SAW response to home office Earned settlement consultation
At the 2025 SAW-Unite AGM, members passed a motion for intersectional working class unity: fighting discrimination and the far-right. As a branch we agreed to fight the fear mongering and hatred that the far-right perpetuates including hostility towards migrants and scapegoating minorities and blaming them for systemic governmental failures. Read the full motion here.
The current Labour government has pandered to this rhetoric, not least by proposing further visa restrictions that are arguably worse than its conservative predecessor.
The new immigration rules pose a threat to the rights of immigrant workers. Any attacks on the rights of marginalised workers weakens pay and conditions for ALL workers.
What is being changed?
The government is proposing the changes below, among others, with the aim of implementing them in April 2026.
1) Extending the baseline settlement eligibility for Skilled Workers from 5 years to 10 years for those earning less than £50,270.00:
The new salary threshold is unattainable for most architecture practices outside Greater London, forcing employers to sponsor immigrants for up to 10 years, particularly early-career professionals who do not meet the income requirement anywhere in the UK.
Doubling the sponsorship period from 5 to 10 years makes Home Office fees prohibitively expensive for most employers.
2) Scrapping the 10-year long residence route:
Other types of VISA's (IE student VISAs) will no longer count towards the 10-year long residence route, meaning that students who come to study architecture and then work could now wait 15–17 years before obtaining settlement.
3) Applying the rules retrospectively:
If adopted, this proposal could overturn long-standing legal norms by applying new rules retroactively, disrupting plans made under current regulations and uprooting workers and families who have planned their lives around the current rules.
How these amendments will affect you:
While this looming drain of skilled migrant labour might appear to create job vacancies, the lack of vacancies is in fact a systemic issue caused by low fees and strategic corporate restructuring; in reality, it offers a cost-cutting opportunity to an industry that already struggles to pay and fails to value its workers: immigrants and British citizens alike. The consequences will affect you by worsening well-documented labour shortages and overloading remaining staff with longer hours and lower pay. Losing immigrants will only reduce the number of voices calling out against injustices and weaken our ability to fight workplace exploitation.
Beyond this, it will uproot the lives of many who have called the UK home for years, while pandering to far-right rhetoric that portrays immigrants as a societal burden, fuelling racism and division among the working class. It undermines key national goals such as building affordable, warm homes, achieving net-zero, and meeting climate targets.
How you can take action:
-
Share this page among your friends, family, and colleagues, urging them to answer the consultation and email their MPs as well.
The more people take action, the greater our collective power!
-
Join SAW (Branch LE801 of Unite the Union) and get involved in more campaigns like this, fight for workplace rights and democracy in the workplace.
In the current political environment, it is more important than ever to stand up to division and hatred collectively.
If you are on a skilled worker visa or are otherwise someone who is expecting to be affected by these rules (or know someone who will be), we invite you to share your story. If it’s an acquaintance who is affected, they do not need to be SAW or Unite members. We are gathering real-life examples of how these rules will affect the UK’s working class. These will be shared anonymously as part of a collective response.
-
Email your MP (and MSPs, MSs, or MLAs if you live in any of the devolved countries) voicing your concern: these rules present a threat to colleagues, neighbours, and family, and risk damaging the economy.
You can find a pre-written letter template below, which you are free to add to or edit as you please. We encourage you to make it personal.
If you do not not know who your representative is, find out by entering your postcode here:https://www.theyworkforyou.com/
________________________
MP Letter Template
Dear [MP]
I hope this email finds you well.
[I am a member of the Section of Architectural Workers (SAW), a national branch of Unite the Union.] (If you are a member!) I write to you with concern over the “Fairer Pathway to Settlement” statement presented to the Commons last November 20th. Whilst I will be responding to the consultation, my concerns run deep enough that I feel this is insufficient. There are many troubling changes that I fear will affect me, my community and the country, namely the following:
1) The potential for the proposals to be applied retroactively:
Applying immigration rules retroactively will overturn long-standing legal norms: laws are usually phased in and applied to new situations so as to give people the time to adapt. Those who live here have already planned their lives around the current rules, abiding by them and contributing meaningfully to their communities.
