The side proposing abolition won with 183 votes to 127, but the room’s most-respected argument came from No. The result was therefore not a clean rejection of settlement so much as a vote for making permanence conditional on citizenship, contribution or cultural compatibility.
Yes voters framed ILR as an unacceptable halfway house. The strongest Yes case said, “Mass immigration from incompatible countries should be abolished”, while others insisted that anyone wishing to stay indefinitely should “commit to applying for citizenship”; even the more qualified voices allowed exceptions for those properly employed and contributing.
No voters argued that permanence is precisely what makes integration and contribution possible. Their best-rated case warned of “perpetual temporary visas”, while another said, “We should invest in people who invest in us”; a further voice cut through the economics with, “Don’t forget they are paying your pension.”
The two sides often answered different questions: Yes focused on allegiance, enforcement and the possibility of crime or benefits being ignored, while No spoke of doctors, teachers, builders, nurses, carers and other workers whose lives cannot sensibly be kept provisional. The latter side also cast the policy as an integration bargain — “you cannot get integration without the promise of indefinite leave to remain” — and argued that “Successful countries benefit from integration of immigrants and diversity”.
For a question about abolishing permanent settlement, the striking finding is how much of the winning case still left room for permanence — provided it came through citizenship or a test of usefulness. The chamber chose the harder gateway, even as its most respected voices defended the bridge.
13 Opinions
Granting indefinite leave to stay can be to our advantage. An example being someone who has come to study or improve their knowledge of a profession. They may well want to.stay to continue improvement and work, like a Doctor, teacher, builder, nurse. Then there are those who don't have qualifications, who want to work to pay their way, cleaners, carers, shop assistants, jobs that are lower paid, that it's difficult to find someone willing to do.
Successful countries benefit from integration of immigrants and diversity, and crumble when they try to restrict them.
Given indefinite leave allows crime, benefit etc to be ignored either grant citizenship or ship them out. Simples!
The Right used to be so desperate for people to integrate into society, you cannot get integration without the promise of indefinite leave to remain because what would be the point. But sadly now the Right just wants no foreigners in the country at all...
From countries with non compatible cultures and for any illegal migrant, yes. If after 5 years someone wishes to remain, they should apply for citizenship. If they pass the criteria they will be given leave to remain as a citizen. They should not become residents with an allegiance to a foreign power/nation. We have many of those already. Any signs that their allegiance is not with the UK after gaining citizenship should see their citizenship revoked.
Mass immigration from incompatible countries should be abolished. We the British people have always opposed it and we have been defied and had it done to us. Only compatible cultures should be allowed entry and those who want to stay should apply for citizenship.
But it should be distinguished. If the applying party is properly & gainfully employed - not though some scam - & a settled & a useful contributing member of society exceptions can be made. Otherwise deport.
Don't forget they are paying your pension
If you want to stay in this country indefinitely then you should commit to applying for citizenship.
We should invest in people who invest in us with their expertise, labour, taxes and cultural contribution.