Migrant Care Workers and Unison Launch Mass Leaflet Campaign Against UK Settlement Rule Changes
Migrant workers, supported by the UK's largest union, Unison, are undertaking a significant leafleting campaign in the Birmingham constituency of Shabana Mahmood to oppose proposed alterations to immigration policy. This initiative highlights growing discontent within Labour-affiliated groups over key party stances, with union sources noting it as an unprecedented en masse lobbying effort against a central Labour policy.
Protest Targets Doubling of Settlement Time
The campaign centers on concerns about the planned extension of the time migrant care workers must wait before applying for settlement in the UK, which is set to increase from five to ten years. Unison has raised alarms that this change will disproportionately impact migrant care workers, who constitute about one-third of all care workers and one-fifth of NHS staff. The union argues that the sector, already facing severe strain with tens of thousands of vacancies, relies heavily on overseas staff, and such policies risk driving experienced workers away.
Union members aim to distribute leaflets to approximately one-third of the roughly 55,000 constituents in the Ladywood area of Birmingham, represented by Shabana Mahmood. This action precedes a national day of action on Friday, part of Unison's Fair Visas Now campaign, where workers will lobby constituency MPs, particularly Labour representatives, to voice opposition to the earned settlement proposals.
Personal Stories and Union Advocacy
Among those participating is a migrant care worker with a degree, postgraduate qualifications, and accreditation as an accountant and fraud investigator, who expressed devastation over the planned extension. She stated, "We had a legitimate expectation that we could apply to settle here after five years. Somebody gave the home secretary wings to allow her to fly. She should allow the same for our children. I hope she will hear our voices." Another worker added, "I work as a carer for people with disabilities. I love my work because it is an opportunity to give back to humanity. I felt devastated when I heard about the proposed changes. British people are known for their compassion. We urge the home secretary to show compassion in this situation. We have had the rug pulled from under our feet."
Unison's general secretary, Andrea Egan, emphasized, "Social care is already under immense strain, with tens of thousands of vacancies. The sector's been reliant on overseas staff willing to do this essential work, but the home secretary is closing the door on them. Extending the qualifying period risks driving experienced, committed staff out of the sector altogether." She called for the government to scrap what she termed "cruel, unnecessary proposals" and to ensure fair treatment for the workforce.
Government Response and Broader Context
A Home Office spokesperson defended the policy, stating, "We will always welcome those that come to this country and contribute to our national life. But the privilege of living here forever should be earned, not automatic." The spokesperson highlighted that between 2021 and 2024, the UK experienced migration levels historically seen over four decades, necessitating honesty about the impact of low-skilled migrants obtaining settlement. The government plans to double the settlement route to ten years and is consulting on applying this change to those currently in the UK without settled status, with a review of 200,000 responses underway.
In addition to settlement time concerns, Unison is advocating for changes to sponsorship rules for visas, proposing a shift from employer-sponsored schemes, which officials say can lead to exploitation, to a public-sector body-managed system. The consultation on these proposals concluded in February, and the government's response is pending.
This campaign underscores the tension between immigration control and the needs of essential sectors like social care, with migrant workers and unions mobilizing to challenge policies they view as detrimental to both workers and public services.
