We are already seeing the Parliamentary Labour Party rallying to oppose Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood’s earned settlement reforms, which would double the qualifying period for Indefinite Leave to Remain (ILR) from five to ten years. The reforms target the so-called “Boriswave”: the millions who arrived between 2020 and 2024, the vast majority on non-work visas and the rest in typically low-paid roles.

Last week, Dame Emily Thornberry MP (who, as readers may recall, was forced to resign from Labour’s Shadow Cabinet after sneering at a home flying English flags) decided to go even further, posting a video arguing that preventing the Boriswave accessing benefits would be “cruel”. She drew on an Institute for Public Policy Research report which found that 46 per cent of children in migrant families live in relative poverty, compared to 25 per cent for British-born children.

Strip away the emotive language and what Ms Thornberry and the IPPR are actually admitting is that the Boriswave is made up primarily of low earners who were never going to be a fiscal benefit to Britain. The IPPR itself acknowledges that low wages are a major cause of migrant poverty. Nearly 900,000 recent migrants earn less than the median wage. Our government has imported hundreds of thousands of people who, far from paying our pensions, will always be a net cost if they are allowed to claim benefits and use free NHS care.

These costs are already becoming apparent in government data. The Department for Work and Pensions published stats showing the number of people with ILR status claiming Universal Credit surged from 95,612 in April 2022 to 222,076 by January 2026 – a 132 per cent increase. All this while tax thresholds for working British people have been frozen since 2021, and are set to remain so into the 2030s.

Yet the conclusion the IPPR and Labour backbenchers draw is not that we should reverse the error, but that we should give the Boriswave benefits so they are not in poverty any more. The IPPR proposes that migrant families be exempt from ‘No Recourse to Public Funds’ rules, given 30 hours of free childcare a week, and provided with better housing. Unsurprisingly, there is not a single reference in the report to the impact on the British taxpayer of such boundless generosity.

And this, of course, does not even touch on the wage compression caused by flooding Britain’s labour market with poorly paid migrants. The economics are simple and predictable; if you increase labour supply, the price of labour will fall. The Bank of England confirmed as much, finding that immigration has a negative impact on wages in semi-skilled and unskilled service occupations, precisely the sectors most affected by the Boriswave.

For pro-migration zealots, the prescription is always the same: more welfare, more spending, more obligation on the British taxpayer to pick up the tab for a social engineering experiment they have repeatedly rejected at the ballot box. Far from leaving us better off and enriching our culture and society, uncontrolled migration has propelled demographic change (a minority White British population looms ever larger on the horizon), made us poorer, undermined our culture and stoked tensions and division in our society.  

The only way out of this mess is to abandon the obsessive focus on the rights of those who choose to come to the United Kingdom. Elevating their rights above those of British citizens is both wrong and profoundly unfair. If Labour MPs, human rights lawyers, and progressive liberals cannot even accept modest, sensible changes to the routine granting of Indefinite Leave to Remain (ILR), what hope is there for the radical reforms to the immigration system that the country desperately needs, and has called for in every election over the past 20 years?

The post Britain “Grinds to a Halt” – The Real Cost of Mass Migration first appeared on Migration Watch UK.

The official forecast is that, in the absence of major policy changes, we will reach this point in 20 years time with nearly all the increase in England.

To avoid the UK population hitting 70 million – nine million more than today – net migration needs to be reduced from 237,000 (the 2007 figure) to 50,000, and held there. This is a 75% reduction.

To stabilise our population at 65 million we need a 100% reduction so that immigration is equal to emigration.

Under Labour’s policies, immigration would fall by 8% – a fall of just 20,000 to 217,000. This is their own claim based on what would have happened if their so – called “tough” Points Based System been in place last year.

Under Conservative policies, immigration would fall by 27% – from 237,000 to 172,000.

This is despite the fact that

– the Immigration Minister has pledged “This Government isn’t going to allow the population to go up to 70 million” (The Times, 18th October 2008)

– the Conservative Leader saying he wants net migration to be reduced to “the sort of figure it was in the 80s and 90s” (BBC Radio 5 Live, 15th February 2009). Overall net immigration in the 1980s averaged about 17,000 a year. The average for 1990-97 was 45,000.

