The Tory party has witnessed a number of challenges in recent years and with the appointment of Rishi Sunak, a brief sense of stability was felt amidst the chaos. As different parties look to the upcoming elections, each party have begun to move pieces on its chess board. While campaigns have unofficially begun, some commentators have argued that Sunak’s recent policy on migration could be one of his game plans.

Let’s take a closer look into this recent migration policy. Attention seemed to have slowly shifted away from the plan of redirecting boats to Rwanda to the need to suppress legal migration. To restrict LEGAL migration, Sunak’s government instituted policies limiting opportunities on student visas, banning dependents on care visas, increasing the minimum income threshold for skilled worker and family visas, and revising rules around shortage occupation lists.

Starting with the skilled worker visas, the government imposed a £38,700 minimum salary requirement to gain entry into the UK. Simply put, if you are coming to work in the UK, you must search for a job that pays nothing less than £38,700 in annual income, or else you will not qualify. For me, I think some clarification is needed here for what the government considers as skilled jobs exactly. I say this because junior doctors, nurses and train operators would be considered as being part of a skilled workforce. However, these skilled work force have undertaken multiple strike action over dispute on wages in the last few months. This leads me to another question – how many ‘skilled job’ workers earn a salary of £38,700 in the current day economy? Although the government implied that the reason for this is to force organisations to look to British citizens first rather than relying on legal migrants – which could be thought as quite commendable however, a number of UK workers earn less than the new threshold annually anyway. So this logic needs further clarity in my view.

In terms of curbing student’s visas, UK higher education has long attracted international students, yet these new policies outrightly banning postgraduate dependents and targeting post-study work visas seem quite harsh, especially given the exorbitant £13,000 to £18,000 yearly tuition fees already paid by these students. If the aim is transforming education into a type of transitory/knowledge based tourism, this should be transparent so aspiring international scholars are not misled into believing they are wanted for anything beyond their hefty bank balances.

On family visas and so forth, it is without a doubt that these new rules will tear apart families because it also imposes a £38,700 minimum income threshold on family visas from £18,600.  The technicality around this is that legal migrants will not be the only ones to be affected by these new rules, British citizens will also be affected. Let us consider this scenario. Consider Linda, a British citizen working part-time in retail earning £33,000 annually. She aims to marry her long-term boyfriend from Sri Lanka next summer, but both of them fall short of the minimum income threshold. Under the current rule, Linda now faces a dilemma. It’s either she increases her earnings above the threshold by the next spring or uproot her British life to reunite with her partner abroad. Contrast her plight with Kelvin, a non British citizen who has recently secured a Band 7 physiotherapy role in the NHS. He is entering the UK from Mozambique and has managed to negotiate a £47,000 pay deal with his trust. Kevin has the right to move his family freely over to the UK without any disruption. This seems more like double standards because for the less affluent, it seems the right to create a family across borders will become an exclusive privilege reserved only for the rich under this new policy. 

The clock may be running out for advocacy groups hoping to see a repeal of these new regulations by the House of Lords and it seems doubtful there is enough procedural means in the Commons to withdraw the policies.