some Pakistani getting deported from UK, or some Pakistani murderer or some Pakistani controversial figure or heck maybe Umar Akmal.

Either way im 100% certain its clown worthy like you are and it's a waste of time for me to read it.
 
Lol look at poor Starmer's face when Trump calls out London Mayor Sadiq Khan 😆😂😂

Starmer must be weakest PM I have seen till date...

 
UK won't relax visa rules for India, Starmer says

Sir Keir Starmer has said the UK will not relax visa rules for India, speaking before he arrived in the country to tout the benefits of a recent trade agreement.

The prime minister is leading a delegation of more than 100 entrepreneurs, cultural leaders and university vice chancellors, as he attempts to boost UK investment and improve sluggish economic growth.

Sir Keir said there were "massive opportunities" to improve trade and cultural ties with India.

But he said there were no plans to open up more visa routes to Indian workers or students.

"The issue is not about visas," Sir Keir said. "It's about business to business engagement and investment and jobs and prosperity coming into the United Kingdom."

The UK's trade deal with India was signed in July after years of negotiation.

It will mean UK cars and whisky will be cheaper to export to India, and Indian textiles and jewellery cheaper to export to the UK as part of the multi-billion pound trade boost.

The deal included a three-year exemption on social security paid by Indian employees working in the UK on short-term visas.

But ministers insisted there were no wider changes in immigration policy.

The Labour government is trying to cut levels of immigration into the UK and announced a tough policy on settlement status at the party's conference last week.

Speaking to reporters on the plane on the way to Mumbai, Sir Keir said visas "played no part" in the trade deal with India and that situation had not changed.

Asked whether the UK might consider trying to attract tech entrepreneurs in the wake of US President Donald Trump's changes to the H-1B visa in the US, Sir Keir said the UK wanted to attract "top talent" from across the globe to help grow the UK economy, but repeatedly said there were no plans for new visa routes to India.

Among the businesses travelling with the PM was British Airways, which announced plans to introduce a third daily flight between Delhi and Heathrow next year.

Manchester Airport also revealed a new direct route to Delhi.

During the two-day trip, the prime minister is expected to meet Prime Minister Narendra Modi who ahead of Sir Keir's visit had conveyed his "warm birthday greetings" to Russian President Vladimir Putin on social media.

Sir Keir said he would not be following suit, telling reporters: "Just for the record, I haven't sent birthday congratulations to Putin, nor am I going to do so. I don't suppose that comes as a surprise."

Asked whether he would criticise Modi over India's purchase of Russian oil, Sir Keir said the UK's focus was on Russia's shadow fleet of oil tankers.

The prime minister said the UK had been one of "the lead countries in relation to the 'shadow fleet'" - the name given to unregulated tankers ferrying oil from Russia.

BBC
 
UK seeks Danish inspiration to shake up immigration system

The Home Secretary is set to announce a major shake-up of the immigration and asylum system later this month, the BBC has learned.

Shabana Mahmood will model some of her new measures on the Danish system - seen as one of the toughest in Europe.

It is understood officials have been looking at Denmark's tighter rules on family reunion and restricting most refugees to a temporary stay in the country.

Mahmood wants to reduce incentives that draw people to the UK, while making it easier to expel those with no right to be in the country.

But some in her party are against going down the Danish route, with one left-wing Labour MP saying it was too "hardcore" and contained echoes of the far right.

At the Labour conference in September, Mahmood promised to "do whatever it takes" to regain control of Britain's borders.

She is impressed that Denmark has driven down the number of successful asylum claims to a 40-year low - with the exception of 2020, amid pandemic travel restrictions.

The BBC has been told she dispatched senior Home Office officials to Copenhagen last month to study what lessons could be applied to the UK.

In Denmark, refugees who have been personally targeted by a foreign regime are likely to be given protection.

But most people who have been successfully granted asylum when fleeing conflicts are now only allowed to remain in the country on a temporary basis.

When the Danish government decrees their home country is safe, they can be returned.

For those who have been in Denmark for a longer period, the length of time necessary to acquire settlement rights has been extended and conditions - such as being in full-time employment - have been added.

Denmark's tighter rules for family reunions have also attracted the interest of UK Home Office officials.

If you are a refugee who has been given residency rights in Denmark, both you and your partner who is applying to join you in the country must be 24 or older.

The Danish government says this is to guard against forced marriages.

The partner in Denmark must not have claimed benefits for three years and also has to put up a financial guarantee - and both partners have to pass a Danish language test.

Refugees who live in housing estates designated as "parallel societies"- that is where more than 50% of residents are from what the Danish government considers to be "non-Western" backgrounds - will not be eligible for family reunion at all.

In September, the UK Home Office suspended new applications under the Refugee Family Reunion scheme, pending the drawing up of new rules.

The pre-September scheme allowed spouses, partners and dependents under 18 to come to the UK without fulfilling the income and English-language tests that apply to other migrants.

Mahmood is unlikely to go as far as Denmark when she announces the UK's replacement rules for family reunions, but it seems likely that she will take steps along a more restrictive route.

Last week, the BBC also made the journey to Denmark to find out how their immigration system operates.