Retroactive measures are therefore unnecessarily punitive and risk uprooting those who have already integrated and made a life for themselves in the UK with the current immigration rules in mind. I will be faced with the risk of losing friends, neighbours and colleagues. Retroactive measures will unravel the social fabric of my community, and I urge the UK government to, at the very least, implement transitional measures for those already living here.
2) Superseding the 10-year long residence route:
The government’s ‘Fairer Pathway to Settlement’ document establishes a baseline of 10 years for earning settlement. I do not agree that this period should be considered the minimum for migrants to contribute and integrate, and even if so, I believe that someone who has already lived here for 10 years has integrated regardless of the type of visa(s) they had held throughout this period.
For example, a student who has studied and then worked in the UK will have demonstrated their English language proficiency, paid their way supporting higher education institutions with greater tuition fees and then subsequently used their expert knowledge to better the country and contribute to the economy. Therefore they will have ‘earned’ their settlement, the stated aim of the Fairer Pathway document.
Many who come here as students (at 18 years old) have essentially lived their whole adult lives here: studying, working, putting down roots, and making friends and family. The years they have lived here thus far must not be excluded simply because the long-residence route is being discontinued as a standalone category.
For an immigrant to land a job in this country requires demonstration of exceptional skill and dedication while being at a disadvantage because many employers see visa sponsorships as an unnecessary expense. Immigrants continuing on this settlement path despite its challenges is therefore a testament to their continued dedication and contribution to the UK. It need not be tested any further with more extensions. Student and Graduate visas therefore must continue to contribute to the 10-year settlement baseline.
3) Extending the settlement period to 10 years for those earning below £50,270.00.
The new salary threshold is unattainable for most architecture practices outside Greater London, forcing employers to sponsor immigrants for up to 10 years, particularly early-career professionals who do not meet the income requirement anywhere in the UK. There are various sources (such as the RIBA and Pay100 pay surveys for architectural workers) corroborating this.
Doubling the sponsorship period from 5 to 10 years makes Home Office fees prohibitively expensive for most employers, which would force many of our international colleagues to leave after having lived here for so long. This is particularly punishing for architecture professionals in the UK, many of whom have spent their entire adult lives specialising in British law and building regulations.
Finally, the current UK government should not feed into far-right rhetoric and fear-mongering tactics regarding immigrants, especially since so many of the supposed “facts” that are being perpetuated by the far-right were debunked numerous times. Net migration levels have already fallen to pre-Brexit levels due to the latest rounds of immigration rule amendments (https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/press/net-migration-falls-78-in-two-years-returning-to-pre-brexit-levels-every-major-immigration-category-except-asylum-declines/), which leaves me to wonder why further amendments are needed in the first place. This country has done so much to get to where it currently is with regards to diversity, tolerance, and equality, and the proposed immigration rules will be a step backwards that will embolden the far-right even further. They will not stop until immigration is fully banned (to the detriment of people and the economy) and mass deportations are in full effect. It is an agenda that is routed in racism, which makes any “mid-way” solutions (such as tighter immigration rules) insufficient in their eyes.
[My union branch is united in our concern and dissatisfaction with these proposed amendments due to the risk they pose to our friends, colleagues, and neighbours. Immigrants are part and parcel of our workforce regardless of the type of visa they hold. We all do our part to contribute to this country regardless, and it is profoundly unfair to treat workers and contributors in this manner.] (if you are a member)
The people of [your constituency’s name] whom you represent are asking you to urge the UK government to reconsider these amendments.
We also ask you to sign the following early day motions in support of immigrants and immigrant workers:
EDM 1956: Five-year indefinite leave to remain pathway for Skilled Worker visa holders
EDM 2043: Indefinite leave to remain and settlement
EDM 475: Lobby of Parliament by Refugee Groups
Thank you for taking the time to read my email, and I look forward to hearing back from you.
Kind regards,
[Name]
[address]
-
The Home Office has published a consultation to gather views on the proposed changes; please take the time to answer it:
https://ukhomeoffice.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_1yMmiaG7zqwPuM6
The submission deadline is February 12th, 2026.
