Fact check: Report estimated 686,000 migrants would settle over 3.5 years
Evaluation
This figure appears to come from a report which measured the number of people who could get Indefinite Leave to Remain – not citizenship – spread over a 3.5-year period between January 2026 and June 2029 – not just next year.
The figure was calculated by counting all those who arrived in the UK between January 2021 and June 2024 on a long-term visa which makes them eligible for Indefinite Leave to Remain. To this was added those who arrived in that period on an ineligible visa, but later switched to an eligible visa.
That produced a figure of two million. But that is before taking into account people who leave the country, or who stay but never apply for Indefinite Leave to Remain.
After taking into account such possibilities, the report's authors estimated that around 686,000 of those two million would receive Indefinite Leave to Remain over the 3.5-year period.
The facts
In a press release shared with the media on May 15 – the same day that the claims were posted on social media – the Conservative Party pointed towards an analysis from the Centre for Policy Studies (CPS) think tank.
That report deals not with citizenship, but with Indefinite Leave to Remain.
ILR – also called settlement – gives a person the right to live, work and study in the UK for as long as they like. Most people are eligible for ILR if they have lived and worked in the UK for five years, depending on their visa type.
Although many people are eligible after being in the UK for five years 'some wait considerably longer before applying,' the CPS report said.
Once someone has ILR they get the right to apply for British citizenship after a further 12 months.
What time period did the CPS report deal with?
The CPS report did not say that two million people could get ILR in 2026.
Instead it looked at the number of long-term visas issued between January 2021 and June 2024 – a total of around 3.8 million.
Those of the 3.8 million who arrived in 2021, have stayed since then and have the right visas, will become eligible for ILR in 2026. Those who arrived in 2022 will be eligible in 2027 and so on.
Where does the two million figure come from?
The CPS estimated that around two million people from the 2021-2024 cohort could be eligible for ILR over the 3.5 years between January 2026 and July 2029. Assuming they are still in the country.
The think tank got to this figure by excluding visas that would not make people eligible for ILR after five years. That left 1.7 million out of 3.8 million total long-term visas issued between January 2021 and June 2024.
To this number it added those who had switched from a ineligible to an eligible visa after some time in the UK – for instance changing from a student to a work visa.
By adding in these people who have switched visa the CPS estimated that a further 289,000 students who arrived in the UK between January 2021 and June 2024 could become eligible for ILR between January 2026 and June 2029. That takes the total to around two million.
By CPS estimates, a little under 400,000 of those could become eligible in 2026.
What proportion of the two million are likely to get ILR, according to the report?
Not all the two million are likely to have stayed in the country for the full five years, and some of those who do stay for the full period will still not apply for Indefinite Leave to Remain.
The CPS report estimated that out of the cohort of two million, around 686,000 people will obtain ILR between January 2026 and June 2029 and a further 115,000 by 2040. That is a total of 801,000 of those who came between January 2021 and June 2024.
The CPS warned that some of its estimations were based on what proportion of people on certain visas had in the past eventually gained ILR. These proportions might be different in the cohort that arrived between January 2021 and June 2024.
The CPS report's 'new paradigm' scenario where it assumes that the 2021-2024 cohort is much more likely to gain ILR sees around 1.2 million of them being granted Indefinite Leave to Remain.
The video
In a video accompanying the posts by the Conservatives on social media, the party's leader Kemi Badenoch says that the two million could claim citizenship 'from next year' – not in 2026 as the text in the posts claimed.
Although it avoids the text's mistake, this still does not take into account that it will take these people a year from getting ILR before they are eligible for citizenship. That means that they will not be able to apply for citizenship until at least 2027.
