As the UK awaits the government’s long-promised immigration white paper, the challenge is not simply to reduce numbers, but to manage migration in a way that supports growth, competitiveness and public confidence.
We are in a global race for skills, capital and innovation. And at present, the UK is not winning. The white paper must go beyond marginal reforms and offer a long-term blueprint.
Some people will always oppose immigration. But most voters recognise that a country like the UK needs it — provided the system is fair, controlled and works in the national interest. That is the challenge, and the opportunity.
The white paper will land at a politically sensitive time. Reform UK’s success in the local elections — including its by-election win in Runcorn and Helsby — has sharpened pressure on Labour to act. But in showing control, government must take care not to damage the sectors that rely on migration, including higher education, health and advanced industries.
This article is in two parts: first, what we think will be in the white paper. Second, what it should contain — but probably won’t.
What we know so far: the government’s plans
Reforming the Graduate visa
The Graduate visa, introduced in 2021, allows international students to remain in the UK for up to two years post-study (three years for PhDs), without a job offer. It has played a key role in boosting international student numbers — rising from under 10,000 in 2020 to over 110,000 in 2023 — and in financially sustaining UK universities.
But reform now appears likely. Government sources suggest the white paper will propose requiring graduates to secure “graduate-level” jobs with salaries above £30,000. The Home Office views this as critical to reducing net migration.
Tensions have emerged within government, with the Department for Education reportedly pushing back, citing the sector’s financial reliance on international students. Universities UK has warned that scrapping the route would be “madness”, highlighting its £40bn annual contribution to the economy.
The Migration Advisory Committee (MAC) found no abuse of the route, though it called for tighter oversight of overseas recruitment agents. The Home Office cites two concerns: the number of graduates moving into low-paid jobs, particularly in care, and a rise in student visa holders entering the asylum system.
Reform is needed — but should be precise, not blunt. The aim must be to maintain integrity, not deter legitimate graduates. Reforms should ensure genuine students are entering genuine courses, and that post-study work leads to meaningful employment.
Tightening the route is justifiable. There is a clear case for requiring graduate visa holders to move into graduate-level employment — not low-paid or unskilled jobs. However, wholesale rollback would risk serious economic and reputational harm.
Fixing the asylum system
The UK’s asylum system is not functioning. Delays in processing claims have become a defining political issue - with irregular migration dominating headlines across Europe and the US. In 2024, the average wait for an initial asylum decision in the UK was 413 days.
Delays push many into exploitative, illegal work. The longer this continues, the more attractive the UK becomes as a destination for those seeking to bypass legal routes.
Tens of thousands are being accommodated in hotels at enormous public expense, costing the government more than £8 million a day. This has become a highly sensitive issue in communities across the country, and one that fuels public frustration and social unrest.
Labour must move swiftly.
This is where the biggest political wins lie. The public cares most about “stopping the boats” and fairness. Marginal cuts to legal migration — students or care workers — won’t shift public opinion in favour of the government.
Keir Starmer has pledged to “smash the gangs” behind cross-Channel trafficking. But rhetoric must be matched by infrastructure. The most effective deterrent is not performative toughness, but a fast, fair system. That means shorter timelines, removals and real outcomes.
Return agreements with key countries have proven effective. The UK should expand them diplomatically and operationally.
The system needs:
• More caseworkers and judges, with clear enforceable decision-making deadlines — and a system of accountability for meeting them.
• Digital infrastructure that enables end-to-end case tracking and swift processing.
• A clear removal strategy that is lawful, fair and effective.
Fixing the asylum system is essential not just for border control, but for restoring public trust. And crucially, if brought under control, the political pressure to cut legal migration may ease. When people see a system that works — quickly, fairly and firmly — they trust it. And when they trust it, we can have a more mature, balanced conversation about the benefits of migration.
Tougher compliance for sponsors
The government has signalled a stricter approach to sponsor licence compliance. Ministers have stated that sponsorship is a privilege, not a right, and that breaches will be met with serious consequences — including hiring bans and extended cooling-off periods.
Concerns have grown over “self-sponsorship”, where individuals establish companies primarily to sponsor themselves. While these concerns are not unfounded, this reflects a deeper issue: the lack of viable alternative routes for entrepreneurs, investors and wealthy, self-sufficient individuals. With the closure of the Tier 1 Investor and Entrepreneur visas — and the shortcomings of the Innovator Founder visa — many are pushed into Skilled Worker sponsorship by default.
Employers must expect greater scrutiny, stronger enforcement and more regular Home Office audits.
Linking sponsorship to workforce training
The white paper is expected to propose linking visa sponsorship to domestic training. This seems a sensible principle — if done well.
However, it must work for business. Employers have already faced NI increases, wage pressures and post-Brexit adaptation. They cannot be expected to shoulder further obligations without support. The government hopes this policy will reduce long-term dependence on immigration. But it must be collaborative, not punitive.
What the white paper probably won’t say — but should.
A strategic immigration framework
The UK’s immigration policy remains too reactive — shaped by political noise rather than long-term national planning.