Mahmood's opposite number Rasmus Stoklund, Denmark's minister for Immigration and Integration, is a member of Labour's sister party the Social Democrats.

He said "We have tightened our laws in many ways.

"We return more people back home. We have made it quite difficult to have family reunification in Denmark.

"You will get expelled a lot easier if you commit crimes. And we have made different programmes to help people go back home voluntarily."

There is no indication the UK government would follow the Danish example of offering substantial sums - as much as the equivalent of £24,000 - for asylum seekers to return their country of origin, including making a contribution to the cost of their children's education.

But some of what Stoklund outlined is being closely scrutinised in the Home Office, the BBC understands.

According to Stoklund, tighter immigration and integration is about protecting the societal nature of Denmark, which is a smaller country with a lower population than the UK.

"We expect people who come here to participate and contribute positively and if they don't, they aren't welcome," he said.

In Denmark - as in the UK - there is a live political debate on whether the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) makes the expulsion of foreign criminals more difficult.

Like the UK government, Stoklund does not want to leave the ECHR but believes changes could be made.

The Danish government has launched a review into how this could be done and Stoklund agreed he could make common cause with his British counterparts.

"I think it's very positive every time I hear that other countries have the same concerns and are frustrated the same way as many of us in Denmark are."

Mahmood is said to be keen to meet Stoklund at the earliest opportunity.

For Labour ministers, there are political, as well as practical lessons, to learn from Denmark.

In 2015, the country had a centre-left government in trouble and a right-wing populist party surging in the polls, with immigration increasingly worrying voters.

There are parallels with the UK today, as Reform UK maintains its poll lead over Labour.

Downing Street is interested in how a centre-left party managed to defeat the Danish People's Party, one-time allies of Nigel Farage's UKIP in the European Parliament, to return to power.

Ida Auken, the Social Democrats' environment spokesperson, said adopting a tougher stance on immigration meant there was space to pursue progressive policies in other areas.

"For us, it was a licence to operate on the things we want to do," she said.

"We want have a workforce that are educated, that have a social security and we do want to do a green transition.

"And we would never have been able to do this unless we've had those strict migration policies."

Some senior ministers in the UK are thought to find that argument persuasive.

Critics would point out that while there are similarities with the UK, the situation in Denmark is different.

The country is not facing small boats arrivals from the North Sea or the Baltic.

Danish is not as widely spoken as English, so language requirements likely discourage some potential refugees.

And while the vast majority of Social Democrat parliamentarians were on board for more hardline policies, there is far more wariness amongst some Labour MPs.

Off the record, some mainstream Labour MPs say they would oppose the transplantation of Danish policies to the UK.

On the left of the party, former frontbencher Clive Lewis argued strongly against adopting the Danish system in an effort to outflank Reform UK.

"Denmark's Social Democrats have gone down, what I would call a hardcore approach to immigration," he said.

"They've adopted many of the talking points of what we would call the far right.

"Labour does need to win back some Reform-leaning voters but you can't do that at the cost of losing progressive votes."

Jo White, who leads a 50-strong group of Labour MPs in "Red Wall" seats in the Midlands and North of England, would like to see ministers go further in a Danish direction.

She argued that Labour would pay a heavy political price if it does not adopt policies such as requiring some asylum seekers to contribute to the cost of their stay.

"The consequences are that we go into a general election where Reform will be the biggest challenger in most Labour seats... and we will be annihilated."

BBC
 
Refugees to face 20-year wait to settle permanently under asylum reforms

People granted asylum in the UK will have to wait 20 years before they can apply to settle permanently, under plans due to be announced by Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood on Monday.

The major shake-up to asylum policy comes as the government seeks to reduce small boat crossings and asylum claims.

Under the plans, people who are granted asylum will only be allowed to stay in the UK temporarily, with their refugee status regularly reviewed and those whose home countries are then deemed safe told to return.

Currently refugee status lasts for five years, after which people can apply for indefinite leave to remain.

Now the home secretary wants to cut the initial period from five years to two-and-a-half years, after which refugee status will be regularly reviewed.

But she plans to significantly lengthen the time it will take to gain permanent residence in the UK from five years to 20.

Mahmood told the Sunday Times the reforms were "designed to essentially say to people: do not come to this country as an illegal migrant, do not get on a boat".

She continued: "Illegal migration is tearing our country apart", adding that it was the government's job to "unite our country".

"If we don't sort this out, I think our country becomes much more divided," she told the newspaper.

The policy has been copied from Denmark, where a government led by the centre-left Social Democrats has presided over one of the toughest asylum and immigration systems in Europe.

In Denmark, refugees are given temporary residence permits, typically of two years, and in effect have to re-apply for asylum when they expire.

And Mahmood's new approach will certainly face opposition from some Labour MPs.

Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesperson Max Wilkinson said it was "right the government looks at new ways to fix the disorderly asylum system created by the Conservatives".

He added that Labour "shouldn't kid itself that these measures are an alternative to processing claims quickly so we can remove those with no right to be here".

Enver Solomon, chief executive at the Refugee Council, described the government's plans as "harsh and unnecessary", and said they "won't deter people who have been persecuted, tortured or seen family members killed in brutal wars".

BBC
 
Back
Top