Badenoch's Bold Solution: Why Migrants Should Wait a Decade Before Claiming Benefits

The problem of migration is quite straightforward for some people. Conservative Party We must address this issue in all its forms, whether legal or illegal.

To me, this is primarily about fundamental equity. Today’s Britain appears to benefit individuals who bypass regulations, who flout laws, who enter our country unlawfully and subsequently criticize our traditions and culture .

And those among us who put in diligent effort and make ethical choices, aiming to provide a improved future for our offspring, end up bearing the costs.

For instance, the considerable amount of funds in millions of pounds from taxpayers being used to accommodate asylum seekers in hotels is widely recognized.

However, lesser-known is the detail that low-wage immigrants and refugees who reside here for half a decade become eligible for 'indefinite leave to remain'.

This enables them to enjoy the same advantages as British citizens, including access to social housing and Universal Credit.

Regardless of whether they've paid taxes or have merely relied on state support during those five years, they automatically gain the right to file such claims.

In my view, this is essentially unjust to all the diligent British citizens who have consistently contributed to the system—and I am committed to putting an end to it.

However, it will not be surprising that the Labour Government shows no such interest.

Last month, it opposed our Deportation Bill, which aimed to impose a rigorous limit on the influx of new arrivals and extend the period before immigrants can apply for benefits from five to ten years.

The identical decade-long regulation would similarly applied to individuals aspiring for the benefit of British citizenship, increasing from the present requirement of five years.

To ensure that people coming here genuinely contribute to our society instead of exploiting it, the Bill proposed denying indefinite leave to remain to individuals who had received welfare benefits.

This change would have allowed the government to revoke settled status from individuals convicted of any offense, thereby stopping them from obtaining that valuable British passport.

In summary, that bill aimed to safeguard our borders and ensure equity within our benefit programs.

But thanks to Labour, it was shot down. To be honest, many – if not all – of the measures it contained would probably have ended up going the same way as the former government’s abandoned scheme to deport illegal immigrants to Rwanda.

This got entangled in our legal system and was thwarted by unidentified international judges applying the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

Several of our other potentially game-changing policies have also met with failure in comparable manners.

When Mel Stride served as the Work and Pensions Secretary, he proposed changes to the welfare system aimed at saving £5 billion. However, these proposals became entangled in legal challenges, allowing Labour to conveniently abandon them under the guise of needing more time for deliberation. This tactic exemplifies what I refer to as "lawfare" — employing lawsuits as a means of political combat.

Despite their lack of success, these legal activists impose significant financial burdens and cause substantial delays, which can be debilitating for democratic processes. This situation is transforming our nation into one that lives in constant fear.

This needs to change. I've requested esteemed barrister and shadow attorney general Lord Wolfson KC, along with the shadow solicitor general Helen Grant, to head a commission aimed at determining conclusively whether the actions required—gaining control over our borders, safeguarding our welfare system, and reinstating fairness—can be achieved while still being part of the European Convention on Human Rights.

They will investigate how we ended up in this complex legal situation and the difficulties involved in finding a way out.

If they conclude that we can’t implement sensible policies to prioritize British citizens for social housing and limited public resources, then I’ll realize that leaving is necessary.

The commission's conclusions will assist me in developing a feasible strategy to extricate ourselves from the ECHR, all while considering the necessity to safeguard fundamental human rights.

The biggest threat we currently encounter is permitting lawfare to render our nation unfair, unsafe, and undemocratic.

However, I am resolute that with me at the helm, the Conservative Party will safeguard our principles, our democratic system, our nation – and most importantly, our citizens.

Read more

Share :