James Bowes

I can’t explain Wigan but the other three it’s probably because their population declined between the 2011 and 2021 censuses. That being said Sunderland has had quite a lot of immigration in recent years since the census.

Presumably this wouldn’t hold if there’s another upsurge in crossings from eg Albanians or Vietnamese.

Afghans don’t meet the 80% requirement but Eritreans and Sudanese do.

I’ve heard it claimed that a lot of the Eritreans are actually from Ethiopia but claiming to be Eritrean as they believe it means their claim is more likely to be accepted. I don’t know quite how common this is though.

But in their defence there has also been a terrible war in Tigray.

Ah that would make sense, otherwise it's just Ukraine, China, Syria and Palestine that are eligible if it's based on France. If it's the UK grant rate then it'll mainly be Eritreans and Sudanese I think. But some other nationalities like Yemenis would be eligible.

France's grant rate is generally lower than the UK's so there won't be many nationalities where 80% are granted. Let me check the figures.

Just thinking about this actually, there's definitely an issue here for people here with dependants on a student or graduate visa switching to a work visa. Children seem to be able to stay only if both parents get a work visa or they're living here with a sole parent.

I think so, as people looking to stay only temporarily would be more likely to come than people looking to stay permanently. The visa fees are too high for it to be worth coming temporarily to do most medium skilled jobs but also high skilled workers can move more easily to eg the USA for higher pay

People do appear to be staying much longer than in the past (both students and work visa holders) but whether that will be possible for everyone (eg with higher salary thresholds) remains to be seen. This will change now most work visas are at a graduate level I think.

The rules do allow people who already have a skilled worker visa from before 22nd July to switch jobs/employers to take up any medium skilled job.

But some occupations got downgraded from medium to low skilled and for them you can only renew for the same occupation and same employer.

I just don’t see why someone who’s lived here most of their life would want to retire in a country they last lived in decades ago.

Well maybe if that country’s Spain but that’s just a normal British thing to do.

Or are born outside of Europe, so are both European and non-European at the same time. The distinction isn’t always clear cut the way people make out.

Yes it still counts towards 10 years as does time as a student. But it also counts towards the 4 years you get the new entrant rate for but not the 5 years for settlement on a skilled worker visa. Employers also have to pay the skills surcharge which they don’t for people moving from a student visa.

I think that’s right but also the increase from the new entrant salary threshold to the full one is quite steep (and people switching from the graduate visa may only get 2 years not 4 at the new entrant rate because time on the graduate visa counts.)

Yes I honestly don’t believe Priti Patel would have retrospectively made people wait 10 years for ILR. Even for people arriving by small boat she didn’t want it to apply to people who arrived before the rules changed despite how hardline a stance the government in general was taking.

Yes I actually felt that the Conservatives were more concerned about rule changes being unfair to people already here. Even if some were unfair on new people eg the family visa salary threshold increase.

I believe it’s in part to do with a lot of the high skilled workers being ones that have worked for multinationals in the USA on OPT getting sent here when they don’t get picked in the H1B lottery. But also partly the nationalities of people that do certain jobs.

The other thing that’s unclear is what happens for people who get a visa for a job on the Temporary Shortage List after 22 July 2025 after it comes off the TSL. Presumably people will be able to renew for the same occupation and same employer but it’s unclear if people could switch employers or jobs

My understanding is that salary threshold increases in line with pay growth do apply retrospectively but the increase from the 25th to 50th percentile for going rates and the salary threshold doesn’t. The issue here seems to be how much higher the full salary threshold is than the new entrant rate.

I do think the government have significantly underestimated how much the new visa rules will cut immigration by. Because of salaries becoming unviable, but also because high skilled workers tend to bring fewer dependants and stay for a shorter period of time than medium skilled workers on average.

It's particularly bad for people switching from the graduate visa as they only get 2 years on the new entrant rate and not 4, if they've been on the graduate visa for the full 2 years.

On the tube staff issue, the salary threshold rises are an issue but I think the bigger issue here is how big of a difference there is between the new entrant rate and the full salary threshold. It's steeper than graduate pay actually increases in many occupations.

How do you read SW29.1A here: www.gov.uk/guidance/imm... I read it as people already on a skilled worker visa continuously since before the rule change can bring dependants but no one getting a skilled worker visa after that, but I can see why it is confusing for people.

Yes, London Metropolitan University have stopped recruited in Bangladesh and Sunderland have stopped recruitment in Iran, Iraq, Syria, Sudan and Yemen (probably not a huge number of people in the latter case).

With Pakistan and Sri Lanka I get it because Ahmadiyyas and Tamils respectively are discriminated against. Asylum claims from Indians are virtually never genuine though (it’s worth noting that the percentage of Indians claiming asylum is low compared to how many Indian students there are).

The problem is most students applying for asylum aren’t from the most unstable countries in the world. They’re from countries that also send a larger number of genuine students. Eg Pakistanis, Bangladeshis, Indians, Nigerians, Sri Lankans.

That actually is a Labour policy that I assumed was what you meant by putting the cost onto businesses.

Removing the rights of universities to sponsor international students if more than a certain percentage claim asylum. Even though the universities aren't responsible for this and don't want their students to claim asylum (because they lose the fees).

You can find out where international students are studying from HESA but it’s on a 1-2 year delay and you can’t find out which students are at dodgy London campuses rather than the proper university. Most of the recent growth has been on the cheaper master’s degrees though.

My guess is it would lead to universities starting to turn away prospective students from countries/regions of countries with a high rate of claiming asylum within the country. Which would also see legitimate students turned away.