The MAC plays an important role, but too often is consulted only on salary thresholds or occupation lists, in isolation, rather than being part of a broader, strategic conversation about the country’s future workforce needs. What’s required is a wider strategy — with immigration policy based on real economic data, mapped against domestic training and future workforce needs.
This would provide stability for employers, clarity for voters and confidence that immigration is being used as a national asset — not a last resort.
A new investor visa for a post-non-dom UK
With the closure of the Tier 1 Investor visa in 2022 and the recent abolition of the non-dom regime, the UK has become less attractive to wealthy individuals. Meanwhile, countries like the UAE, Italy and Portugal are actively courting global wealth.
Yet the UK still has much to offer. London remains a world-class city. The rule of law, stable institutions and outstanding schools still draw wealthy families. However, there is currently no clear or viable route for high-net-worth individuals wanting to reside in the UK. Current options are restrictive and often unsuitable, even for legitimate, well-resourced applicants.
We need a new investment visa, structured with strong due diligence, but focused on injecting capital into the parts of the UK economy that need it most. This means channelling overseas wealth directly into high-growth, high-potential businesses — particularly in sectors such as AI, advanced technology, and life sciences — where Britain already leads and can scale further.
A new investment visa must clearly benefit UK PLC. One of the major criticisms of the previous Tier 1 Investor route was that it delivered minimal value to the wider economy. Applicants simply parked £2 million in gilts or FTSE 100 companies — passive investments that did little to support innovation, jobs or growth. Many withdrew their funds as soon as they secured indefinite leave to remain.
Any future scheme must be structured differently: one that channels capital into productive areas of the economy — whether high-growth sectors, scale-ups or national infrastructure — and ensures a clear, lasting benefit to the UK.
The idea of using funds generated through a new scheme for national infrastructure projects is an interesting one. This should ensure that inward investment delivers tangible benefits for the public. This would help to shift the narrative: not just a visa for the wealthy, but a vehicle for strengthening Britain’s economic foundations — with clear public and political support.
Simplifying the business immigration system
The current Global Business Mobility routes are too fragmented. Businesses — especially SMEs — struggle to navigate the complexity. The UK Expansion Worker route illustrates the problem: promising in theory, but undermined by bureaucracy and an overly cautious Home Office approach.
The UK should welcome credible businesses looking to scale here — not obstruct them.
Simplifying the work permit system would help. A two-route model — one for permanent hires, one for short-term or secondments — would reduce administrative burden, improve compliance, and make the system easier to navigate.
Expand Global Talent — and absorb Innovator Founder
The Innovator Founder route, even after reform, still suffers from low uptake and overcomplicated settlement rules. Most serious founders avoid it.
I work with many tech entrepreneurs. Almost all choose the Tech Nation Global Talent visa over Innovator Founder. It offers credibility, flexibility and a more streamlined route to settlement.
Leading entrepreneurs don’t want regular check-ins with endorsing bodies. They know how to grow their business. They want the space and permission to build.
A better system would fold Innovator Founder into an expanded Global Talent visa — covering more sectors, with better clarity and consistent standards across endorsing bodies.
The U.S. O-1 visa provides a useful model: a broad route recognising excellence in many fields, without being overly rigid or fragmented.
Using endorsing bodies for the UK’s Global Talent category is sound. These organisations are far better placed than the Home Office to assess an applicant’s talent and track record. But if the UK widens eligibility, more sector bodies will be needed. That would involve bringing in more organisations with the expertise to make credible, sector-specific assessments — something that will require thought, planning and clear standards to ensure consistency and transparency across the system.
A streamlined Global Talent visa, well administered and sector-smart, could become the UK’s flagship migration route — a symbol of our openness to excellence.
A UK–EU Youth Mobility Scheme
The UK has youth mobility schemes with countries like Australia and Canada — but not the EU. That’s a missed opportunity.
A UK–EU youth mobility agreement could offer 18–30-year-olds up to two years in the UK, working in hospitality, care or seasonal roles. This would ease labour shortages, while also offering reciprocal opportunities for young Britons.
Labour is considering a UK-EU scheme. The idea is politically sensitive. Some on the right — and parts of the press — will try to present it as reopening free movement. But Labour should be confident in making the case: this is a strictly time-limited scheme, with a two-year cap and no automatic route to settlement. If framed around economic need and reciprocal opportunity, it is both practical and defensible.
Rethinking how we count net migration
The public debate around migration is shaped by a single number: net migration. However, that number lumps together students, short-term workers and permanent migrants — which distorts the picture.
We need a better way to measure migration. Two headline numbers should be reported:
1. Those on routes to settlement.
2. Those on time-limited visas — students, youth mobility, intra-company transfers.
This isn’t spin. It’s clarity. It would allow for better planning and a more honest debate.
Conclusion
The immigration white paper must do more than tweak thresholds or tighten compliance. It must present a modern, balanced and coherent strategy.
With Reform UK rising and public confidence strained, Labour must show it can deliver. Not just by cutting numbers, but by building a system that is trusted, firm and fit for purpose.
Labour cannot out-Farage Farage. Trying to placate everyone risks pleasing no one. If growth is the government’s top priority, migration cannot be treated purely as a problem. It must be part of the solution.
This is the moment for serious, strategic reform.
Want to hear more from us? 
