Nigel Farage’s plan for immigration has been called racist. (Image: Getty)
Nigel Farage has become embroiled in a row over his plan to tackle immigration after Sir Keir Starmer called it “racist”. The Prime Minister said Reform UK‘s proposal to abolish indefinite leave to remain for migrants would “tear this country apart”. The Reform leader hit back, suggesting Sir Keir was targeting him because of recent polling revealing his declining popularity.
He shared a chart displaying results from a More in Common survey which found that he could enter Downing Street with a majority of 96 seats. He wrote on X: “Keir Starmer has spent his entire weekend attacking Reform. This is the reason why.”
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.
Sir Keir branded Reform’s policy requiring those granted indefinite leave to remain to reapply under far tougher criteria as “racist”.
He told the BBC‘s Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg: “Well, I do think that it is a racist policy. I do think it is immoral. It needs to be called out for what it is.
“I was arguing against Reform because Reform do not believe in that country, they want to tear that country apart.
“What was said last week about deporting migrants who are lawfully here, who’ve been here for years, working in our hospitals and our schools, running businesses, our neighbours, and Reform says they want to deport them – that would tear our country apart.
“We are, at the moment, a leading member of the Coalition of the Willing, corralling and bringing together European countries to fight the aggression of Putin.
“Imagine if Reform came in and they were cosying up to Putin – the impact that would have on our security and defence.”
The survey of nearly 20,000 people and analysis by More In Common placed Reform ahead with 373 seats. Labour trailed in second place with 90 seats, while the Conservatives were in fourth position, falling behind the Liberal Democrats.
POLL: Is Reform’s migrant visa plan racist?
A major political row has erupted over Reform UK’s plans to overhaul Britain’s immigration and visa system, after Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer described the party’s proposals as “racist” and “immoral”.
The argument centres on Reform’s plan to abolish indefinite leave to remain (ILR) and replace it with renewable five-year visas for many migrants. Reform says the policy is designed to reduce long-term migration, tighten the conditions for settlement and ensure that access to welfare is restricted to British citizens.
Starmer, however, has drawn a distinction between removing people who have no legal right to remain in Britain and changing the position of people who are already living in the country lawfully.
The dispute has raised a much broader question about immigration policy: when does a tougher approach to migration become discriminatory, and how should voters distinguish between the policy’s stated objectives and criticisms of its potential consequences?
What exactly is Reform proposing?
Reform UK’s current policy says the party would abolish indefinite leave to remain and rescind existing awards, replacing them with a five-year renewable visa system.
Under the proposal, migrants would face higher salary thresholds, mandatory English-language fluency and stricter good-character requirements. Reform also says foreign nationals would no longer be eligible for welfare benefits.
The party describes the policy as part of its wider “Net Negative Immigration” programme.
Reform argues that the existing settlement system allows too many migrants to acquire permanent residence and eventually access benefits. Its policy document estimates that between 1.6 million and 2.2 million migrants who arrived between 2021 and 2024 could become eligible for ILR between 2026 and 2030.
Those figures are Reform’s own estimates rather than an independently established forecast of how many people would ultimately receive permanent status.
There are also important exceptions.
Reform says people with EU settled status under the EU Settlement Scheme would not be covered by the abolition of ILR. The party also says foreign nationals of pension age who have made sufficient National Insurance contributions to qualify for the state pension would retain a right of residence and continue receiving the state pension.
That means the proposal is more complicated than simply “deporting all migrants”.
Why has Starmer called it racist?
Starmer made the accusation during the 2025 Labour conference after being asked directly about Reform’s ILR policy.
The Prime Minister said that removing illegal migrants was different from changing the status of people who were lawfully settled in Britain.
Asked whether he considered Reform’s proposal racist, Starmer answered that he did and described it as immoral.
Starmer subsequently made clear that he was not saying everyone who supports Reform is racist.
He said many people considering voting for Reform were frustrated with the political system and wanted change. His criticism was directed at the policy rather than automatically at every person who supports the party.
That distinction is central to understanding the controversy.
Starmer’s argument is essentially about the effect of changing the immigration status of people who have already established legal lives in Britain.
Reform’s argument is that immigration rules should be capable of being changed when governments believe the existing system has produced unsustainable levels of migration.
What is ILR?
Indefinite leave to remain gives eligible migrants the right to live and work in the UK without a time limit.
It is not the same as British citizenship, but it provides a considerably more secure immigration position than a temporary visa.
Under the current system, qualifying migrants can normally apply for ILR after meeting the relevant residence and other requirements, with five years being a common qualifying period for many routes.
ILR can therefore represent a major transition from temporary immigration status to permanent settlement.
That is why Reform’s proposal has attracted such intense attention.
It would change not only the rules for future migrants but, according to the party’s stated policy, also seek to rescind existing ILR awards in favour of the new renewable visa arrangement.
Reform says the policy is about immigration, not race
Reform rejects the description of its policy as racist.
The party says the proposed system would apply according to immigration status and legal criteria rather than race.
Its stated requirements include salary, English-language ability and good character. The party argues that these conditions are intended to determine whether someone can remain permanently rather than to distinguish between people according to ethnicity.
Reform’s policy also makes specific distinctions between different categories of migrants.
