Reframing the Immigration Conversation, by Alex Finch, Immigration Partner at Constantine Law

The dust is still settling from the recent local elections, which once again underlined the fragmentation of the UK’s two-party system.

Yet when one looks at the stated policy positions of the main political parties, the immigration conversation remains firmly centred on asylum, border security and the European Convention on Human Rights. This is understandable; they are difficult and important questions that resonate on the doorstep. But the Government is making a strategic mistake by accepting this framing.

Legal migration is an economic opportunity and a national asset.

The King’s Speech last week, setting out the Government’s legislative agenda, followed the same pattern. Focusing on reforms to the asylum system, Tribunal and ECHR-related issues, it  failed to set out a broader and more confident account of the role that legal migration can play in supporting growth, productivity and the public finances.

A more effective approach would begin with two recognitions.

First, the Government should acknowledge the net fiscal contribution of legal migration. The UK ran a budget deficit of £153 billion – 5.2% of GDP – in 2024/2025.  High by historical standards although still below the post-Covid peak.  The major reason put forward for the earned settlement reforms is the projected impact on the public purse. And where legal migration is concerned, the UK does now control who enters and on what terms, in a way that was not possible with freedom of movement. All this has made the net fiscal impact of skilled migration a more salient feature of the immigration policy debate.

Moreover, the Government’s own figures demonstrate that work permit migration is strongly fiscally positive. A paper by the Home Office Migration Advisory Committee in December 2025 estimated the lifetime contribution of Skilled Worker main applicants (excluding Health and Care workers) at an average of +£689,000 in present value.

An uncertainty in this estimate was in knowing how long highly skilled migrants stayed in the UK.  The lifetime net contributions of this cohort if they remained in the UK was +£931,000, compared to +£174,000 for those who left the UK (and were no longer contributing tax revenues).

The data suggests that it is a serious mistake to continue to cede the immigration ground to those who frame it by reference to illegal migration.  Rather, the Government should be making the case to the public that well-calibrated legal migration can strengthen the public finances and contribute materially to the national interest. At present, however, that argument sits uneasily alongside the current narrative and the proposed rationale for earned settlement.  Promises to extend the period required for settlement for migrants who have already entered the UK risks discouraging global talent who might have viewed moving to the UK as an opportunity.

The second recognition is that the Government needs growth, and access to skilled labour is a necessary component of any credible growth strategy. The UK must remain globally competitive, yet important parts of the business immigration system are not performing well. The Global Talent, High Potential Individual and Innovator Founder routes are too restrictive and have delivered too few outcomes. For international students, the New Entrant salary discounts could sensibly last longer; there is no clear evidence-based reason to end them four years after graduation. And UK visa costs are amongst the highest in the world, far exceeding the costs of processing in most cases. At the same time, uncertainty over future settlement pathways is likely to weaken confidence in the system and deter highly skilled people from choosing the UK.

If the Government wants a more credible and constructive conversation about immigration, it needs to change how it talks about legal migration. A policy-focused reframing could have five elements.

1.       First, the linking HMRC and Home Office datasets is only nascent.  There is much more it could do in support of a scientifically calibrated contributions-based system. A migrant arriving in the UK through a legal work route is allocated a National Insurance number. A single identifier should be used to track total collection of tax revenues, and total payments through DWP. If the migrant is on a route to settlement, they may be contributing tax, or consuming government spending, for the rest of their life – many decades into the future. That total contribution or cost is causally attributable to the fact of their admission, under the operation of a specific rule, at a specific time.  That rule was formulated at the discretion of the Home Secretary. The total effects could, and should, be measured.

2.       Second, reform the New Entrant salary discount. This is a period, currently set at four years, during which foreign national graduates, those aged under 26 or working towards professional qualifications, may benefit from a lower minimum salary requirement in the Skilled Worker category. Setting the period at four years was rational in the context of an expectation of achieving settlement within five years of entering a work route, and when the going rate requirement for Skilled Worker was the 25^th percentile of pay for the occupation. Most workers reach the median for pay in their occupation between the ages of 40 and 49. But the Skilled Worker rules now require that graduates reach the 50^th percentile of pay in their occupation within four years of graduating. If a default qualifying period for settlement of 10 years is introduced, a New Entrant four-year period should be recognized as unrealistic.

3.       Third, reduce costs. UK visa costs are some of the highest in the world and have been called out as hampering research and growth. Receipts from the Immigration Skills Charge should be genuinely refocused on training the UK resident workforce.

4.       Fourth, imaginatively reform the Global Talent, High Potential Individual and Innovator Founder routes. The UK needs more investment in tech, and tech talent, in order to be at the table in the AI buildout. The digital technology endorsement should place less reliance on the last five years of activity, and more on future contribution and business track record. The High Potential Individual route should have a more rational university list, and the Innovator Founder route should require sound businesses that will realistically create employment for UK settled workers, not a requirement of innovation for its own sake.

5.       Fifth, the Government should renew focus on completing a Youth Mobility Scheme agreement with the EU. This would give an opportunity for young people, primarily workers (and who are likely to be net fiscal positive), to come to the UK in a controlled and time-limited way, increasing options for UK employers who need access to labour.

By presenting legal migration as an opportunity rather than a problem to be managed, the Government could take the initiative, improve the quality of the policy debate, and begin to change the wider narrative.

You can contact Alex and Constantine Law’s immigration team here.