Links
Post on LinkedIn (archived)
Post on X (archived post and video)
Post on Facebook (archived)
CPS – Here To Stay? Estimating the Scale and Cost of Long-Term Migration (archived)
Gov.uk – Check if you can get indefinite leave to remain (archived)
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Powys County Times
22 minutes ago
- Powys County Times
Asylum seekers who work illegally should be on ‘next plane home'
Asylum seekers who work without permission should be 'on the next plane home', Kemi Badenoch has said. The Conservative Party leader and shadow home secretary Chris Philp have proposed a crackdown on illegal working amid fears a 'soft touch' is driving English Channel crossings. Migrants whose asylum claims are yet to be processed are not generally allowed to work but they can apply for permission to work if they have been waiting a year or longer for a decision. The Home Office last month struck an agreement with Deliveroo, Just Eat and Uber Eats to equip these companies with tools to identify patterns of misuse and riders who are not allowed to work in the UK. The Government will share the locations of asylum hotels as part of the deal. But the Conservatives have called for illegal working to become a disqualifier in the asylum process, so that anyone caught is barred from becoming a refugee. 'If you come here illegally, take advantage of our asylum system, and then break our laws by illegally working, your asylum claim must be rejected and you should be on the next plane home,' Mrs Badenoch said. 'Under my leadership, the Conservatives will never allow Britain to become a soft touch for those who think they can break the rules and profit from it.' She also said that illegal working 'rewards illegality, protects perpetrators and mocks hard-working taxpayers.' Mr Philp said he had seen riders gathering at a hotel housing asylum seekers, which he described as 'an underground courier cartel operating right under this Government's nose'. He continued: 'Illegal working is a pull factor sold by smugglers as a reward to break in to our country and cross the Channel. 'That is why we are calling for new action: anyone who plays the system should have their status stripped, wages confiscated, and be deported.' Home Secretary Yvette Cooper has previously said that 'illegal working undermines honest business, exploits vulnerable individuals and fuels organised immigration crime'.
Powys County Times
23 minutes ago
- Powys County Times
Angela Rayner calls on China to explain redacted images in super-embassy plans
Angela Rayner has told China to explain why parts of its plans for a new super-embassy in London are redacted. The Deputy Prime Minister, who as Housing Secretary is responsible for overseeing planning matters, has given Beijing two weeks to explain why areas of its plans for the sprawling new embassy site in central London are blacked out. China hawks in Westminster have raised alarm that the embassy site could be used to conduct surveillance from British soil. Pro-democracy campaigners from Hong Kong, as well as Uighurs and Tibetans, meanwhile, fear that intimidation and reprisals from the Chinese state could result from the embassy going ahead. This follows reports that bounties have been issued by China for dissident Hong Kongers now living in the UK. In a letter seen by the PA news agency, Ms Rayner's Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government asks planning consultants representing the Chinese embassy to explain why drawings of the planned site are blacked out. The letter gives two weeks, until August 20, for an explanation to be provided. It also suggests that a final planning decision on the embassy site, at Royal Mint Court, just east of London's financial district, will be made by September 9. Copies of the letter were also sent to the Home Office and the Foreign Office by email. It notes that the Home Office requested a new 'hard perimeter' be placed around the embassy site, to prevent 'unregulated public access', and acknowledges this could require a further planning application. Plans for the super-embassy were previously rejected by Tower Hamlets Council in 2022, with the Chinese opting not to appeal. However, Beijing resubmitted the application a fortnight after Sir Keir Starmer's election victory last year, believing Labour may be more receptive to the application. Since entering office Sir Keir's Government has sought closer links with Beijing after a cooling during the final years of Conservative Party rule. The final decision will be made by Mr Rayner in her role as Housing Secretary. Alicia Kearns, the shadow national security minister, said: 'No surprises here – Labour's rush to appease Xi Jinping's demands for a new embassy demonstrated a complacency when it came to keeping our people safe. Having deluded themselves for so long, they've recognised we were right to be vigilant. 'The disturbing bounty notes urging British citizens to kidnap and deliver their Hong Kong neighbours to the current CCP embassy laid bare the risks – yet the Foreign Secretary didn't even summon the Chinese ambassador in the face of direct threats to those seeking refuge in our country. 'CCP ambitions for a larger embassy would only amplify opportunities for espionage and transnational repression.'
