Research suggests they may not. A 2025 University of Glasgow study on migration drivers suggests that “migration intentions have relatively short-term motivations and are not strongly driven by the desire of settling quickly for the long run.”

In a supporting example, the International Labour Organisation reported in 2023 that Arab Gulf states host the world’s largest share of migrant workers (41.4%) despite maintaining some of the most restrictive and lengthy settlement requirements, such as 30 years of continuous residency or marriage to a citizen. This suggests that harsh settlement rules do not necessarily deter migration, though further research in this area is needed.

The proposed extension of the settlement route from five to ten years would systematically deepen destitution and extreme hardship for migrant households by prolonging the already punitive No Recourse to Public Funds (NRPF) condition and imposing unaffordable costs. This combination creates a “perfect storm” of precarity, with over half of those on the existing ten-year route struggling to afford necessities like bills and food, and nearly half are forced into debt to pay visa fees. The resulting destitution forces increased reliance on already overwhelmed local public and third-sector support services.

The severe financial pressure also risks pushing people into undocumented status when they cannot afford visa renewals, undermining the government’s own immigration objectives. Testimony from lived experience and frontline workers uniformly warns that the extension would only cause “further hardship,” sink families seeking stability, and intensify a system that effectively imposes “destitution by design.”

The proposal to extend the settlement route would inflict a profound and well-documented toll on the physical and mental health of migrants and their families. Research on the existing ten-year route confirms it directly causes severe anxiety, depression, and stress, with physical manifestations including insomnia, high blood pressure, and fatigue. The extreme financial strain and relentless anxiety can be so acute that they can lead to suicidal ideation.

Lived experience testimony describes daily suffering, such as panic attacks and migraines, driven by uncertainty over immigration status and housing. Frontline workers warn that extending this insecure period could deter vulnerable groups, like domestic abuse survivors, from seeking help. Recent Scotland-wide data quantifies the crisis, showing nearly half of Fair Way Scotland’s clients report low mental well-being, a rate over twice the general population’s. Doubling the period of insecurity would prolong this suffering, expose a much larger group to severe health risks, and further strain overstretched health services.

Furthermore, retroactively changing the settlement terms mid-process deepens the anguish and sense of injustice for those who planned their lives in good faith around a five-year timeline.

The proposal to extend the settlement route to ten years would be a crescendo of the existing crisis of deskilling and wasted potential within the UK’s migrant workforce. By prolonging temporary immigration status, the policy actively traps highly qualified professionals in roles beneath their skills and qualifications, preventing them from contributing fully to the economy.

This deskilling is particularly evident in sectors like social care, where migrants are often overqualified; a longer, insecure status exploits their labour in the short term but risks driving them out of these essential sectors once they gain settlement, undermining long-term workforce stability. Furthermore, the No Recourse to Public Funds (NRPF) condition creates structural barriers to progression, such as denying access to childcare support, which effectively prices skilled parents, like graduate mothers in our Lived Experience Group, out of career advancement or further training.

Extending the temporary period would block a larger cohort from matched employment or skill development, contradicting the UK’s aim to attract ‘global talent’ and resulting in a substantial loss of human capital that would weaken the country’s competitiveness, as reflected in its OECD rankings.

The proposal to extend the settlement route exposes a system fundamentally unprepared for the demands it would impose, severely undermining both employers and local services. By eroding the certainty of a five-year pathway, it disrupts essential long-term workforce planning, exacerbating critical staff shortages in sectors like healthcare and deterring global talent from choosing the UK, further damaging the country’s competitiveness.

Employers would face a significant increase in administrative complexity, having to manage prolonged visa sponsorship and renewal processes without adequate training or resources. Simultaneously, local authorities, already stretched by a tripling in demand for NRPF support and operating under severe budgetary constraints, would be pushed beyond their capacity, lacking the necessary funding, infrastructure, and specialist training to respond effectively.

Ultimately, this change would place unsustainable pressure on an already fractured system, harming recruitment, overburdening public services, and weakening the UK’s economic prospects.

The proposal would overwhelm already overstretched local authorities. Demand for support for those with No Recourse to Public Funds (NRPF) in Scotland has tripled in five years, placing unsustainable pressure on services operating with support levels below mainstream benefits and under severe budget constraints. Local authorities bear these costs without dedicated funding, and COMPAS and COSLA note that reported data is “only the tip of the iceberg,” with the actual need far greater due to data gaps and confusion over entitlements. These services are already described as operating on “overstretched social care budgets” and lack the training, infrastructure, and investment to meet existing needs.

Extending the settlement route would dramatically accelerate this demand, exacerbating a system that is already failing and contradicting the logic of NRPF as a cost-saving measure, especially when evidence suggests that lifting NRPF could generate substantial net savings for local budgets.

The proposal to institute an ‘earned settlement’ requirement is a fundamentally flawed and immoral concept that ignores the reality of migrants’ lives.

While voluntary community contributions are valued, mandating them as a condition of settlement is illogical and cruel, as it disregards the profound structural barriers, such as destitution, excessive work hours, and care responsibilities, that make volunteering impossible for those with No Recourse to Public Funds (NRPF). Lived experience testimony highlights the absurdity of expecting already overburdened families to volunteer on top of their existing struggles. More dangerously, the framework risks creating a two-tiered system based on wealth.

The concept is rendered redundant by the fact that migrants already contribute extensively through work, taxes, and compliance with the gruelling immigration process. Furthermore, applying these new rules retroactively to those already on a settlement path breaks a clear promise made to them, making a mockery of the government’s stated commitment to fairness.

While we believe all should be exempt from these suffocating demands, we acknowledge a hierarchy of need. The proposal’s extended settlement route must include necessary exemptions to prevent profound harm to the most vulnerable. These exemptions are essential to prevent the policy from compounding injustice and inflicting further suffering on those already in precarious situations.

Above all, single parents and survivors of domestic abuse should be exempt, as subjecting them to a decade of insecurity is perverse and undermines their safety and recovery. Disabled migrants must also be exempt from any mandated volunteering, as such requirements often presume access to spaces and opportunities that remain largely inaccessible. Furthermore, migrants experiencing destitution should be exempt from contribution requirements, as compelling those struggling to meet basic needs to volunteer would divert crucial time and energy from their search for employment and stability, thereby deepening their hardship.

By proceeding, the government rejects a coherent evidence base formed from its own committees, local government, academia, and the third sector, and intensifies a policy framework proven to cause profound harm. The proposal flagrantly dismisses established, cross-spectrum evidence and violates nearly every key recommendation for a fair system.