Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood’s headline announcement on immigration centred on how long someone must spend in the UK before they can be granted indefinite leave to remain (ILR). She said this period will double from five to ten years – but social care workers will be exempt. This proposal was widely expected, but exempting social care workers is a U-turn for the government.The proposals were met with a mixed response. Some on the left said the qualifying period is too high, while others on the right claimed the plans were too lax on immigration by exempting care workers. Many migrants came to the UK on the understanding that five years of lawful residence would provide a path to settlement. So the government’s decision to retrospectively change those terms raises serious questions about fairness, trust and the legitimacy of immigration policy. The UK is now moving towards one of the toughest settlement and naturalisation systems in Europe. In fact, this direction is more readily associated with the political right than a Labour government that presents itself as committed to equality, workers’ rights and social justice. So where are we now with immigration policy, and what does this shift tell us about British politics?Years of talking toughThe tough naturalisation requirements come off the back of 16 years of restrictive rhetoric on immigration across the political spectrum. From 2010, the Conservative-led coalition government set a pledge to reduce net migration from hundreds of thousands to the tens of thousands. And since then, successive administrations and opposition parties have attempted to outflank each other on tough immigration talk.The last Conservative government lurched towards nativist, exclusionary rhetoric, and draconian policy proposals in a bid to outmanoeuvre Reform UK. The result has been to keep immigration high on the public agenda (though with ebbs and flows following Brexit and COVID).Yet despite the tough talk, the combination of an economy that needs migrant labour as well as humanitarian schemes for citizens of Hong Kong and Ukraine, took net migration to the highest level on record. This was in 2023, the year before the Conservatives left office. Critically, while previous governments talked tough on immigration, Brexit left major shortages in the labour market, especially in some of the low-paid jobs that many Britons do not want to do. As a result, a number of policy schemes were introduced to plug these gaps, including the health and care visa. This scheme proved popular, resulting in 106,000 visas being issued to social care workers (the figure excludes their dependants) in 2023. But since then, more scrutiny on sponsors and the decision to stop dependants coming to the UK on this visa have led to sharp declines. The health and care worker visa proved exceptionally popular and helped fill vacancies in the sector. mapo_japan/Shutterstock Labour has long been dogged on immigration. The party spent most of its years in opposition apologising for apparent mistakes made in office over the managed migration programme. This was a series of policies that resulted in one of the most expansive immigration policies in Europe. And ideologically, immigration has always been a headache for Labour. Like other social democratic parties, Labour is torn between its protectionist trade union roots, which favour tighter borders, and its rights-based tradition of protecting migrants.The dilemma is further complicated by Labour’s neoliberal turn since the Blair era, which saw globalisation as inevitable and embraced flexible labour migration as a way of controlling inflation. In short, Labour has been complicit in deepening a labour market that depends on on migration for its workforce, while using the “secure borders” rhetoric. These ideological tensions are reflected in the make-up of both the Labour party and its electorate, bringing together members and constituents with competing values and priorities – the “beer drinkers” and the “wine drinkers”. And they are precisely why the new rules contain a mixed bag of restrictions and concessions on social-care visas. Andy Burnham’s government has faced this tension head on, with many in the party lambasting Mahmood’s pursuit of high thresholds for naturalisation. Prominent figures including Housing Secretary Angela Rayner had accused Mahmood of “pulling the rug” from underneath people. This intra-party tension resulted in the decision to exempt social care workers. Policies that increase immigration are never generally vote winners. But social democratic parties have a choice whether to keep quiet on the issue, accommodate pressures from the right, or attempt to walk a middle ground of selective immigration.Former prime minister Keir Starmer was accused of echoing right-wing rhetoric and produced the restrictive white paper from which the new policies stem. In practice, Labour’s approach is built on contribution-based residency – the more you earn the longer you can stay.So far, Burnham has largely sailed the same ship, maintaining Mahommod as home secretary and changing little of the direction on immigration. Yet his recent comments on humanitarian schemes and reopening the debate on free movement suggest that the tide might be beginning to turn. Mahmood’s U-turn on social care workers might be part of this shift.Erica Consterdine does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.