Commenting on the research, Sir Andrew Green, Chairman of Migrationwatch UK, said:

‘The main parties talk tough on immigration, but they are trying to ‘con’ the British public. According to Government figures, we can expect almost another 10 million people in England in 20 years time of which seven million will be due to immigration – equivalent to seven cities the size of Birmingham. Current Labour policy won’t begin to address this. The Conservatives are barely better: despite their rhetoric, they have a lightweight policy that sounds tough but won’t deliver.

‘Until the main parties decide to be honest about an issue crucial to the future of our society and until they get real about the measures needed, extremist groups will continue to have a ball,’ he said.

The post Both Conservatives and Labour; the public on immigration. New research shows neither party will stop UK population hitting 70 million first appeared on Migration Watch UK.

The post Africa’s Forgotten Crisis Risks New Asylum Wave first appeared on Migration Watch UK.

“At last we have a political party that acknowledges the gravity of the situation. Immigration is now the sole driver of our massive and rapid population growth. It simply must be checked if serious tensions are to be averted.

The huge Boriswave, illegal immigration and the scale of extensions of stay must all be tackled, and soon.”

The post Migration Watch Responds To The Latest Set Of Ons Migration Figures, September 2025 first appeared on Migration Watch UK.

At last we have a political party that acknowledges the gravity of the situation. Immigration is now the sole driver of our massive and rapid population growth. It simply must be checked if serious tensions are to be averted.

The huge Boriswave, illegal immigration and the scale of extensions of stay must all be tackled, and soon. 

For further comments, please contact admin@migrationwatchuk.org. 

Notes to editor:

• Migration hit a record 906,000 in the year ending June 2023.
• This is a consequence of the loosening of immigration restrictions under then Prime Minister Boris Johnson (the so-called “Boriswave”).
• Over 2,000,000 people emigrated to Britain in the period January 2021 to June 2024.
• The Centre for Policy Studies has estimated some 800,000 will eventually claim Indefinite Leave to Remain (Here To Stay? Estimating the Scale and Cost of Long-Term Migration – The Centre for Policy Studies)
• The CPS has clarified their central estimate of a lifetime cost of this cohort of £234 billion was based on OBR assumptions which have been rescinded; however, they stand by their estimates of ILR claimant numbers and that the lifetime cost will run into many billions

The post Migration Watch Responds To The Latest Set Of Ons Migration Figures, September 2025 first appeared on Migration Watch UK.

Hardly. In fact, the press release buries the real story – that the vast majority of these returns are voluntary.

Returns for the year ending June 2025

Table: Migration WatchSource: Home OfficeGet the dataEmbed Download imageCreated with Datawrapper

The government wants you to think it’s being tough.
“The message to the criminal people-smugglers is clear: we will end your vile trade,” it reads. But if the bulk of those returning are voluntary, are these people really arriving via smuggling? Are they so desperate to spend £2,500 to cross the Channel only to then hold their hands up, admit to being caught, and then willingly turn back?

Returns for the year ending June 2025

Voluntary

Enforced

Foreign

national offenders

Voluntary
65.02%

Enforced
22.11%

Foreign national
offenders
12.88%

Chart: Migration WatchSource: Home OfficeGet the dataEmbed Download imageCreated with Datawrapper

This is not a new development; for a long time, voluntary returns have outpaced enforced returns (since 2007), which is itself an indictment of our border security, but has taken on a particularly alarming dimension when you remember that the small boats crisis has seen over 180,000 arrivals in seven years.

Time series of returns 2004 – 2024, voluntary and enforced

2004200620082010201220142016201820202022202405,00010,00015,00020,00025,00030,00019,37213,87415,13411,7412,78831,76231,69428,474Enforced20223,806Enforced20223,806

Enforced

9,072

Voluntary

26,761

Chart: Migration WatchSource: Home OfficeGet the dataEmbed Download imageCreated with Datawrapper

Time series of returns 2004 – 2024, voluntary and enforced

2004200520062007200820092010201120122013201420152016201720182019202020212022202320242025

Enforced
21,425

Voluntary
3,566

Chart: Migration WatchSource: Home OfficeGet the dataEmbed Download imageCreated with Datawrapper

And what about the Foreign National Offenders (FNOs) that the government is proud of returning?

