Britain’s immigration crackdown is not about deportations but about stripping permanence from millions before the rules change

For millions of migrants in Britain, the danger may not begin with a knock on the door. It may begin with a change in legal status.

Reform UK says it wants to deport people who entered Britain illegally, review recent asylum grants, abolish indefinite leave to remain, stop welfare for foreign nationals, and raise the cost of access to the NHS. Labour, meanwhile, has already proposed making permanent settlement harder by moving the normal starting point for indefinite leave to remain from five years to ten. Taken together, migration analysts and policy researchers have warned that these policies could leave very large numbers of migrants exposed to future enforcement or status loss, even if only a smaller number were physically removed from the country.

Reform’s official 2024 “Contract with You” promised to freeze non-essential immigration, stop small boat crossings, detain illegal migrants, leave the European Convention on Human Rights, and bar those arriving illegally from claiming asylum or gaining citizenship. Its more recent policy material goes further. Reform now says it would create a UK Deportation Command, expand immigration detention capacity, and run what it calls Operation Restoring Justice.

The immediate fear for undocumented migrants is obvious. Reform says it believes more than one million people are in the UK without authorisation, and party figures have spoken of removing hundreds of thousands. Reform has also said it would review asylum decisions from the past five years, placing large numbers of recent refugees within scope for reassessment.

But the deeper warning is for people who may believe they are safe because they are here legally. Reform’s own policy documents and FAQs say the party wants to scrap indefinite leave to remain and move migrants onto temporary, renewable visas, with stricter conditions attached.

That means the central issue is not simply deportation. It is permanence. A migrant with indefinite leave to remain currently has a settled right to live, work, study and access services in the UK. Reform’s proposal would weaken or remove that category for many people, replacing settled status with permission that must be renewed.

The Migration Observatory at the University of Oxford has estimated that between 622,000 and 820,000 non-EU citizens already held settlement status at the end of 2024, while noting that precise figures are uncertain. For those people, the question is no longer theoretical. If settlement rights were altered, the consequences would be legally and administratively significant.

Reform’s “Stop the Boriswave” document claims that migrants who arrived under post-Brexit rules could impose a lifetime fiscal cost of GBP622.5bn undiscounted, or GBP154bn using a Treasury-style discount rate. The party uses this calculation to justify abolishing ILR and restricting future settlement.

However, other analysts dispute this framing. The Migration Advisory Committee has reported that many migrants on Skilled Worker visas generate a positive net fiscal contribution, particularly over the long term. Evidence submitted to Parliament by Professor Jonathan Portes has similarly argued that migrant fiscal contributions are often understated in political debate.

That matters because Reform’s policy is presented as fiscal discipline. The party argues that migrants should not become a permanent burden on the taxpayer. Critics argue that some of the people most exposed to the policy may already be contributing through taxation, national insurance and visa fees.

The most exposed legal migrants are likely to be those still waiting for settlement: care workers, lower-paid skilled workers, former students who moved into work routes, refugees, and families whose status depends on continuing to satisfy visa conditions. Migration Observatory analysis has indicated that around 2.2 million people hold temporary visas with a pathway to settlement under current rules.

Labour’s role is crucial. The Home Office has set out proposals to extend the standard route to settlement from five years to ten, alongside tighter eligibility criteria. Government statements have indicated that more than one million people are expected to reach settlement eligibility within the coming decade under existing rules.

That is why Labour’s own policy may determine how far Reform can go later. If migrants obtain ILR and then citizenship before the next general election, their position becomes much harder to disturb. If settlement is delayed, the same people may remain on temporary status when a future government arrives.

According to the House of Commons Library, settlement policy is already complex and subject to multiple routes and exceptions. But for migrants, the practical effect is straightforward. The longer they remain outside permanent status, the more exposed they are to future policy change.

Refugees face a separate danger. Reform has said it would review asylum decisions and reassess protection status based on conditions in countries of origin and the circumstances of entry. Meanwhile, government policy has already moved toward shorter, renewable refugee status periods rather than automatic long-term protection.

For people granted asylum, that distinction is significant. Refugee status may no longer guarantee permanence. It may instead become conditional and subject to periodic reassessment.

Reform’s fiscal programme adds another pressure point. The party has proposed savings of around GBP25bn annually by targeting foreign nationals and reducing overseas aid. Policies include restricting welfare access for non-citizens and increasing the Immigration Health Surcharge.

Reform argues that these measures would protect taxpayers. Critics, including policy analysts and opposition politicians, have warned that the figures may be overstated and could lead to legal disputes or economic consequences, particularly in relation to agreements with the European Union.

The Institute for Government has warned that large-scale deportation and migration restriction plans would face legal, operational and diplomatic challenges. It has noted that such policies would likely require major legislative change and could be subject to extensive court scrutiny.

That does not mean migrants can dismiss the plans. It means the risk may arise through gradual pressure: longer waits, higher costs, reduced rights, repeated reviews, and incentives to leave voluntarily.

For undocumented migrants, the message is direct: detention and removal. For refugees, protection may be revisited. For workers and families on temporary visas, the risk is that time already spent in the UK may not translate into permanent security. For settled migrants, the issue is more complex but remains politically active.

The most important point is not the headline number of deportations. It is the structure of legal status. The right to remain in Britain depends on where a person stands: undocumented, asylum seeker, refugee, temporary worker, family migrant, ILR holder, or citizen.

Across current proposals and policy debates, one pattern is clear. Citizenship provides the highest level of protection. Lack of status carries the greatest risk. Between the two lies a large group whose position depends on rules that may change.

For migrants in Britain, that is the warning. The issue is not only who is removed. It is who becomes secure before the rules change.