Written evidence submitted by Dr Chi Zhang, Assistant Professor in Politics and International Studies, University of Warwick (RTS2007)

Executive Summary

1. This submission evaluates the potential consequences of proposed changes to pathways to settlement in the United Kingdom, including the introduction of an earned settlement model and longer qualifying periods.
2. Evidence across multiple OECD states indicates that prolonged insecurity of legal status negatively affects integration, labour market performance, and family stability, while also producing negative long-term demographic and economic outcomes.
3. Competitive global recruitment markets mean that the UK’s ability to attract and retain high-skilled migrants is partly dependent on the clarity and fairness of permanent residence pathways. Excessive conditionality risks reducing the attractiveness of the UK as a destination for global talent.
4. Empirical evidence suggests that contribution-based settlement systems work best when criteria are simple, transparent, and include social and civic participation in addition to fiscal indicators.
5. Transitional protections for those already on established routes, and exemptions for family dependants and vulnerable groups, are essential to prevent harm to integration outcomes and to avoid administrative risk.

About the Author

6. I am an academic researcher specialising in comparative politics, governance, and security policy. My submission draws on peer-reviewed research across migration policy, international comparison, and the social impacts of long-term insecure residence.
7. This submission reflects scholarly evidence and does not represent the institutional position of the University of Warwick.

Response to Terms of Reference

Potential impact of changes to pathways to settlement

Effect of pathways to settlement on rates of immigration and settlement

8. International research shows that the existence of a clear and attainable route to settlement significantly shapes migration patterns among high-skilled workers.[1] Countries with predictable settlement timelines (e.g., Canada, Germany) attract higher-skilled and longer-term migrants.[2]
9. Settlement pathways not only affect initial recruitment but also retention; evidence from labour mobility studies shows that migrants are more likely to relocate after obtaining portable qualifications or international experience if long-term settlement is not feasible.[3]

Likely impact on businesses and international recruitment

10. Economic studies consistently demonstrate that stable settlement pathways support long-term workforce planning for employers, particularly in specialised sectors where recruitment cycles take multiple years.[4]
11. Conditional or prolonged settlement timelines increase turnover, reduce incentives for employer investment in training, and increase administrative overheads.
12. Internationally, high-skilled migrants tend to prioritise destinations where the route from work visa to permanent residence is both achievable and administratively predictable.
13. While there is no direct study that employers explicitly reduced sponsorship because of settlement uncertainty, the evidence shows that employer-sponsored visas in Australia have been sensitive to policy and economic shifts[5] and the move to points-based selection has altered the composition of skilled migration.[6]

Impact on migrant households already in the UK

14. Extending settlement timelines has significant financial consequences for households due to:
    a. recurring visa renewal fees
    b. inability to access benefits
    c. employment inflexibility when visas are employer-tied[7]
15. Longer conditional residency correlates with higher housing precarity, because mortgage lending and long-term rental approval are less accessible to individuals without permanent status.
16. Integration outcomes are weakened when families experience status insecurity, as participation in community life is reduced by fear of non-compliance or rule misinterpretation.[8]

Personal and social impact

17. Prolonged insecurity influences mental health, family stability, and children’s wellbeing, particularly when visa status affects decisions regarding schooling, employment and housing.
18. Migrant households often delay major life decisions—such as home purchase, childbirth, further education, and career change—until permanent status is secured.
19. There is robust empirical evidence showing that when a parent holds an insecure immigration or residence status, children and other dependants suffer indirect significant harms, for example in mental-health outcomes, access to services and overall wellbeing, even when the children themselves have stable status. Parental perception of immigration enforcement threat was significantly associated with poorer self-regulation and executive-function outcomes in children.[9] Parental legal status influences children’s mental-health service use.[10] Feinstein et al. offer a UK-based conceptual mapping of how children within families with insecure parental migration status are at elevated risk of harm despite their own status.[11]

Impact on integration

20. Permanent residence security increases:
    a. civic participation
    b. volunteering and community involvement
    c. language acquisition
    d. uptake of employment opportunities
21. Conversely, prolonged temporary status produces the opposite effect: conditionality discourages deep social integration because individuals fear jeopardising their immigration prospects.
22. Empirical evidence consistently shows that security enables contribution, not the reverse.