Time series of returns 2010 – 2024, foreign national offenders

20102011201220132014201520162017201820192020202120222023202401,0002,0003,0004,0005,0006,000

Foreign national offenders, total

5,097

Chart: Migration WatchSource: Home OfficeGet the dataEmbed Download imageCreated with Datawrapper

Not only is the government failing to return to the pre-Covid levels of over 6,000 FNOs deported each year, it is failing to put a dent into the actual FNO prison population.

Time series of FNO population (2015 – 2024), in prison and returned

201520162017201820192020202120222023202402,0004,0006,0008,00010,00010,14310,0929,3589,3279,52410,0859,99310,6706,4376,2925,5185,1282,9442,7063,0644,0386,024FNOs deported20223,064FNOs deported20223,064

FNOs in prison

10,860

FNOs deported

5,097

Chart: Migration WatchSource: Home OfficeGet the dataEmbed Download imageCreated with Datawrapper

Alp Mehmet, chairman of Migration Watch, says:

The government can boast all it likes but two-thirds of removals, by their own admission are voluntary. The reality is, as the record numbers crossing the Channel in recent days have shown, Keir Starmer’s policies are attracting not deterring. Thousands will continue coming knowing that once they are here, it is highly unlikely they will ever be deported. Get a grip Sir Keir.

So, when the government’s press release asks the question, ‘What is the government doing to tackle illegal immigration?’ – the answer speaks for itself. Not enough.

The post Don’t Be Fooled – This Government Is Not In Control Of Illegal Immigration first appeared on Migration Watch UK.

A rare positive start to the week: in the aftermath of Migration Watch’s recent paper on the staggering abuse of the student visa scheme, the government has announced a crackdown on student visas.

While the proposed changes are slight, it is a sign that even this tone-deaf, incapable, incompetent government can’t avoid facing reality – eventually. But, let’s be grateful for small mercies. Preventing foreign nationals in the UK on student visas from claiming asylum is a start. Let’s see when, if ever, it happens.

Some may wonder why students could claim asylum to begin with!

The government have also announced that asylum seekers will now follow the same rules as British citizens when applying for family reunion visas to bring their spouses or children into Britain.

Absurdly, previously there was no income requirement, and applications could be submitted as soon as the asylum seeker had been granted asylum. Now, the ability of asylum seekers to immediately bring family into Britain has been paused while legislation is passed to bring in minimum residency and income requirements. Again, a sensible change – why did it take so long to do?

The biggest reward of all would be restricting the ability of the 2,300,000 people after 2029 from obtaining Indefinite Leave to Remain status, which would entitle them to access Britain’s incredibly generous welfare system: free health care, Universal Credit, prioritisation for social housing, and Motability, amongst others. This represents a net cost to the British taxpayer of hundreds of billions of pounds over the lifespan of that cohort.

Now, let’s see some backbone and realism for changes that will lead to meaningful reductions in the numbers coming.

We need caps on international students coming to low-order universities, on those coming to work for low salaries, and of course visas for dependants who will never be net contributors.

And for goodness’ sake, let’s go back to vetting people before we give them permission to come. Bring back interviews!

This is a preview of Migration Watch’s free weekly newsletter. Please consider signing up to the newsletter directly, you can do so here and will receive an email copy of the newsletter every week as soon as it is released.

The post Small Changes, Big Results first appeared on Migration Watch UK.

Recently, a High Court ruled that Epping Forest District Council could close a hotel in Epping which had been commandeered by the Home Office to house asylum seekers, on the grounds that it posed a danger to nearby residents and was a breach of the hotel’s approved conditions of use under local planning law.

Lawyers acting on behalf of the Home Office and the accommodation contractor, Somani Hotels, challenged this decision in the Court of Appeals – arguing that the safety of local people in Epping was less important that ensuring asylum seekers. Mr Ed Brown, KC, claimed, “There is a national interest in ensuring vulnerable individuals, namely asylum seekers, are accommodated.“ The Telegraph also reports a lawyer claimed the relevant public interests are “fundamentally different in nature”, meaning the rights of asylum seekers under the European Convention on Human Rights take priority.