For example, EU citizens protected by the EU Settlement Scheme are excluded from the proposed abolition of their settled status, while people who qualify for citizenship through certain family relationships have separate routes under the party’s plans.
Supporters of Reform therefore argue that the proposal should be judged according to its immigration and settlement criteria rather than its potential demographic effects.
Critics point to the impact on settled migrants
Critics take a different view.
The central concern is that people who have already obtained ILR may have built their lives around the expectation that their right to remain is permanent.
Changing those arrangements could affect families, employment, housing and long-term financial planning.
The Independent reported that immigration lawyers raised concerns about the retrospective element of Reform’s proposal and questioned whether attempting to remove existing rights could face legal challenges.
This does not establish that such a policy would necessarily be unlawful.
Any future legislation would need to be considered on its precise wording, transitional arrangements and interaction with existing legal protections.
But it explains why the debate has focused not only on immigration numbers but also on legal certainty.
Labour is also proposing tougher settlement rules
Another important part of the debate is that Labour itself has proposed changes to the settlement system.
The government has indicated that migrants seeking permanent residence could face tougher requirements, including stronger English-language expectations, employment or contribution requirements and restrictions linked to criminality and benefit use.
That means the disagreement between Labour and Reform is not simply a dispute between a party wanting immigration controls and another party wanting no restrictions.
Both parties have argued for changes.
The difference is largely over how extensive those changes should be and whether existing settlement rights should be affected.
Reform proposes replacing the current system with renewable visas and rescinding existing ILR awards, while Labour has pursued a different model of “earned settlement”.
This distinction is important when assessing the political claims being made by both sides.
The welfare question
Reform’s immigration proposals are also closely connected to welfare.
The party says foreign nationals should not have access to welfare benefits and argues that only British citizens should receive benefits under its proposed system.
Its policy document says foreign nationals of pension age who have made sufficient National Insurance contributions would continue to have a residence right and receive the state pension.
Supporters see this as a question of contribution and entitlement.
Critics argue that migrants who have legally worked, paid taxes and contributed to the National Insurance system should not necessarily lose rights they acquired under the rules in force when they came to Britain.
Again, the disagreement is fundamentally about the relationship between immigration status, contribution and access to public services.
Why the word “racist” has become so controversial
The argument over terminology is almost as significant as the policy itself.
“Racist” is a serious allegation because it normally refers to discrimination, prejudice or unequal treatment connected to race or ethnicity.
Applying that description to an immigration policy therefore requires more than simply showing that the policy would affect migrants.
The relevant question is whether the policy is based on racial distinctions or whether it establishes immigration rules that apply according to legal status and other criteria.
Reform says its policy falls into the second category.
Starmer’s criticism reflects a different interpretation of the consequences of the proposed system and the effect of removing permanent settlement from people who are already legally established in Britain.
The political dispute does not by itself resolve that question.
The wider immigration debate
The argument is taking place against a backdrop of unusually intense public and political attention to immigration.
Immigration has become one of the defining issues separating Reform from Labour and the Conservatives.
Reform has made reducing migration and tightening border controls central to its political programme, while the established parties have also sought to respond to concerns about migration.
The party’s current policies include not only changes to legal migration and settlement but also proposals concerning illegal migration, Channel crossings and deportations.
That wider programme is important because the ILR proposal is not an isolated measure.
It forms part of Reform’s broader argument that Britain needs a substantially different approach to immigration.
What would the policy mean in practice?
Much would depend on legislation.
A political manifesto or policy document establishes an intention, but implementation would require detailed laws and regulations.
Those rules would have to determine who would be affected, how existing ILR holders would be treated, what transitional arrangements would apply and what rights migrants would retain while holding renewable visas.
The question of enforcement would also be significant.
A renewable five-year visa system could give future governments greater control over whether migrants remain in Britain permanently. But it could also create greater uncertainty for migrants who have lived in the country for many years.
The practical consequences would therefore depend heavily on the final legislation rather than the headline policy alone.
So, is the plan racist?
There is no simple factual answer that can settle a political and definitional dispute of this kind.
Starmer has explicitly described Reform’s policy as racist and immoral. Reform rejects that description and says its proposals are based on immigration status, contribution and eligibility rather than race.
The policy itself can be examined through its concrete provisions.
Reform proposes abolishing ILR, replacing it with renewable five-year visas, imposing tougher requirements and restricting welfare access for foreign nationals. It also specifies exemptions for people covered by EU settled status and particular provisions for foreign nationals who qualify for the state pension.
Critics can then assess whether those provisions create unfair or discriminatory consequences, while supporters can argue that they represent a legitimate immigration-control framework.
The political question is ultimately one for voters.
What is clear is that the argument is not simply about one word.
It is about what permanent settlement should mean, whether immigration rules should apply retrospectively, what obligations migrants owe to the country where they live, and how far a future government should be able to change the conditions under which people are allowed to remain.
The Reform proposal has therefore become a test case in Britain’s wider immigration debate.
Its supporters see a plan to restore greater control over settlement and welfare.
Its critics see a proposal that could unsettle the legal position of people who have already built their lives in Britain.
Starmer’s decision to call the policy “racist” has intensified that disagreement, but the substance of the proposal — rather than the political label attached to it — provides the clearest basis for understanding what Reform is actually proposing.