Petitions, Promises and Cheap Labour: What the Immigration Debate Misses
For petitioners, it looks like a democratic breakthrough. In practice, the reality is less empowering.
More than a quarter of a million people have forced MPs to debate controversial immigration reforms that would make it harder for skilled workers to gain permanent residence in Britain. Two official petitions have each crossed the 100,000-signature threshold, meaning MPs must now discuss the proposals in Westminster on 8 September
.
The petitions focus on the government’s plan to double the qualifying period for indefinite leave to remain (ILR) from five years to ten. One, signed by nearly 157,000 people, urges ministers to keep the five-year route for skilled worker visa holders. The other, with over 107,000 signatures, calls for special protection for migrants from Hong Kong, warning that they could otherwise lose the rights and assurances offered when Britain launched its visa scheme for British National Overseas (BN(O)) citizens.
For petitioners, it looks like a democratic breakthrough. In practice, the reality is less empowering.
⸻
What a Work Visa Really Means
Many imagine a work visa as a single entry — one migrant, one job. But that picture is misleading. Skilled Worker visas allow holders to bring their entire immediate family. On average, each main applicant is joined by around 1.8 dependants, meaning the arrival of one worker often translates into three or more new residents.
In the year to March 2024, the Home Office issued around 337,000 Skilled Worker and Health & Care visas. Once dependants are counted, the inflow swelled to more than 615,000 people. What looks on paper like labour supply is in practice the seeding of whole families and future communities.
The current rules allow those who have worked and lived in the UK for five continuous years to apply for ILR. The government now proposes doubling that waiting time to ten years, insisting settlement is a privilege, not a right.
⸻
What the Debate Really Means
When petitions reach 100,000 signatures, a debate is guaranteed. But petitioners expecting high drama in the Commons will be disappointed. These debates are held in Westminster Hall — a smaller, secondary chamber with no Speaker and no public gallery. To attend, you need permission from the Chair and the request of an MP.
It is usually a reluctant minister who attends, carving out time from their diary with evident frustration at the theatre of it all. There is also no binding vote. Ministers respond, MPs air concerns, but the government need not budge. Petitions raise visibility, not power. The very people who drove the debate are often excluded from seeing it.
⸻
The Government’s Case
Ministers argue that five years is too short a period to qualify for permanent residence. A government spokesman recently described settlement as “a privilege and not a right,” insisting that migrants must contribute more to the economy and society before securing ILR.
Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer added a sharper political edge when he warned Britain risked “becoming an island of strangers” unless immigration was further reduced.
⸻
The Petitioners’ Case
For skilled workers and their families, the reforms threaten to upend careers and uproot lives. For Hong Kong migrants, the risks are even starker. Benedict Rogers of Hong Kong Watch warns that doubling the ILR waiting time would strip BN(O) holders of vital protections, leave them unable to access pensions, and price their children out of university through loss of “home fee” status.
“This is not the time for Britain to back away from its promises,” he said.
⸻
The Bigger Picture
The row over five years or ten risks missing the wider story. Britain has built entire sectors on migration as a cheaper, quicker substitute for training its own workers.
• In health and care, overseas staff are flown in ready-qualified while domestic training pipelines shrink.
• In construction and hospitality, employers lean on foreign workers to avoid long-term investment in apprenticeships.
• International students are treated as temporary revenue streams, with visas tightened once their fees are banked.
It is a short-term fix, convenient for government and business, but corrosive for national resilience. The question is not only how long migrants should wait for ILR, but why Britain so often chooses to buy skills abroad instead of building them at home.
⸻
Migrant MPs: A Modest Proposal
If ministers are so convinced that importing cheaper labour is the way forward, why stop at hospitals and care homes? Why not Parliament itself?
Home Office Press Release
For immediate release
Government announces Migrant MP Scheme to modernise Parliament
In line with the UK’s long-standing policy of sourcing skilled labour from abroad to fill urgent vacancies, the Government today confirmed plans to open up 15% of Parliamentary seats to migrant applicants on Skilled Worker visas.
Under the new scheme:
• Migrant MPs will be paid half the current parliamentary salary.
• They will receive no pension entitlement, delivering long-term fiscal discipline.
• They will serve a ten-year probationary period before qualifying for indefinite re-election.
• Constituencies chosen will include those most vocal about immigration, “ensuring that communities experience first-hand the benefits of affordable democracy.”
A government spokesperson said:
“Settlement in the UK has always been a privilege, not a right. Extending this principle to elected office will promote integration, deliver value for money, and ensure that our political system benefits from the same cost-effective solutions we have successfully applied to health, care, and other sectors.”
The first nine seats to be piloted in the West Midlands will be announced in due course.
⸻
Migrant Councillors: Extending the Logic Locally
Of course, there is no reason to stop at Westminster. Local government, too, could benefit from “affordable democracy.”
West Midlands Councils – Joint Statement
For immediate release
Councils announce Migrant Councillor Pilot Scheme to deliver savings for residents
Following the success of the Government’s plan to open 15% of Parliamentary seats to overseas applicants, councils across the West Midlands today confirmed that they will extend the principle to local government.
Under the scheme, 15% of council seats across the region will be allocated to migrant councillors recruited directly from abroad. This equates to around 71 seats in total, including 13 in Birmingham and 40 across the Black Country.
The savings to taxpayers are expected to be significant. Migrant councillors will:
• Receive two-thirds less in allowances than their UK counterparts.
• Have no pension entitlement, delivering long-term fiscal discipline.
• Be permitted to travel only on half-price bus passes, reducing costs and promoting integration into local communities.
• Serve a ten-year probationary period before qualifying for “settled councillor” status.
A spokesperson for West Midlands Councils said:
“Residents have made it clear that value for money is their priority. Just as the NHS and care sector have benefited from affordable overseas labour, so too can our democratic institutions. This pilot scheme will ensure that local representation remains vibrant while easing pressure on council tax bills.”
The first 13 seats in Birmingham and 40 seats across the Black Country are expected to be designated from next May’s local elections, with further allocations to follow in Coventry, Solihull and the wider region.
⸻
Back to Reality
Absurd? Certainly. But the satire underlines a truth. MPs and councillors would never accept for themselves the bargain they are content to impose on others. They will not work for half pay, give up pensions, or spend a decade on probation. Yet these are precisely the conditions under which the nation is asked to welcome migrant nurses, carers, and builders.
⸻
Conclusion
The petitions matter. They give voice to anger, and they force MPs to speak. But they do not change policy. The deeper debate Britain needs is not whether migrants wait five or ten years for ILR, but whether this country intends to keep outsourcing its skills or finally invest in training its own people. Until MPs face that truth — in their own jobs as well as others’ — the argument will remain unfinished.