This is obviously an absurd argument which places the interests of migrants above those of citizens. If, for some reason, you became homeless or destitute, do you think the government would hire expensive lawyers to argue for your rights?

Staggeringly, in the last few minutes the Court of Appeals has published their judgement: siding with the Home Office and establishing the precedent that asylum hotels must remain open, even if they pose an unacceptable risk to British citizens living nearby.

This is a direct consequence of our political and judicial class treating the European Convention on Human Rights, and by extension the 1998 Human Rights Act, as sacrosanct. Despite a clear change in circumstances, and mountains of evidence of abuse, they insist on sticking to the letter of a document written for a different century.

As Migration Watch has argued, leaving the ECHR is absolutely essential – and we anticipate the voices arguing for this will become even louder in the coming days.

This is a preview of Migration Watch’s free weekly newsletter. Please consider signing up to the newsletter directly, you can do so here and will receive an email copy of the newsletter every week as soon as it is released.

The post Breaking: Home Office Successfully Argues That Rights Of Migrants Come Before Rights Of Britons first appeared on Migration Watch UK.

Getting immigration under control must be the first and main priority of any new government. The problem now lies not merely in illegal immigration, which the current government has liked to make a big show of tackling, but the legal routes to entry that have allowed the immigrant population to explode and become the principal driver of our population growth.

Download Briefing Document PDF

This briefing document looks at the most prominent route that has led to an increase in immigrant numbers – international students on study visas – and how they can be reduced. There is debate over whether international students should be excluded from or included in the official numbers; however, there is a simple reason for including them, which is that the visa type aligns with the United Nations’ (UN) Statistics Division definition of an immigrant:

• A person who moves to a country other than their usual residence for at least 12 months, with the destination country becoming their new usual residence.

This is the definition used by the Office for National Statistics (ONS) as well.

Moreover, there are three commonsense reasons as to why international students should be considered migrants and included in migration numbers:

1. Student visas are, for all intents and purposes, no less temporary than visas issued to workers, due to the extended period of coverage, the high level of overall retention rate, and the ability for recipients to bring dependants with them (with caveats – see Section Two).
2. The consumption of services both public and private is no lower for student visa recipients simply because they are students. International students are still entitled to access the National Health Service (NHS), use public transport, occupy property, and so on.
3. The student visa system encourages retention, by allowing international students to work during their courses (up to 20 hours for full-time university students of any level, set by the Home Office), and apply for the Graduate Visa route once their studies are completed.

Given these practicalities, and the fact that the shortest university course lasts at least twelve months, there is an obvious reason for including these “education immigrants” in the figures.

On the basis of two facts – that immigration must be brought under control, and study visas are the largest source of immigration – the reduction of study visas must be considered as an immediate option. This briefing paper recommends the following three methods for introducing a cap on the number of study visas issued each year:

1. Provide licensed universities with a set number of “Certificates of Sponsorship” for visas.
2. Disallow the issuing of visas for dependents for all students, except for PhD research students.
3. Visa interviews should be administered by the Home Office prior to any visa being issued, and the decision should rest with the interviewing officer.
4. The allowance for international students to work up to 20 hours a week during term time, and an unlimited amount outside of term time, must be ended.

The post The Future of Student Visas first appeared on Migration Watch UK.

Study visas issued by nation (2024)

China

India

Other

Nationalities

Pakistan

Nigeria

Other

China
25%

India
22%

Other
Nationalities
15%

Pakistan
9%

Nigeria
7%

Other
22%

Source: Home OfficeGet the dataEmbed Download imageCreated with Datawrapper

Entry visas issued in 2023 and 2024 by type (excluding transit and visitor visas)

20232024

Total work visas
44%

Total study visas
44%

Total family visas
6%

Other
6%

Get the dataEmbed Download imageCreated with Datawrapper

Introducing a cap on the number of migrants allowed into the country each year is the only viable method through which control can be reasserted. Given that the three main routes through which visas are issued are Work, Family, and Student visas, these are the primary streams that must be dammed if control is to be achieved. It is imperative that we identify how each stream climbed to the level it is currently at, the ways in which it is abused and puts key sectors at risk, and how a cap can be introduced.

