top of page
Search

The Prejudice of UK Immigration and Settlement Schemes

By Zohaa Khalid


ree

In light of the current requirements for achieving British settler status as a foreigner in 2025, it is apparent that there are certain biases which provide particular groups with a major advantage compared to other, less privileged individuals. The formal definition of immigration as clarified by the Oxford English Dictionary to be “the action of coming to settle permanently in another country or region; entrance into a country for the purpose of settling there,” clearly bears no references to how, when or why one may choose to relocate.

 

In his second book on the ‘Discourse on the Origin and the Foundations of Inequality’, Rousseau famously says that “[t]he first person who, having fenced off a lot of ground, took it into his head to say this is mine and found people simple enough to believe him, was the true founder of civil society.” In response to this statement, Harvard Professor Risse questions whether it is “only because of such simplicity that states are accepted? Such thoughts leave us wondering about the legitimacy of a system of states per se,” leaving us, as interpreters of the law, dubious as to the initial formation of these geographical borders and political institutions, which, it may be argued, exists simply as a measure made by and for colonial control. As Rousseau suggests, the primary ownership of land was a phenomenon left unchallenged by those observing the possession of this said area, and as a result, this primary owner gained unfair superiority, in comparison to his or her counterparts. Some may argue that the primary owner’s comparative superiority is a result of advanced intellect, yielding him or her a better material situation. Nevertheless, in light of the arguments presented in Rousseau’s aforementioned book and Marx’s theory of Communism, such profits by means of individual control are unacceptable. It should be widely acknowledged that no land, natural resource or extensive provision was handed directly to one person or the so-called richest 1% of the population, as such facilities and assets should be available to all, and “their existence is the accomplishment of no one”, reiterated by Professor Risse.

 

Consequently, it is plausible that, upon analysing the illegitimate creation of sovereign states controlled predominantly by a series of upper-class elitists, a decision to live in a certain place, be that the UK or elsewhere, should not be a matter of intense criticism. Whether it is to seek new or stable job opportunities and build upon the currently established economy, or to simply live in an environment with a higher quality of life in terms of criminal management, education, healthcare and/or for familial ties, it should not be down to anyone to deny individuals visitation rights and settler statuses in Great Britain or anywhere else in the world. In 2024 alone, with approximately 140k applications and decisions from the Home Office, 138k were granted settlement status on the basis of either work, refugee status, family ties, or other plausible reasons, leaving an entire 2.3k with rejected decisions. While it is commendable of the UK to have granted this many settlement statuses to its externals, it is still upsetting to see that no matter how much money and time applicants invest into qualifying as a legal foreign national, they still may not be taken into consideration, leaving all their efforts to be wasted.

 

To reiterate this point, settlement status in the UK requires multiple points of consistent action. At first, migrants must pay the cost to apply for a visa, without any guarantee of acceptance; then comes the funds required to keep your legal status alive, only possible by Home Office fees, while also hiring a professional lawyer to support your claim. Finally, though not without torment, one must not forget the lengthy period that goes into achieving any sort of recognition, be that visa extensions, Indefinite Leave to Remain (ILR), or a British passport - a laborious struggle that can take anywhere from 5 to over 10 years. 

 

Furthermore, it is evident that there is an explicit prejudice against those classed as uneducated, a person of colour, or a woman; they are viewed as inferior due to the assumption that they are an economic liability. In the case of the UK, the rising cost of living, inflation, and competition in the job market already makes it difficult for immigrants to adjust to the rapidly changing environment, especially with the expectation that they should immediately assimilate into British culture. In addition, the ongoing dispute between the label of “expat” (abbreviation for “expatriate”) and “immigrant” strengthens the aforementioned point. In the Oxford English Dictionary, to be an “expatriate” is to be a “person who lives in a foreign country”, although in contemporary society, the label “expat” is often only applied to those who hold citizenship in any first-world country (such as the UK, the USA, Australia, etc) and are living temporarily in a different nation. In spite of the fact that one can distinguish an expat from an immigrant due to the first’s intention to shift temporarily and the latter’s desire to move and settle elsewhere permanently, it is of great significance that what society terms as “expats” are often privileged, of white middle or upper-class descent, and are migrating for the sake of comfort and leisure, while “immigrants” are disadvantaged, of ethnic minority backgrounds, and are migrating for reasons regarding safety, financial strain, familial stability, and a lack of educational prospects. It is ironic, therefore, to attribute more leniency and compassion towards the wealthy and affluent, as it is the disadvantaged “immigrants” who should be awarded more concern and understanding.

 

To resolve the dilemma regarding achieving settlement status, Oxford Academic Kochenov notes that it is essential to eradicate citizenship as a whole and thereby conclude the passport apartheid. His article begins as follows: “The color of your passport matters a lot: red or green, burgundy or azure, you are either granted valuable rights worldwide or only painful liabilities,” directly referencing the controversy and polarity between ethnicity and nationalities as suggested previously. The academic goes on to argue that citizenship is a social construct promoting “complacency and exclusion” amongst the population, outlining that “whatever the system, divisive nationalism works and the passport apartheid is the price paid for its effectiveness.” In order to combat the ostracising treatment towards certain ethnic groups, it is vital to remove any such ties to the outdated concepts of passport and nationality hierarchy, as they are incompatible with the core values of modern society, namely, that all individuals, regardless of their class, wealth, education, work experience, nationality, ethnicity, race, gender and many other factors contributing to any form of discrimination, should be granted the opportunity and freedom to migrate wherever they wish to for any purpose fit to their liking.

 

Overall, it is plausible to emphasise that the ownership of land and the idea of citizenship came to be true due to the inappropriate, inconsiderate and uneducated approach with which colonisers mapped out geographical borders. As a result, any such power imbalances, whether from the past or in today’s politically challenging climate, should not be recognised nor deemed worthy of dispute. Ending the illusion of a fragmented and separated world would not only instill a drive for community between stereotypically “contrasting” groups, but would also provide an optimistic insight into having the chance to live harmoniously with one another, with no magnitude placed on the colour of one’s skin, nor their passport.



Sources:



Edited by Artyom Timofeev



 
 
 

Recent Posts

See All
Commercial Awareness Digest - 28th November 2025

Reeves' 2025 Budget and its Implications By Esme Glover The eagerly awaited 2025 Budget, delivered by UK Chancellor Rachel Reeves this week, has sparked significant discussion about its terms and area

 
 
 

Comments

© 2025 by UCL LAW FOR ALL SOCIETY 

  • LinkedIn Social Icon
  • YouTube Social Icon
  • Facebook Social Icon
  • Instagram Social Icon
  • Twitter Social Icon
bottom of page