Kemi Badenoch, the newly elected leader of the UK Conservative Party, has proposed a significant overhaul of the UK’s immigration system, requiring immigrants to wait a total of 15 years before they can apply for British citizenship. Under her plan, migrants must reside in the UK for 10 years before applying for indefinite leave to remain (ILR), followed by an additional 5 years before they can seek citizenship. This proposal, aimed at amending the Border Security, Asylum, and Immigration Bill, doubles the current 6-year timeline (5 years for ILR plus 1 year for citizenship) and introduces stringent criteria to ensure only those fully integrated into British society qualify.
The proposed 10-year wait for ILR requires migrants to demonstrate they are “net contributors” to the UK economy, meaning their economic output must exceed their reliance on public services such as healthcare or welfare. Additionally, applicants must have a clean criminal record and must not have claimed benefits or accessed social housing during the entire 10-year period. Badenoch argues that these measures ensure immigrants show a “real commitment” to the UK, addressing public concerns about high migration levels straining resources like the NHS, schools, and housing.
A key component of the proposal is a permanent ban on ILR or citizenship for individuals who enter the UK illegally or overstay their visas. This provision targets irregular migration, which Badenoch cites as a significant issue, referencing 2023 Home Office data indicating 112,000 illegal crossings and visa overstays. The policy aims to restore public trust in the immigration system, which Badenoch claims has been undermined by lax enforcement under previous governments.
The 15-year total wait time has sparked debate about its retroactive application, with Badenoch suggesting it could apply to migrants arriving after 2021. This aspect has raised concerns about fairness, as it could affect thousands already navigating the UK’s immigration pathways. The Home Office has not yet clarified how retroactivity would be implemented or whether exemptions would apply to specific groups, such as refugees or highly skilled workers.
Public reaction to the proposal, as measured by a Focaldata poll from November 2024, shows limited support, with only 8% of respondents favoring a 15-year wait for citizenship eligibility. In contrast, 56% prefer maintaining or reducing the current 5- to 6-year timeline, citing the UK’s reliance on migrant workers in sectors like healthcare, where 18% of NHS staff are foreign-born. Critics argue that extending the wait could deter skilled professionals from staying in the UK, exacerbating labor shortages in critical industries.
Labour’s Home Secretary, Angela Eagle, has criticized the proposal as “punitive and impractical,” pointing to the Conservative Party’s 14-year tenure, during which net migration peaked at 906,000 in 2023. Eagle noted that existing long routes, such as the 10-year path for those with irregular status, already impose significant waits, and further extensions risk creating bureaucratic backlogs. She also highlighted Labour’s recent efforts to reduce net migration, including a 16% drop in visa applications in 2024, as evidence of a more balanced approach.
Immigration experts have expressed skepticism about the proposal’s feasibility, particularly the “net contributor” requirement. Defining and measuring economic contribution remains unclear, with potential metrics like tax contributions or employment records posing administrative challenges. The Migration Observatory warned that excluding migrants from benefits or social housing for 10 years could disproportionately harm low-income individuals, hindering their ability to integrate and contribute to society.
The proposal aligns with Badenoch’s broader strategy to reposition the Conservative Party as tough on immigration ahead of the next general election. She has cited public frustration with high migration levels, particularly in light of housing shortages, with 1.2 million people on social housing waiting lists in 2024. However, some Tory MPs worry the policy could alienate moderate voters and businesses reliant on migrant labor, such as agriculture and hospitality, which employ 22% and 15% foreign workers, respectively.
Comparisons to other countries reveal mixed parallels. Badenoch has pointed to Canada and Australia, which prioritize economic contribution in their immigration systems, but both offer citizenship within 3-5 years of permanent residency, far shorter than her proposed 15 years. Germany and France, with 5-8 and 5-year pathways respectively, also have shorter timelines, raising questions about the UK’s competitiveness in attracting global talent.
The Home Office estimates the policy could affect over 500,000 migrants annually, based on 2024 visa issuance rates of 1.1 million. Current ILR and citizenship application backlogs, averaging 12-18 months, could worsen under the new rules, potentially overwhelming an already strained system. Immigration lawyers have warned of legal challenges, particularly if retroactive application disrupts existing migrants’ plans or violates human rights frameworks.
Advocacy groups like Refugee Action have called for a more holistic approach, arguing that long waits without integration support, such as language classes or community programs, could lead to social exclusion. They note that refugees, who make up 7% of UK migrants, often rely on benefits to rebuild their lives, and a 10-year ban on such support could undermine their stability. Badenoch has acknowledged integration challenges but insists the policy prioritizes fairness for British taxpayers funding public services.
The proposal’s passage through Parliament is uncertain, facing opposition from Labour, the Liberal Democrats, and some Conservative moderates. If approved, it could take effect by 2026, though legal and logistical hurdles may delay implementation. Badenoch remains steadfast, framing the policy as a necessary step to align immigration with public expectations and national capacity.
The broader context of UK immigration policy adds complexity to the debate. Labour’s 2024 reforms, including stricter visa rules and increased deportations, have already reduced net migration by 10% from 2023 levels. Badenoch’s proposal seeks to build on this but risks alienating key stakeholders, including businesses and migrant communities, who see it as a step too far.
Critics like immigration lawyer Colin Yeo argue that the proposal prioritizes political optics over practical solutions. They point out that addressing root causes, such as global instability driving asylum claims or domestic labor shortages, would be more effective than extending wait times. Yeo also noted that the UK’s citizenship process is already among the most expensive in Europe, with fees of £1,580 for ILR and £1,630 for citizenship in 2025.
The proposal has also raised questions about its impact on social cohesion. Migrants waiting 15 years for citizenship may feel less invested in British society, potentially undermining community ties. Conversely, Badenoch argues that a longer wait ensures only those fully committed to British values and economic contribution gain citizenship, aligning with her vision of a “merit-based” system.
As the debate unfolds, the policy’s fate will depend on parliamentary support and public opinion. While Badenoch aims to restore confidence in immigration control, the proposal’s restrictive nature and lack of clarity on implementation could hinder its success. The UK’s immigration system, already a lightning rod for political division, faces another test as it balances economic needs, public sentiment, and fairness.
