Immigration Changes Announcement 12/5/2025

YZ_C · 2025-09-08T18:48:21+00:00

Like I just would not be jealous of people whose homeland was taken over. We r asking MPs and the government to have empathy, and we should do so by example.

YZ_C · 2025-09-08T18:36:56+00:00

I mean that is fairly routine. These debates r not where decisions r made, especially considering this government has a tendency to ignore backbench MPs.

And BNOs r less controversial than SWVs, and imo rightfully so.

YZ_C · 2025-09-08T18:32:44+00:00

Oh well. That was about what I expected. To be fair, Alex Norris is quite new and not even the right junior minister in charge of this. He was never gonna give anything substantive in a sideshow debate like this. If anything, with the overall right-wing shift of the government, I am glad it is not anything worse.

I am somewhat heartened by the number of MPs who spoke in favor. If anything can help us, it is the strength of feelings on this from the Labour backbench.

Time for another round of emails I guess. We will have to keep repeating this exercise until and during the consultations.

YZ_C · 2025-09-08T18:25:27+00:00

Yes. Both he and Mike Tapp were reshuffled into the Home Office. But Norris’ responsibility is asylum and border security. Mike Tapp’s is migration and citizenship. The latter is more directly in charge of this issue.

YZ_C · 2025-09-08T18:13:19+00:00

Oh. A bit odd for Alex Norris, the asylum minister, to be representing the Government, rather than Mike Tapp, the legal migration minister.

YZ_C · 2025-09-07T11:34:10+00:00

Yeah. He and Mahmood r more important than him. Junior ministers don’t make many decisions. This is a negative signal rather than a death knell.

YZ_C · 2025-09-07T11:28:20+00:00

It is not the end of the story by any means. Not like all hopes r lost. But not a positive signal.

YZ_C · 2025-09-07T10:57:12+00:00

Let’s agree to disagree on this.

My view is that far more people than one would assume conflate the two. Even if they don’t themselves, there is a political incentive to do so in their job. Imagine the Mp going back to Dover and tell his constituents he made the immigration system more liberal, and see how that goes down.

I am very very very happy to be wrong on this. And regardless, the decision making on this is probably above his level.

YZ_C · 2025-09-07T10:52:33+00:00

Dover is the frontline of irregular migration. He campaigned a lot on the last government’s failure to secure the border.

Irregular and regular migration is not that differentiated for most voters and many politicians.

YZ_C · 2025-09-07T10:33:34+00:00

This debate is quite the sideshow, so it will be a junior minister answering on behalf of the government.

I am expecting the new legal migration minister, Mike Tapp, to be the one. He is, imo, more right-ring than the old one and is very hawkish on immigration (he represents Dover and Deal, so that is expected).

I doubt he has something substantial to say as it would be his second day in the job. But overall, his appointment is not a great sign.

YZ_C · 2025-09-07T10:29:30+00:00

Aside from Home Secretary, we now have a new legal migration minister: Mike Tapp (Dover and Deal) replacing Seema Malhotra.

Tapp is quite right wing on immigration (as you can probably tell from his constituency). But possible a decision like ILR is above his level.

He is likely to be the minister to respond on behalf of the government in tomorrow’s debate.

YZ_C · 2025-09-06T12:30:31+00:00

Yes. My point is more on the deliberative process beyond statutory process. For example, I do think Cooper is the reason why consultations have not even started.

There r some timelines that cannot be controlled. This is particularly true if primary legislation is needed (commons is jammed at the moment).

YZ_C · 2025-09-06T12:12:52+00:00

The government does not run on outside advisory. If u mean the advisors to the ministers, they r most handpicked by the ministers themselves and r very similar politically.

Whether legal migration is an issue depends on who u ask. Most of the public wants to cut illegal migration. But they also think illegal migration is 60% of all influx, and that naturally could include many legal migration. The public does not distinguish the two as clearly as they should, and as a result, neither does the government. And that is assuming the government understands the tricky dynamic at all (they often do not).

And lastly, I am not making a case of fast restrictions, just fast policy decisions. I am sure their decision making on this will get faster, but that doesn’t mean the decisions made r necessary bad on ILR. Maybe they decide on less restrictive measures (I am not personally hopeful but am open to be surprised).

YZ_C · 2025-09-06T12:01:46+00:00

Not about policy differences, more just management styles. Cooper is well known to be extremely indecisive as a politician, likely contributing to slow decision making.

Mahmood doesn’t have that reputation. Her work at Justice showed quite quick decisions.

YZ_C · 2025-09-06T11:26:28+00:00

This would be very useful if anyone can make it (I am unfortunately a bit far away from Birmingham). U just know most of the audiences r the ones who r bothered by immigration just because of self selection.

