LONDON – Zimbabwean care workers in the United Kingdom face a harsher and far more prolonged path to securing residency after the British government unveiled sweeping new immigration reforms that abolish the long-standing five-year settlement route and replace it with a performance-based system anchored in contribution, income and compliance.
Under the changes announced by Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood, settlement will no longer be a routine milestone reached after five years of lawful residence but a conditional achievement tied to economic productivity, tax contributions, high-level English proficiency, clean criminal records, and avoidance of state benefits. The baseline for settlement rises to ten years, and those in lower-paid roles, including the thousands of Zimbabweans who arrived on health and social care visas during post-pandemic recruitment drives, will face a minimum of fifteen years. Migrants who rely on public benefits for extended periods risk waiting up to two decades before qualifying, while anyone who overstays visas or enters illegally may be trapped in as much as thirty years of legal limbo—effectively ending the historical practice where long-term residence eventually led to settlement.
Zimbabwean migrants are disproportionately affected because many arrived under the now-closed health and social care route, a channel that brought over 600,000 workers and dependants into the UK between 2022 and 2024. Most were recruited to fill critical labour shortages in care homes and private agencies, yet they fall into categories that the new rules treat as low-contribution and slow-track. What many saw as a pathway to build new lives, bring children to the UK, and eventually naturalise has become a long, costly and uncertain journey marked by repeated visa renewals, mounting fees and limited access to welfare support.
The government’s proposal to restrict public benefits not only during temporary residence but even after settlement further complicates matters. Under the new regime, access to social housing and welfare entitlements would only be available after acquiring full British citizenship, meaning a migrant could legally live and work in the UK for fifteen or twenty years and still remain excluded from basic state support. Critics warn this creates a large class of residents who pay taxes but lack safety nets, a shift that turns settlement from a point of security into a prolonged probationary period.
While carers bear the brunt of the restrictions, the reforms create accelerated pathways for high-earning professionals, entrepreneurs, and specialised workers such as NHS doctors and registered nurses. Highly paid migrants could gain settlement in as little as three to five years, while clinicians remain on a five-year trajectory. The government argues this approach prioritises economic value and skills aligned to national interests, yet many Zimbabweans who arrived as care workers expect to be stuck at the bottom of the hierarchy unless they rapidly upskill into registered nursing or other regulated professions.
The most contentious aspect of the overhaul is its retrospective effect. Unlike previous immigration reforms that protected those already in the system, the UK intends to apply the new settlement rules to nearly all migrants already living in the country who have not yet been granted Indefinite Leave to Remain. This includes thousands of Zimbabweans who entered the country based on policies that promised a five-year path to permanence. Transitional arrangements may soften the blow, but ministers have made no guarantees, leading to accusations that the rules amount to a moving of goalposts after migrants have already invested savings, sold assets, or taken loans to relocate.
Online commentators have framed the reforms in stark terms. Analyst Mario Nawfal characterised the shift as Britain adopting a “full earn-it-or-beat-it mode,” arguing that settlement is now a test rather than a timeline, where failure to meet English standards, financial obligations or character requirements could result in permanent disqualification. Supporters claim the policy restores fairness and deters what they describe as dependency-driven migration, while critics say it weaponises immigration bureaucracy to create a disposable labour force.
For Zimbabwean migrants, the reforms prompt difficult strategic choices. Some may choose to stay and attempt to upgrade into registered nursing or higher-skilled pathways to shorten their settlement timeline. Others may remain in care roles but accept a future defined by extended precarity. A growing number may look beyond the UK entirely, shifting towards countries such as Canada, Australia, New Zealand or Ireland, where residency pathways are clearer, timelines shorter and access to benefits more aligned with tax contributions.
Mahmood defended the strict new approach, saying that settlement “is not a right, but a privilege,” and insisting that the UK must prioritise migrants who integrate, contribute and reflect British values. The government maintains migration will remain vital to the economy and the NHS, but intends to reshape the profile of migrants entering and remaining in the country.
The new rules transform Britain from a destination offering stable long-term prospects into a highly selective system where only the most economically valuable or professionally mobile can realistically secure permanence. For thousands of Zimbabweans who arrived with aspirations of building new lives, the UK is no longer a guaranteed path to security, but a high-stakes proving ground where residency must be continuously earned.