If you are against these immigration proposals, we have created a sample answer sheet for the consultation:
________________________
Consultation: Pre-Answered Version
Questions pertaining to organisations have been omitted from this pre-answered sheet, as it is anticipated that people will be answering the consultation individually.
Earned Settlement
1 - Overall, how clear do you find the proposed changes to the settlement framework?
Answer: Very unclear
2 - [If unclear] Which aspects of the proposed changes to settlement are not clear?
Answer: The overall purpose
3 - Overall, to what extent do you agree or disagree with the proposed changes to the settlement framework?
Answer: Strongly disagree
Character
1 - Do you have any comments on how ‘Character’ should be considered in relation to settlement?
Answer:
The current rules under the existing Immigration rules (Part Suitability) are already sufficient for determining how character should be considered in relation to settlement and should not be amended.
Integration
1- What do you think about a 1-year reduction for applications who can demonstrate advanced English language ability (at C1 standard)?
Answer: The reduction doesn’t go far enough (it should be longer than 1 year)
2 - How do you think integration should be assessed? (please select all that apply)
Answer: Through a formal test (such a revised Life in the UK Test)
3 - Do you have any further comments on how ‘Integration’ should be considered in relation to settlement?
Answer: Students, graduates, skilled workers, and anyone else who has otherwise participated in British society has, by default, integrated. Immigrants participate in all parts of society by way of their work, studies, and social lives, and so anyone who has lived here for a number of years and put roots here will have, by default, integrated. I reject cultural integration as a prerequisite to immigration and believe that a multiplicity in expression of different backgrounds and beliefs is a societal strength, not a detriment.
Contribution
1 - Do you think the following groups should be exempt from the requirement to have earned above £12,750 for at least 3 to 5 years?
Those on maternity leave or long-term illness/disability
Answer: Yes
Those in certain occupations with different pay arrangements (e.g. Ministers of Religion)
Answer: Yes
2 - Are there any other groups that you think should be exempt from the requirement to have earned above £12,750 for at least 3 to 5 years?
Answer:
those who have lived in the UK longer than 5 years already
dependents who cannot work / stay at home parents
anyone under 23 years
anyone who was enrolled in university education during the 3-5 years prior to their application
anyone with a reasonable, valid reason to not have been able to work in the 3-5 years before their application
3 - To what extent do you agree or disagree that migrants who have worked in an occupation below RQF level 6 should have their standard qualifying period for settlement set at 15 years?
Answer: Strongly disagree
4 - To what extent do you agree or disagree that applicants who earn a taxable income above £50,270 should be eligible for a reduction in their time to settlement?
Answer: Neither agree nor disagree
5 - What do you think about the proposed reductions for applicants based on their annual taxable income?
7-year reduction for applicants who earn a taxable income above £125,140
Answer: Prefer not to say
5-year reduction for applicants who earn a taxable income above £50,270
Answer: Prefer not to say
6 - Do you think those employed in a public service occupation (i.e. health and education occupations where going rates are based on national pay scales) should be eligible for a reduction in their qualifying period to settlement?
Answer: Yes
7 - What do you think about the proposed penalties for applicants claiming public funds?
Ensuring that the UK can remain compliant with its international obligations, these penalties would exclude migrants covered by Trade Continuity Agreements and Social Security Coordination Agreements.
5-year penalty for applicants who claim public funds for less than 12 months during their route to settlement
Answer: There should be no penalty for these applicants
10-year penalty for applicants who claim public funds for more than 12 months during their route to settlement
Answer: There should be no penalty for these applicants
8 - To what extent do you agree or disagree that once someone has been granted settlement in the UK they should be eligible to claim public funds (e.g. benefits and housing assistance)?
Answer: Strongly agree
9 - To what extent do you agree or disagree that giving back to the local community (e.g. by volunteering) should be considered as a contribution that can reduce the length of time required to qualify for settlement?
Answer: Neither agree nor disagree
(Questions 10, 11 & 12 omitted as they apply to organisations only)
13 - Do you have any further comments on how ‘Contributions’ should be considered in relation to settlement, including any potential benefits or challenges of recognising giving back to the community as a contribution towards settlement?
