Reform UK leader Nigel Farage (Image: Getty)
Nigel Farage has ignited a fierce political row after vowing to strip hundreds of thousands of migrants of their right to remain in Britain, even if they arrived legally – so today we’re asking: is he right? The Reform UK leader said he would abolish indefinite leave to remain (ILR) – the status that allows migrants to stay in the UK permanently after five years – and replace it with a tougher visa system.
Under his plan, those already granted ILR would be forced to reapply every five years, meeting higher salary thresholds and stricter English language tests. Access to benefits would be banned entirely. Reform’s policy chief Zia Yusuf argued that the proposals would save taxpayers more than £230 billion and end what the party has branded the “Boriswave” – the influx of workers who arrived under rules set by Boris Johnson’s Government.
Get the latest politics news – straight from our team in Westminster and more
Invalid email
You agree you are 18 or over. We use your sign-up to provide content in ways you’ve consented to and to improve our understanding of you. This may include adverts from us and third parties based on our knowledge of you. You can unsubscribe at any time. More Info.
So what do you think? Vote in our poll and join the debate in the comments section. Can’t see the poll below? Click here
He claimed businesses would have time to “train British workers to replace them” as migrants lost their settled status.
Critics say the plan amounts to deporting people who came here legally, built lives and families, and contribute to the economy, including many who may have been here for decades.
Employers in sectors already facing shortages warn it could cause major disruption. Migrants’ rights groups have described the proposals as “cruel” and potentially unlawful.
The Government already restricts foreign nationals’ access to welfare, with most having to wait five years before claiming universal credit – a limit ministers are considering extending to 10.
A spokesperson insisted: “People here illegally rightly do not get anything from our benefits system.”
Mr Farage has insisted his policy is about fairness, saying: “Welfare will end for everyone that is not a UK citizen.”
POLL: Is Nigel Farage right to deport hundreds of thousands of legal migrants?
Nigel Farage has put one of the most contentious questions in Britain’s immigration debate back into the spotlight: what should happen to migrants who entered the United Kingdom legally but have not become British citizens?
The Reform UK leader has proposed abolishing indefinite leave to remain (ILR), the immigration status that allows eligible migrants to live in Britain without a time limit. Under Reform’s plans, many migrants who would otherwise progress towards permanent settlement would instead face renewable five-year visas with tougher requirements.
The proposal has prompted a sharp political debate because it could affect people who are legally resident in Britain and who may have worked, paid taxes and built families and communities in the country for years.
It is important, however, to distinguish between changing a person’s immigration status and automatically deporting that person. Reform’s policy would abolish and, according to the party’s current policy document, rescind existing ILR awards, but people affected could potentially seek another visa or British citizenship if they met the relevant requirements. The precise consequences would depend on legislation and the rules ultimately introduced.
What exactly is Farage proposing?
Reform UK says the existing settlement system should be replaced.
Its current policy document says the party would abolish ILR and introduce a renewable five-year visa for migrants, alongside higher salary thresholds, mandatory English-language fluency and stricter good-character requirements. Reform also says foreign nationals would have no recourse to benefits under its proposed system.
The party has linked the policy to the increase in legal migration during the years associated with Boris Johnson’s government.
Farage has described his plans as an attempt to reverse what Reform calls the “Boriswave” of migration.
The numbers involved are substantial. Reform’s current policy document claims that between 1.6 million and 2.2 million migrants who arrived during the 2021-2024 period are expected to receive ILR between 2026 and 2030. That is Reform’s estimate, not a confirmed number of people who would be deported.
Earlier reporting on Farage’s proposal referred to hundreds of thousands of people who could be affected by changes to settlement rules.
What is ILR?
Under current UK rules, ILR means that there is no longer a time limit on a person’s ability to remain in Britain.
The government describes someone holding ILR as settled in the UK. Such a person can generally work and study without the restrictions attached to temporary visas and may have access to benefits and services subject to the relevant rules. ILR can also provide a route towards British citizenship when other conditions are met.
Importantly, ILR is not the same thing as British citizenship.
A person can therefore be permanently settled in Britain while continuing to hold another country’s nationality.
That distinction sits at the heart of the Reform proposal.
Farage’s argument is that permanent residence should not automatically follow from the existing settlement pathway. Instead, migrants should have to continue demonstrating that they satisfy strict conditions for remaining in Britain.
Would everyone affected be deported?
Not necessarily.
The headline phrase “deport hundreds of thousands of legal migrants” describes a potential consequence of the proposed system rather than an automatic outcome for everyone affected.
If ILR were abolished and existing awards rescinded, a migrant could potentially apply for another form of immigration permission or, where eligible, British citizenship.
However, people who failed to meet the requirements for a new visa could potentially lose their right to remain.
That distinction is significant because the proposal would create a different immigration system rather than simply ordering every existing ILR holder onto a plane.
Reform’s February 2026 plans also included a proposed UK Deportation Command capable of deporting up to 288,000 people a year. That figure was presented as the capacity of a proposed enforcement system, not a confirmed annual number of legal migrants who would be removed.
What does Reform say is the reason?