Evidence from other countries

23. Canada: Relatively transparent permanent residence and citizenship rules, including eligibility for citizenship after three years of physical presence within a five-year period, are associated with better long-term outcomes: immigrants who acquire citizenship tend to have higher earnings, higher employment rates and higher home-ownership and civic participation than those who remain non-citizens.[12]
24. EU: EU-wide comparisons suggest that countries offering secure, family-based residence pathways (such as Germany and the Netherlands, where spouses and minor children often receive derivative residence rights) tend to achieve stronger long-term integration outcomes than states that rely heavily on short-term or repeatedly renewable statuses, especially in dimensions like social cohesion and labour-market attachment.[13]
25. USA: Many temporary work visas offer limited or no path to permanent residence and tie workers’ legal status to a single employer. Research and policy analysis show that this employer-dependency facilitates exploitation and puts downward pressure on wages and labour standards, while also restricting access to benefits and long-term security, which are widely regarded as detrimental to workers’ broader integration.[14]

How the new earned settlement rules could work

Defining “long-term contribution”

27. International evidence warns that contribution-based settlement systems can become administratively complex and difficult to evaluate fairly.
28. Fiscal contribution alone is not an accurate predictor of future contribution; many future “high contributors”, including researchers, entrepreneurs, and start-up founders, have modest income in early career stages.
29. Research strongly supports including social and civic contributions, such as:
    a. volunteering
    b. community participation
    c. caregiving
    d. service in public-sector professions
30. A transparent, non-punitive approach to contribution measurement is critical; unclear or unpredictable rules reduce compliance rather than encourage it.

Weighting of social and fiscal contribution

31. Systems that weight contributions too heavily toward income create bias towards specific sectors and against others (e.g., education, public health, non-profit work, research).
32. International examples suggest that balanced systems, with multiple qualifying pathways, generate higher compliance and lower bureaucratic burden.
33. Systems that require extensive documentation or evidence submission disproportionately burden both applicants and caseworkers.

Exemptions to the new rules

34. To prevent adverse outcomes and avoid retroactive harm, evidence supports exemptions for:
    a. those already on existing settlement pathways (transitional protection)

b. long-term residents whose economic activity is historically irregular (caregivers, individuals with disabilities). In many Asian cultural contexts, one parent assumes the majority of childcare and household responsibilities, which limits their capacity to engage in paid work. These patterns should not be treated as a failure to integrate or contribute, and should not disqualify individuals from settlement eligibility.
c. public-sector workers in shortage fields

35. Exemptions are not barriers to contribution; they ensure that integration pathways remain consistent with the stated public policy objective of secure and stable settlement leading to positive integration.

Application of contribution-based systems internationally

36. Comparative research shows that contribution-based settlement rules are most successful when:
    a. measures are transparent and simple
    b. requirements are stable over time
    c. criteria remain proportionate to realistic opportunities
37. Models that revise requirements frequently, or that calculate contribution retroactively, produce lower integration outcomes and increase administrative backlogs.

Conclusion

38. Evidence from comparative migration policy suggests that the proposed reform to settlement pathways could strengthen integration if designed with clarity, proportionality, and predictability.
39. However, if applied without transitional protection, or if conditioned upon narrow economic benchmarks, the reforms are likely to reduce the UK’s competitiveness in recruiting and retaining high-skilled migrants and create social and economic pressures on families already residing in the UK.
40. Research across multiple OECD states shows that security of status enhances economic and social contribution.
41. A well-designed earned settlement model is possible, but it must:
    a. feature simple and transparent qualifying criteria
    b. include social and civic contribution alongside fiscal indicators
    c. incorporate exemptions for families, long-term residents, and essential workers
    d. maintain transitional protection for those already on established pathways
42. In the absence of these safeguards, the risk of unintended socioeconomic and administrative consequences is high.

Summary of Recommendations

• Maintain predictable and time-bounded settlement pathways
• Introduce earned settlement criteria only if clear, transparent, and simple
• Include social and civic participation as recognised contribution metrics
• Protect family dependants and provide transitional protections
• Limit administrative complexity to preserve compliance and system capacity

Nov 2025