A vote to double the wait for settlement was won by a side that mostly wished the proposal went further. Yes took it comfortably, and its voters ranged from conditions to abolition.
The most-respected Yes case accepted ten years as fair, linking it to a passport's term, and attached conditions: no ILR for illegal entrants, revocation after a prison sentence, a mandatory language test. Others pushed harder. One wrote “Permanent settlement shouldn't be given out like confetti”, while another, recalling a US visa, argued that “Nobody should get indefinite leave to remain.”
No was split between two camps. The joint most-respected No cases came from the restrictionist side: one wanted every visa time limited with citizenship the only way to stay, the other called ten years instead of five “tinkering with a system that needs fundamental reform”. Elsewhere No voters defended the status quo: one said “Five years has worked well” and read the motive as appeasing hysteria, while another described NHS doctors and nurses left in limbo.
That makes this an immigration argument fought on several fronts at once. Yes voters disagreed on how far to go, and No voters disagreed on why to refuse. A further No strand worried that highly skilled workers would see a decade of insecurity and go elsewhere, a point no Yes voter answered directly beyond suggesting shorter waits for higher earners.
The result is a clear yes to ten years, with plenty of voters on both sides arguing that ten was the wrong number.
54 Opinions
Illegal entrants to the UK should be barred from ever getting ILR, and it should be immediately revoked for anyone found guilty of a crime that carries a prison sentence. ILR should also have a mandatory test of English or Welsh. Ten years seems fair - it's the term of a passport so it shows a solid level of intent to stay and contribute. If you follow the rules, integrate, and work hard, Britain should welcome you.
And leave to remain should always be conditional on non involvement in criminality, learning English, and working and paying taxes.
I voted yes but I’d rather had a system whereby we didn’t need any immigration, rather we educate/train our own people & paid decent wages for doing their jobs.
I voted yes but would have preferred a never option
If anything I'd suggest it should be even longer. The idea that someone can go from arriving to ILR in just a few years almost as a default (and then citizenship) just doesn't sit right with me.
and anyone entering illegally should never be allowed to stay.
When I worked in the USA on a visa I had to leave every five years and reapply. I had to prove I still had a job and was no burden on social services. We should do the same. Nobody should get indefinite leave to remain. If they ever become a burden - deport.
No. Ten years instead of five is tinkering with a system that needs fundamental reform. Britain should aim for near-zero net migration, with entry restricted to exceptional talent and genuinely critical shortages that cannot be filled domestically. Temporary visas should mean temporary residence, not an automatic route to settlement. Protect genuine refugees under the law, but permanent residency must be an exceptional privilege, not the expected outcome of arriving here.
No, all visas should be time limited - the only way to stay in the UK should be citizenship.
What is the point of that? I should think that after 5 years there was enough proof to say whether or not they were going to be a useful member of society.