Thousands of migrants are being granted leave to remain each week (Image: Getty)
More than 200,000 people have been granted indefinite leave to remain since ministers proposed tough restrictions last year. Thousands of migrants are settling permanently in Britain every week, which gives them entitlement to lifetime benefits, NHS care and social housing.
At least 5,000 people who have lived here for five years – having legally arrived on visas – gain settlement each week, figures have suggested. Experts predict the figure will leap significantly in a few months when people who arrived during the pandemic gain the right to claim indefinite leave to remain. Shadow Home Secretary Chris Philp said: “Every single day, hundreds of mainly low-wage or no-wage immigrants get the right to stay here permanently and claim benefits.
“Yet Shabana Mahmood continues to refuse to implement her own indefinite leave to remain changes to stop this – which she herself admits are needed to save £10billion.”
Speaking to the Daily Mail, he added: “Why is she delaying? It’s because she’s scared of Angela Rayner and the Left of the Labour Party, and she hasn’t got the courage to implement her own plans.
“The Government is on the verge of capitulating, letting hundreds of thousands of low-wage and no-wage migrants stay forever.”
Ministers have proposed tougher restrictions on legal migrants being able to claim indefinite leave to remain, but Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood recently signalled that she may have to water down those plans. Ms Rayner has said she is concerned about Labour’s proposals to change visa rules, which would make it harder for foreign workers to secure permanent residency in the UK.
Without reforms, 1.6million people would be entitled to settle in the UK between 2026 and 2030.
Reform UK home affairs spokesman Zia Yusuf said Ms Mahmood had “capitulated to Labour’s open-borders zealots”.
He added: “Labour’s internal bickering means thousands more will get indefinite leave to remain and unfettered access to our welfare system, all because Andy Burnham cannot control Rayner or his backbenchers.”
A consultation on migration proposal, which received 200,000 responses, closed in February but the Home Office has not responded. Immigration rules were updated last week with no mention of ILR.
The Home Office said: “We are considering responses to our consultation on elements of these reforms.”
Fury as Bombshell Figures Reveal Thousands of Migrants a Week Granted Leave to Remain in Britain
Fresh controversy over immigration has intensified in Britain after claims that thousands of migrants are being granted permission to remain in the country every week. The figures have reignited questions about the government’s approach to border control, the asylum system and the long-term pressures facing public services, with critics demanding greater transparency over how decisions are made.
Immigration remains one of the most politically sensitive issues in the United Kingdom. For many voters, the debate is about more than the number of people arriving at the border. It also concerns the capacity of the housing market, the availability of healthcare, the cost of public services and whether the government can demonstrate effective control over the country’s immigration rules.
The latest claims have provided fresh ammunition for politicians calling for tougher measures. However, understanding what the figures actually represent is essential. People granted permission to remain in Britain can include refugees, people receiving other forms of protection, family visa applicants, workers and students whose circumstances differ considerably. The total number of grants cannot automatically be treated as a measure of illegal immigration or as proof that the asylum system is failing.
Nevertheless, the scale and transparency of immigration decisions are likely to remain central to the political debate, particularly as parties compete to convince voters that they have credible plans for managing Britain’s borders.
Why the Figures Have Triggered Anger
For critics of the government’s immigration policy, reports of thousands of people receiving permission to remain each week raise immediate questions about the scale of migration and the consequences for local communities.
Some argue that immigration has placed additional pressure on housing, schools, healthcare and other public services, particularly in areas where infrastructure has struggled to keep pace with population growth. They want the government to explain how migration levels are determined, what checks are conducted on applicants and how ministers intend to manage the long-term effects.
Others are concerned about the distinction between people who enter Britain legally and those who arrive irregularly before applying for asylum. They argue that the public needs clearer information about how many applications are approved, how many are refused, how many people leave after their permission expires and how many removal decisions are actually enforced.
These are legitimate questions for a government to answer. However, the phrase “granted leave to remain” covers several different legal routes, and each has its own eligibility criteria. Without knowing which category the figures concern and the period they cover, it is impossible to draw a reliable conclusion about the overall direction of immigration policy.
A headline number may sound alarming, but its significance depends on what is being counted.
Understanding What Leave to Remain Means
Permission to remain is a legal status that allows a person to stay in the United Kingdom under specified conditions. It is not a single immigration category, and grants can be made for a variety of reasons.
A person may receive permission because they qualify for international protection, have family connections in Britain, meet the requirements of a work visa or qualify under another immigration route. Some people receive temporary permission, while others may qualify for a longer period of residence.
Asylum decisions form a separate but important part of the discussion. People who seek asylum generally claim that returning to their home country would expose them to persecution or another serious risk. Their applications must be assessed against the relevant legal requirements and the evidence presented.
When an asylum claim is accepted, the applicant may receive refugee status or another form of protection. Such a decision is different from granting a work visa or approving a family immigration application.
Consequently, a total covering all grants of permission to remain cannot be used to determine how many asylum seekers have been recognised as refugees. Nor does it establish how many people entered Britain illegally.
To evaluate the reported figures properly, the government would need to identify the relevant immigration categories, explain whether the numbers refer to individuals or decisions, and provide a consistent comparison with previous periods.
The Pressure on Housing and Public Services
One of the most persistent concerns surrounding immigration is the relationship between population growth and the availability of public services.
Housing is a particularly sensitive issue. In parts of Britain, households face high rents, long waiting lists for social housing and difficulties getting onto the property ladder. When population growth increases demand in areas where housing construction is insufficient, competition for accommodation can intensify.