Answer:
I strongly disagree that taxable income should be the determinant for settlement qualification periods and reject the notion that migrants should have to earn the right to live in the UK, whatever method of social contribution is considered. All people provide value to this country regardless of their earnings or contributions to the community.
Even if we are only taking the economy into account, many migrants do not provide income at the proposed thresholds, and yet their contribution is invaluable (for example in the construction, healthcare and agriculture industries). Besides, taxable income is not the only way to measure whether someone has a “net positive” fiscal impact as migrant workers are systemically underpaid and therefore disproportionately economically productive. This system creates class-based discrimination based on earnings, which is not in keeping with British values.
Residence:
1 - Which of the following penalties do you think should be applied to each of the following applicants?
Applicants who arrived in the UK illegally
Answer: There should be no penalty for these applicants
Applicants who initially entered the UK on a temporary visit visa (typically this visa permits stays of up to 6 months for tourism, visiting family or friends or short- term business activities)
Answer: There should be no penalty for these applicants
Applicants who have overstayed their original visa by 6 months or more
Answer: There should be no penalty for these applicants
2 - Do you have any further comments on how ‘Residence’ should be considered in relation to settlement?
Answer:
A safe, accessible and legal route to claim asylum should be implemented first before any penalties are considered. People arriving by boat or other "illegal" means are doing so because they do not have any other legal alternative to claim asylum. Resettled refugees and asylum seekers are treated very differently despite both groups fleeing war and persecution and thus equally having grounds for humanitarian aid. Liaison with the Refugee Council is needed to implement a safe and accessible asylum route.
Residence should continue to include time spent on routes such as Student and Graduate visas. These lived years must not be excluded or devalued simply because the long residence route (under which they were counted) is being discontinued as a standalone category. Transitional arrangements need to be considered for those who are already here under the existing rules. It would be unfair to uproot their lives due to the proposed amendments, which they had no way of knowing were going to be proposed.
Eligibility and Equalities
1 - Where the standard qualifying period is proposed to increase from 5 to 10 years, which option for you think should apply to each of the following visa holder groups?
Applicants who currently require 3 years continuous residence under the Global Talent route
Answer: Reduction (of 5 or 7 years from the standard qualifying period of 10 years)
Applicants who currently require 5 continuous years residence under the Global Talent route
Answer: Reduction (of 5 or 7 years from the standard qualifying period of 10 years)
Applicants who currently require 3 continuous years residence under the Innovator Founder route
Answer: Reduction (of 5 or 7 years from the standard qualifying period of 10 years)
Applicants on humanitarian visa routes (e.g. Syrian, Afghan)
Answer: Reduction (of 5 or 7 years from the standard qualifying period of 10 years)
2 - To what extent do you agree or disagree that dependants of migrants who hold Global Talent or Innovator Founder visa status should retain their current 5-year path to settlement?
Answer: Strongly agree
3 - To what extent do you agree or disagree that there should not be transitional arrangements for those already on a pathway to settlement?
Answer: Strongly disagree
4 - Do you think the following vulnerable groups should retain their current arrangements and be exempt from the proposed settlement changes?
Victims of domestic violence and abuse
Answer: Yes
Bereaved partners
Answer: Yes
Children and young adults who grew up in the UK without immigration status
Answer: Yes
Adults with long-term care needs
Answer: Yes
5 - Are there any other vulnerable groups that you think should be considered as part of this consultation?
Answer:
Those with disabilities
Asylum seekers
Resettled refugees
6 - Do you think the following Armed Forces groups should retain their current time period to settlement or should further reductions be available to this group?
Members of HM Armed Forces
Answer:
Immediate family members of HM Armed Forces
Answer:
7 - To what extent do you agree or disagree that dependant partners of migrants should earn settlement in their own right?
Answer: Strongly Disagree
8 - To what extent do you agree or disagree that dependant children of migrants should earn settlement in their own right? (with employment-related requirements waived if they were admitted as a dependant under 18)
Answer: Strongly Disagree
9 - To what extent do you agree or disagree that resettled refugees should have a 10-year route to settlement?
Resettled refugees are those who have been granted protection and moved to the UK through official resettlement programmes.
Answer: Strongly Disagree
