The Boriswave Indefinite-Leave-to-Remain time bomb is about to go off

Telegraph

17-03-2025

This week, the Telegraph is running a series of essays on immigration, one of the great issues of our times. The full list of published essays appears at the bottom of this article
Those concerned about immigration often focus on the number of people coming to Britain, and rightly so. Incoming migration is far too high, and has been for many years. In 2022, 2023, and 2024, gross migration ran at more than 1 million – a population the size of Birmingham, each year.
But quantity is not the only consideration. We must also think about the terms on which immigrants come to Britain, the rights that they have once they are here – and what, if anything, we can do to remove those migrants who do not contribute to our society.
Under the current system, most migrants on work or family visas will be eligible for Indefinite Leave To Remain (ILR) after just five years in the UK. After ten years here, almost all migrants are eligible to apply for ILR – an eligibility period which includes time spent on a student or graduate visa. Once they have ILR, migrants can access Universal Credit, social housing, and other benefits. It also puts them on the path to citizenship, and entitles them to surcharge-free access to the NHS.
The number of people receiving ILR is already ticking up, as the long-term impact of Britain's migration failure filters through the system. In 2024, 147,053 people were granted ILR, up 31 percent on the 2023 figure.
But a much bigger threat now looms, which could permanently damage our economy, our public services, and our society as a whole. Those who came to Britain in the migration explosion of the last few years – dubbed the 'Boriswave' by some commentators – will soon become eligible for ILR. Those who arrived in 2021's record-breaking migration wave will start to become eligible from 2026, with the number of eligible migrants growing with each passing day.
This will, in effect, bake in the 'Boriswave', making it much harder to reverse the damage of our immigration failure over the past few years. These newly-minted ILR recipients will be able to access our already-stretched public services, and will begin to receive taxpayer-funded welfare. With just five per cent of migrants from the 2022-23 cohort expected to be high earners, the vast majority of these new ILR holders will not be net lifetime contributors. In other words, we will be adding enormous strain to our public services, and paying for the privilege.
How many migrants from the Boriswave will actually claim ILR? Incredibly, we don't know. The Government has issued no official prediction about the number of people who could receive ILR over the course of this Parliament, nor any prediction of the impact that these people will have on public services over their lifetimes.
As such, we must rely on estimates. According to research from the Centre for Policy Studies, more than 800,000 migrants could receive ILR over the course of this Parliament, at a lifetime cost of £234 billion. That's equivalent to £8,200 per household, or six times our annual defence budget. This represents an enormous opportunity cost, and will be financed by either increased taxes or borrowing. Why should working people, already squeezed by historically high tax rates, be forced to pay more in order to cover the costs of an immigration wave that they did not consent to?
We must act now, and act decisively. The eligibility period for ILR must be extended, to at least 10 years – and ideally longer. As I argued in December, a 15-year eligibility period would be preferable, giving a future Government more time to decide whether or not to issue new visas to those who arrived in the past few years.
Extending the eligibility period for ILR would make it possible to withhold visas from those who have come to the UK legally, but have not contributed enough. Those who are not expected to be net lifetime contributors should simply be refused a visa extension and compelled to leave. We should not add more pressure to an already-strained public purse. As Nick Timothy MP has so rightly argued, the future of immigration policy must not only be about who comes here, but about who we decide must leave.
There is precedent for such a change. In 2006, then-Home Secretary Charles Clarke extended the qualifying period for ILR, a change which applied retroactively to those already moving through the settlement process. Since 2006 our activist judiciary has expanded its scope significantly, but this is not an insurmountable hurdle by any means. Cleverly-drafted legislation, and a well-placed ouster clause, can thwart even the most skilful judicial meddling. Like it or not, Parliament is still sovereign.
But times have changed, and our present situation is significantly more precarious than it was in 2006. We can, and should, go further. We should expand the conditions under which ILR can be revoked, allowing us to exclude criminals, low-earners, and welfare claimants from permanent settlement. We should also tighten eligibility rules for future migrants, restricting ILR status to high earners, with an in-built preference for those from culturally compatible societies. Settled status must work, and continue to work, in the interests of Britain.
These are not radical steps. They would simply reflect the expressed wishes of the British people, who have, at every election in living memory, voted for an immigration system which is selective, limited, and tailored to our needs. Time and time again, politicians have failed to deliver such a system – but it is not too late to do so. If, as the Prime Minister himself has said, our 'open borders experiment' was a mistake, then we should endeavour to reverse that mistake.