A GROUP representing more than 20,000 skilled migrants across the UK has written to Andy Burnham urging him to soften Labour’s “inhumane” immigration bill.
It comes after the UK Government's controversial Immigration and Asylum Bill was passed by MPs on Tuesday despite a small rebellion from Labour backbenchers.
The bill has been described as "authoritarian" and "racist" by the Scottish Greens, while the SNP have warned that it is an imitation of "Nigel Farage's toxic agenda".
It includes new tighter rules on how Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which covers an individual’s right to a private and family life, will be applied, which the Home Office hopes will cut the number of asylum appeals being granted.
READ MORE: Donald Trump says US to reinstate Hormuz blockade and impose 20 per cent cargo charge
But it will also increase the standard time taken to qualify for permanent residency (or Indefinite Leave to Remain [ILR]) from five to between 10 and 15 years – and is currently thought to apply to migrants who arrived from 2021, an estimated 1.6m of whom would otherwise have expected to apply for indefinite leave to remain (ILR) from this year.
The National has reported on how the campaign group Skill Migrants Alliance – which represents more than 20,000 migrant workers across the UK, including many in the care sector and NHS – previously warned that it is preparing legal action against the UK Government if the ILR changes are brought into force.
The group has already raised £25,000 and taken advice from a barrister in preparation for a judicial review.
But while the immigration bill has been passed, it is being reported that Burnham – who voted in favour of the new legislation – is considering softening the rules for those currently in the UK.
The Financial Times, for example, writes that the Home Office has begun working up options, including allowing migrants to claim settled status but delaying access to benefits.
The Sunday National understands that the Skill Migrants Alliance are waiting to see what the new prime minister does when he is sworn in later this month before deciding on any future legal action.
In the meantime, the group has written to Burnham setting out a “clear and urgent request” on behalf of “hundreds of thousands” of visa holders.
“Retrospectively changing the settlement route would fundamentally alter the conditions under which these life-changing decisions were made,” the letter warned, describing their appeal as “straightforward and fair”.
The group said any new, longer pathway for future migrants is a matter for Parliament, but insisted that “those who entered the UK under the existing five‑year route should be allowed to complete that journey under the rules that applied when they arrived.”
READ MORE: Twelve arrested after ‘credible’ right-wing terror threat against Islamic event
The campaigners added: “This is not a request for special treatment. It is a request for fairness, legal certainty and respect for legitimate expectations.
“Changing the settlement rules retrospectively would affect hundreds of thousands of people who have already invested years of their lives in Britain. It would create uncertainty not only for existing Skilled Worker visa holders but also for employers who depend on international talent and for future skilled professionals considering the UK as a destination.
“Britain’s immigration system must remain one that people can trust.”
The letter went on: “We respectfully ask your Government to provide certainty by confirming that any changes to the settlement rules will apply only to future entrants and not retrospectively to those already on the Skilled Worker route.”
"Many Skilled Worker visa holders and their families placed their trust in Labour at the last general election because they believed the party would uphold fairness, the rule of law and respect for those who contribute to Britain. While we cannot speak for every voter, it is clear that confidence within our community has been shaken by the prospect of retrospective changes to the settlement route.
“By confirming that those already on the five-year pathway to Indefinite Leave to Remain will be allowed to complete it under the rules they signed up to, your Government has an opportunity to rebuild that trust and demonstrate that Britain keeps its promises. Such a decision would send a powerful message that fairness, legal certainty and respect for legitimate expectations remain at the heart of government.”
The group then went on to say that they would “welcome the opportunity” to meet with Burnham and his team.
Burnham has been approached for comment.
Facts Only
* A group representing more than 20,000 skilled migrants across the UK wrote to Andy Burnham urging him to soften Labour’s immigration bill.
* The UK Government passed the Immigration and Asylum Bill despite a small rebellion from Labour backbenchers.
* The bill includes new rules on the application of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
* The Home Office hopes these changes will reduce asylum appeals granted.
* Permanent residency qualification time will increase from five years to between 10 and 15 years.
* This change is thought to apply to migrants who arrived from 2021, an estimated 1.6 million.
* The Skill Migrants Alliance warned they would take legal action if the ILR changes were enforced.
* The group raised £25,000 and sought legal advice in preparation for a judicial review.
* The Home Office is reportedly exploring options, such as allowing migrants to claim settled status while delaying benefit access.
* The campaign requested that changes to settlement rules apply only to future entrants, not retrospectively to those already on the Skilled Worker route.
Executive Summary
A group representing over 20,000 skilled migrants across the UK has urged Andy Burnham to soften Labour’s immigration bill, citing concerns about its impact on legal certainty for those already in the UK. This request follows the passage of the Immigration and Asylum Bill by MPs, which faced some opposition from Labour backbenchers. Critics, including the Scottish Greens and the SNP, have described the legislation as authoritarian or imitative of political agendas. The bill introduces stricter rules regarding Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights and proposes increasing the time required to qualify for permanent residency to between ten and fifteen years, potentially affecting migrants who arrived from 2021.
The campaigning group has warned that the retrospective changes to settlement routes would fundamentally alter prior decisions and create uncertainty for existing visa holders, employers dependent on international talent, and future skilled professionals. They requested that any new rules apply only to future entrants, ensuring those currently on the five-year route are allowed to complete their process under existing rules. The group emphasized a call for fairness, legal certainty, and respect for legitimate expectations, suggesting that confirming the existing pathway would help rebuild community trust.
Full Take
The dynamic described involves a tension between legislative action by the government and demands for procedural fairness from established groups of affected individuals. The central conflict pivots on the concept of legal certainty versus sweeping administrative change. The call by the migrant group is not merely about immigration policy but about the integrity of legal frameworks and the trust placed in political institutions.
The pattern here involves a strategy of layering regulatory complexity—tightening human rights application while simultaneously altering residency pathways—to manage public perception, often framing necessary state action as unavoidable or justified. The pushback from the group operates by highlighting the asymmetry of impact: retrospective changes create immediate disruption for those who have already invested time and structure their lives within the existing system, contrasting with forward-looking concerns about future entrants.
The resilience of the campaigners lies in appealing to a shared principle—fairness and legitimate expectations—rather than solely contesting the technical legality of the bill. The underlying implication is that governmental authority must be balanced by predictability for those under its jurisdiction. The potential for trust erosion suggests that when systemic changes are perceived as unilaterally imposed rather than evolving through accepted procedures, it risks fracturing the social contract that underpins multicultural integration and economic contribution.
Bridge questions: How does the concept of 'legitimate expectation' translate into actionable legal constraints on executive power in immigration law? What mechanisms exist to ensure that retrospective legislative changes do not create insurmountable legal uncertainty for existing rights holders? If the goal is rebuilding trust, what specific procedural guarantees would be most effective in demonstrating respect for established timelines and investment?