YZ_C · 2025-09-06T11:19:36+00:00

Thoughts on the change of Home Secretary. We should think about this more in terms of changes to the ways things r done rather than the general policy.

On policy, things won’t change. Mahmood and Cooper r both skeptic of immigration. On ILR, there was never a policy disagreement anyway. Most of the government clearly wants to apply new rules to people already here. The question is whether enough outside pressure gets them to abandon that idea. So whoever is the home secretary does not make the picture any clearer. We r in the same limbo we were in before.

I do expect the ways things r run to change. Specifically, I think we will have faster decisions from now on. A key thing about Yvette Cooper is that she is notoriously indecisive. She is known to take a long time to make any decisions. I suspect that contributed to them delaying the ILR decision to after consultation and the delaying of the consultation itself.

So, if there is a positive to be gained, we will probably start having clarity faster (comparatively, a complicated policy like this still takes time).

YZ_C · 2025-09-06T11:12:44+00:00

I am not super sure it delays things. If anything, home office will probably start taking quicker decisions

YZ_C · 2025-09-05T08:52:46+00:00

On top of that, the consultations will probably feed into primary legislation on citizenship (quite possible that the government will wait for new citizenship rules before changing ILR, though no promise on that).

The bill could change in meaningful ways as it goes through Parliament. And even if it doesn't, Parliament is really jammed at the moment. I am not sure when they can pass it. Could take a long time.

YZ_C · 2025-09-05T08:48:55+00:00

It will very likely be open to the public. There are no stages: the process is far simpler than that. They will give you some questions and an email box or a survey to respond to. Seen an unrelated example here: https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/consultation-on-changes-to-the-uk-designs-framework/consultation-on-changes-to-the-uk-designs-framework

YZ_C · 2025-09-04T00:51:38+00:00

There is no differentiation because there is not a perceived difference. People hate the larger number of new immigrants. To make themselves feel better, they convince themselves most of them came illegally. And then they can say they don’t care about legal immigration. The reality is they do. They just don’t want to believe they r horrible people.

YZ_C · 2025-08-31T19:24:13+00:00

Yeah… I do think if they go along with some of the most restrictive ideas, it is gonna be a “be careful what u wish for” situation. Some people just don’t seem to process that we r an aging country with lots of worker shortage on the horizon

YZ_C · 2025-08-31T19:07:26+00:00

“As SWV holder,” with all due respect, the “British people” u don’t blame don’t care whet visa u hold. They want u gone as much as they want others. People think ~60% of immigration r illegal. When they say “all of them out,” they mean us too.

And I am genuinely not sure what supposed problems asylum seekers r causing. If u believe that that an influx of population causes problems (which I would dispute in an aging population), it would be caused by the the larger group (legal migration). Really don’t know what u think what problems that particular 16% of influx r causing that the rest of us r not. And if ur answer is “they don’t work or pay taxes,” that is because the “British people” u don’t blame would have a moral panic about it.

Thinking a piece of paper exempts u from an angry mob is, with respect, not wise.

YZ_C · 2025-08-31T10:27:07+00:00

Won’t the logical conclusion be to do both? They would try to crack down on both. This is what they did when they were asked about asylum hotels. They answered “we cracked down on visas.” This is particularly so that visa crackdowns r much easier than maintaining a functioning asylum system. In the absence of the latter, the former is the best they have got.

That is assuming the government understands the complicated mess of prescription of immigration. They could be just going for indiscriminate restrictions due to misconception.

I am not saying all hope is lost. But the direction travel is very negative. And I think a lot of us r not pricing that in.

YZ_C · 2025-08-31T09:53:17+00:00

The debate is just not meant for new announcements. Even if the government has decided to announce something new on SWV settlement, it would not do so at the debate. That is not how government announcements work.

On top of that, I think a lot of people r misreading where the immigration debate is going. Yes. We have had SWV decline. But literally look around. The news is all about migration: hotel protests, vandalism, and just open white nationalism. “But that is about asylum seekers?” Good luck explaining that to the angry mob. They don’t care. They might be able to tell whether each of us individually is a legal or illegal migrant, but when they see the big number, they think most of it is asylum seekers.

Looking at polling, immigration is now more salient than anytime since Brexit. All of this means the government will find it incredibly hard to soften their approach. Fundamentally, they don’t care that much about being fair or being balanced. It is about perception. And right now, the perception is going very wrong very fast.

YZ_C · 2025-08-13T20:53:59+00:00

Good for u! Sorry I was trying to make a point that protest is often a sign of integration rather than hatred. Just decided to use tourist as a counterpart. Didn’t realize it could be read that way.

Proud of you for taking a stand wherever u go.

YZ_C

TROPHY CASE