Reform argues that Britain has experienced immigration on a scale that has put pressure on housing, public services and government finances.
The party’s policy document says the previous system allowed millions of people to enter Britain on long-term visas and argues that many could eventually acquire permanent settlement and access to benefits. Reform estimates the long-term cost to taxpayers in extremely large figures.
The party therefore wants a system in which permanent residence is much more conditional.
Its proposal also connects immigration and welfare policy. Reform says foreign nationals should not have access to benefits under its proposed system.
Supporters of this approach can point to a straightforward political argument: a government should have the ability to determine who receives permanent residence and should be able to impose stricter conditions when immigration levels have been high.
The question is whether those conditions should apply retrospectively to people who entered Britain under rules that were different at the time.
What do critics say?
Critics argue that people who followed Britain’s immigration rules should not suddenly have their long-term status placed at risk because a future government changes those rules.
The Guardian reported that Labour criticised Reform’s plans on the grounds that they could affect people who had followed the rules, worked in Britain and established their lives there.
There are also practical questions.
Many legal migrants work in sectors where Britain has experienced labour shortages. Removing large numbers of workers could therefore have consequences for employers and public services.
Research by YouGov illustrates the complexity of public opinion.
In polling on large-scale removals, 45% of Britons said they would support a scenario involving no new migrants and large numbers of migrants who arrived in recent years being required to leave. But support varied substantially depending on the type of migrant.
Among those who supported large-scale removals, only 26% backed mass removal of workers with visas who worked in industries experiencing skills shortages. Support was even lower for removing migrant doctors and nurses, at around 19-20%.
The findings suggest that attitudes can change considerably when people are asked to distinguish between different categories of migration.
Legal migration versus illegal migration
That distinction is especially important because public debate often combines two very different groups.
Illegal migrants are people who do not have permission to remain in Britain.
Legal migrants, by contrast, may hold work visas, family visas, student visas, settled status or other forms of lawful immigration permission.
A person holding ILR is legally settled under the existing system.
The government currently states that ILR gives a person the right to remain in Britain without a time limit, although there are circumstances in which the status can be revoked or lapse.
Reform’s proposal would therefore represent a major change to the existing settlement framework.
What about people already settled?
This is one of the most difficult questions.
Reform’s current policy explicitly says it would “rescind existing awards” of ILR.
That would go further than simply making future applicants wait longer.
It would potentially affect people who have already obtained permanent settlement under the rules that existed when they applied.
The final effect would depend on the legislation introduced by a future government and how Parliament chose to implement it.
There could also be legal challenges concerning existing rights, proportionality, family life and international obligations.
The Institute for Government has previously highlighted legal and practical obstacles surrounding several elements of Reform’s immigration programme.
What about EU citizens?
Another complicated issue concerns EU citizens with settled status under the EU Settlement Scheme.
The government’s current guidance recognises settled status under that scheme as a form of indefinite leave to remain.
Any attempt to fundamentally alter those rights would therefore have to take account of the UK’s post-Brexit arrangements and the legal framework surrounding the EU Settlement Scheme.
This is one reason why the details of any future legislation would be crucial.
The central question
The political argument ultimately comes down to competing principles.
Reform argues that permanent settlement should be harder to obtain and that Britain should have greater control over who can remain indefinitely.
Critics argue that migrants who entered legally and complied with the rules should not have their long-term status retrospectively weakened.
There is also an economic question about the contribution made by legal migrants.
YouGov found that when voters were presented with explicit economic trade-offs, 60% preferred ensuring enough workers for skills shortages even if that meant higher legal migration. Sixty-seven percent prioritised ensuring the NHS was fully staffed even if legal migration increased.
Those findings do not settle the political argument, but they demonstrate why the issue cannot be reduced simply to a question of whether immigration should be higher or lower.
The type of migrant, their occupation, their legal status and the consequences of removing them all matter.
What would happen next?
Farage’s proposal is currently a political policy commitment, not an enacted change to British immigration law.
To implement it, a future Reform government would need Parliament to approve legislation and would have to establish detailed rules covering existing ILR holders, people approaching settlement, family members, workers and other categories of migrants.
The House of Commons Library has noted that changes to settlement rules proposed by governments are not automatically law and require implementation through the appropriate legal processes.
That means the headline question — “Is Nigel Farage right to deport hundreds of thousands of legal migrants?” — ultimately involves several separate questions.
Should Britain reduce permanent migration?
Should ILR continue to exist in its current form?
Should existing settlement rights be protected?
Should migrants who have worked and paid taxes for years be treated differently from recent arrivals?
And should immigration policy prioritise citizenship, economic contribution, length of residence, family circumstances or a combination of those factors?
Those are political questions on which voters may reasonably reach different conclusions.
What can be established is that Farage and Reform UK are proposing a fundamental restructuring of Britain’s settlement system. The plan would replace the existing approach to ILR with renewable visas and substantially tougher conditions, potentially affecting large numbers of legally resident migrants.
Whether such changes should be made — and how far they should go — is now part of the wider political debate over immigration, welfare, public services and Britain’s future settlement rules.