However, housing pressures also reflect longstanding problems involving planning, construction, affordability and the distribution of homes. Immigration is one factor affecting demand, but it cannot explain every difficulty experienced by renters and prospective homeowners.
Healthcare presents a similarly complex picture. Population growth can increase demand for appointments and hospital services, particularly where local capacity is already stretched. At the same time, migrants also work in the NHS and social care, including in roles where recruitment shortages have created serious challenges.
The relevant policy question is therefore how the government can ensure that population growth, infrastructure investment and workforce planning are properly coordinated.
Ministers face pressure to explain how additional demand will be accommodated and whether local authorities receive sufficient resources. Communities are unlikely to be reassured by broad statements about economic benefits if they continue to experience long waits for services or limited access to affordable housing.
Equally, blaming every public service problem on immigration would overlook the wider policy decisions that determine funding, staffing and infrastructure capacity.
Border Control and the Asylum System
The handling of asylum applications is another major source of political disagreement.
When applications take a long time to process, uncertainty increases for applicants and communities alike. Accommodation may be required for extended periods, while people whose claims are ultimately refused can remain in the system until their cases and any relevant appeals have been resolved.
A more efficient process could help the government distinguish between people who qualify for protection and those who do not, reduce unnecessary administrative delays and provide clearer outcomes.
But improving efficiency does not mean abandoning the legal safeguards that apply to asylum decisions. Applications must be assessed fairly, and people who face a genuine risk of persecution cannot simply be treated as though they have no legal claim.
The government also faces practical challenges when seeking to remove people who have no right to remain. Returns can depend on identity verification, travel documents, cooperation from other governments and the outcome of legal proceedings.
Critics argue that a credible immigration system must demonstrate that refusals have consequences. Supporters of a more cautious approach stress that removals must comply with domestic and international legal obligations.
Both the decision-making process and the enforcement system therefore matter when assessing whether immigration policy is working effectively.
Political Parties Face Growing Pressure
Immigration is likely to remain an important issue for Britain’s major political parties because it combines economic concerns, questions of national sovereignty and strong public feelings about fairness.
Politicians advocating stricter controls argue that the government must reduce irregular arrivals, improve enforcement and establish clearer limits on migration. They contend that public confidence will remain weak unless ministers can demonstrate measurable progress.
Other political voices emphasise the economic contribution of legal migration, the importance of protecting refugees and the need to distinguish between different groups of applicants. They argue that policy should be based on evidence rather than treating all migrants as though they share the same circumstances.
For the government, the challenge is to explain how its approach addresses these competing priorities.
That requires more than publishing a single headline figure. Voters need to understand how many people have been granted permission under different immigration routes, how decisions compare with previous years and what proportion of applications are approved or refused.
Clear information would also make it easier to evaluate whether new policies are having their intended effects.
Without such detail, political debate can become dominated by competing interpretations of the same statistics.
The Economic Debate Cannot Be Ignored
Immigration also has significant economic implications. Employers in several sectors depend on overseas recruitment, while international students contribute to universities and local economies.
At the same time, rapid population growth can create additional demand for housing and services, and the benefits of migration are not necessarily distributed evenly across the country.
The effects depend on factors such as workers’ skills, employment rates, wages, public spending, tax contributions and the ability of infrastructure to accommodate changing demand.
A serious immigration strategy must therefore consider both the needs of employers and the interests of existing residents. It must also address training and productivity so that Britain does not rely on overseas recruitment as a substitute for developing its domestic workforce.
The government faces difficult choices over how to balance these priorities. Restricting particular immigration routes may reduce some forms of migration, but it can also create recruitment difficulties where employers have few immediate alternatives. Expanding routes without sufficient planning can increase pressure on accommodation and local services.
These trade-offs require transparent evidence and clearly defined objectives.
What Should Happen Next?
The controversy surrounding the reported figures highlights the importance of reliable immigration statistics.
The government should explain exactly what is included in the number of grants, distinguish asylum outcomes from other immigration decisions and publish comparable data over time. It should also provide information about refusals, appeals, voluntary departures and enforced removals where relevant.
Such transparency would help voters assess whether ministers are meeting their commitments and whether the immigration system is operating as intended.
Policymakers should also consider the consequences for local communities. Councils need to plan for changing populations, while public services require adequate staffing and funding. Employers need clear rules, and people seeking protection must have their cases assessed fairly and efficiently.
These objectives are not necessarily incompatible, but achieving them requires a coherent strategy rather than isolated announcements.
Conclusion: A Debate That Demands Facts and Accountability
Claims that thousands of migrants a week are being granted permission to remain in Britain have intensified an already heated debate about immigration and border control.
For critics, the figures raise concerns about the government’s ability to manage migration and protect public confidence. For those defending legal immigration and refugee protection, the key issue is whether decisions are being made fairly and according to established rules.
The essential distinction is between the number of people receiving permission to remain and the different reasons for which that permission is granted. Without that information, headline figures alone cannot establish whether illegal immigration is increasing, whether asylum policy is failing or whether a particular immigration route has become more restrictive.
The government must provide clear answers about the figures, the legal categories involved and the results of its policies.
Ultimately, the debate should focus on whether Britain has an immigration system that is effective, transparent and fair: one that enforces the law, fulfils its legal obligations, supports the economy and takes the capacity of local communities seriously. Those are the standards against which ministers should be judged, rather than the political impact of a headline alone.