Spectator
2 hours ago
- Spectator
The case for an independent Kent
I'm just back from Vancouver, where I was speaking at a fundraiser for the Free Speech Union of Canada. At the dinner afterwards I sat next to an Alberta separatist, a movement I was unaware of until now. Dating to the 19th century, it advocates for the secession of the province of Alberta and has been given a renewed impetus by the federal government's hostility to fossil fuels under Justin Trudeau and now Mark Carney. Petroleum is Alberta's biggest industry by far, and the revenue generated by energy exports means the province is a big contributor to Canada's national budget, with its net contributions dwarfing those of other provinces. Shouldn't Canada's liberal prime ministers just say 'thank you' instead of wagging their fingers at Albertans for not doing more to save the planet? Not surprisingly, the separatist party has done well in recent elections, and 65 per cent of United Conservative party voters say they would vote for independence in a referendum. I was told this could take place within a year. This gave me an idea about how to fix Britain's immigration problem. Why doesn't Kent county council, which changed hands from the Conservatives to Reform in May, demand that Kent secede from the United Kingdom? If it became independent it would not be bound by the European Convention on Human Rights and would have much more latitude when it comes to turning back the boats, processing asylum seekers offshore and deporting those illegal immigrants currently accommodated in hotels. I suppose it's possible the people-smugglers might steer their dinghies towards East Sussex instead, but that county could then follow suit. Indeed, the entire south coast could become an independent sovereign state. I know, I know. Wouldn't it be simpler to withdraw from the ECHR than to break up the UK? That's the policy of Reform UK, but there are political difficulties. For one, it might jeopardise the Good Friday Agreement, which refers to the ECHR in several of its provisions. That's because the only way to persuade Sinn Fein to sign up was to assure them the human rights of former terrorists would be protected by Strasbourg rather than the hated British judiciary. Would they regard the agreement as void if Britain withdrew from the Convention? Another problem with withdrawing is that it might derail the Trade and Cooperation Agreement with the EU. The EU has the right to terminate the part relating to 'Law Enforcement and Judicial Co-operation in Criminal Matters' if the UK is no longer bound by the Convention. Not everyone thinks these are insurmountable obstacles. Lord Lilley, one of my Tory colleagues on the red benches, wrote an excellent paper last month for the Centre for Policy Studies in which he argued that the Belfast Agreement could survive Britain's departure from the Convention provided ECHR rights remain incorporated into Northern Ireland law, and while it's true that the EU could stop co-operating with the UK when it comes to tackling crime, why would it? 'To forgo that co-operation would be a self-inflicted loss,' he says. But I'm not confident that Nigel Farage, newly installed in No. 10, would hold his nerve when Sir Humphrey pointed out these problems. 'I think you'll find there are some more nuanced positions you could take that would confound your critics, Prime Minister.' A wily cabinet secretary would also point out that even if the UK did withdraw, it would still be party to the Geneva Refugee Convention and obliged to offer asylum to anyone with a 'well-founded fear of persecution'. The beauty of my proposal is that the newly independent country of Kentland wouldn't be bound by the Refugee Convention either. According to Article 16 of the Vienna Convention on Succession of States: 'A newly independent State is not bound to maintain in force, or to become a party to, any treaty by reason only of the fact that at the date of the succession of States the treaty was in force in respect of the territory to which the succession of States relates.' Admittedly, that Convention has not yet been widely ratified, but m'learned friends tell me this 'clean slate' principle is broadly accepted. So there's the solution. Make Kent – or the entire south coast if necessary – an independent sovereign state and dispatch a bunch of Reform councillors armed with harpoons to intercept the small boats. Any undocumented migrants that got through could be sent to the Isle of Sheppey for 'processing'. I imagine the prospect of being held in a pen on Sheep Island for several years would be enough to put off even the most determined.