Migration Watch’s new report, ‘The future for student visas’, aims to do just that.

Most of these students come from China, India, Pakistan, and Nigeria, with the first three countries supplying over half of all international students. While the government likes to dress this up as “exporting world-class education”, the reality is that our higher education sector has become dangerously dependent on fragile overseas economies – a vulnerability exposed when, for example, Dundee University nearly went under due to the collapse of the Nigerian currency, because of its overreliance on Nigerian students.

Top 5 nationalities granted Graduate visas (main applicants)

Source: Home OfficeGet the dataEmbed Download imageCreated with Datawrapper

Worse still, there is extensive abuse of the system. Applicants have been caught using shared bank balances to meet financial requirements, enrolling with no intention of studying, or arriving only to claim asylum. Nearly half of all asylum claims from visa holders come from former students. Meanwhile, the Graduate Visa route – allowing two years of unrestricted work after study – has become a backdoor work visa. Indians, for example, account for 22% of study visas but over 41% of graduate visas, showing how heavily this route is used to remain in the UK.

The explosion in numbers has been driven not only by students themselves, but by their dependants. Until recently, most postgraduate students could bring family members, who were then free to work full-time. In 2023, dependants’ visas hit 135,000, roughly the average net migration figure for the entire early 2000s. Only in 2024 was this restricted to PhD students, cutting the number sharply.

At the same time, universities have shifted recruitment away from elite institutions to lower-ranked ones. Since 2013, visas issued for students at such universities have more than doubled, even though only one non-Russell Group university sits in the global top 100. So much for Britain “exporting” its elite education.

Visas and extensions issued by Russell Group affiliation, 2010 – 2024

201020112012201320142015201620172018201920202021202220232024020K40K60K80K100K120K140K160K180K200K220K240K260K280K

Visas issued to non-Russell Group Universities

Extensions of stay issued for non-Russell Group Universities

Visas issued to Russell Group Universities

Extensions of stay issued for Russell Group Universities

Chart: Migration WatchSource: Home OfficeGet the dataEmbed Download imageCreated with Datawrapper

The Case for a Cap

If the government is serious about reducing migration, the student route must be capped. The report proposes doing this via a system of Certificates of Sponsorship (COS): each licensed university would receive a fixed allocation, based on past visa issuance, which they could not exceed. A portion of the cap could be reserved for world-class institutions or courses of strategic value, such as Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) degrees.

Estimated numbers of international students awarded a degree and staying in the UK

Table: MigrationWatchGet the dataEmbed Download imageCreated with Datawrapper

Dependants should remain banned for all but PhD students, and even then could be counted against a university’s COS allocation. Visa interviews – scrapped in 2010 – should be reintroduced, with Home Office officers empowered to reject applications on credibility grounds.

Crucially, the right to work during study – currently 20 hours a week in term time and unlimited in holidays – should be removed. This rule is rarely enforced and allows individual students to shift their focus from study to work. The Graduate Visa route should be closed entirely, with graduates required to leave the UK and apply for a work visa from abroad if they wish to stay.

Estimated numbers of international students enrolled in the UK

Table: MigrationWatchGet the dataEmbed Download imageCreated with Datawrapper

How the Cap Would Work

The total number of visas would be set in line with wider migration targets, divided between study, work, and family routes. The study visa share would then be allocated to institutions annually, with adjustments to account for seasonal demand around the academic year. Unused allocations could be traded between universities, encouraging efficient use. Institutions with poor compliance records would see their allocations cut.

The student visa system has morphed into a work-cum-migration route, driven by a toxic mix of inflated government targets, university greed, and lax enforcement. The result is record legal migration, imported community tensions, and a higher education sector hooked on overseas fees.

Capping student visas – facilitated through ending the Graduate route, banning most dependants, reinstating interviews, and removing in-study work rights – would be a decisive step towards restoring control.

Read the report here

If ministers are unwilling to take it, any talk of reducing immigration is just that: talk.

The post Cutting Student Visas: Bringing Migration Under Control first appeared on Migration Watch UK.