The Boriswave is the talk of the town. Coined, as far as I can discover, by an obscure X user called “Mithras” as early as June 2024, it was quickly popularised by anonymous X accounts like Max Tempers and kunley_drukpa, though many of the earliest examples were stylised “Boris Wave” rather than “Boriswave”.
In December 2024, Mike Jones wrote a piece in The Critic, titled “Explaining the Boriswave”, Mike’s article goes into great detail on this subject, examining the numerous visa, salary, language and qualification criteria the Tories relaxed, thus allowing the Boriswave to materialise — but in short, the Boriswave refers to the millions of mostly non-EU migrants that have arrived post-Brexit, with many of them being low-skilled or simply not working at all. This was despite the Conservatives pledging to cut migration in their 2019 manifesto and having full control over the UK’s borders after leaving the Single Market and no-longer being subject to EU Freedom of Movement.
In the first half of 2025, the “Boriswave” was mentioned in UnHerd, The Spectator, The Telegraph, New Statesman, Prospect, Conservative Home and The Times. Around the same time, there was increased salience on the subject that the Boriswave was nearing the qualifying time in the UK to obtain Indefinite Leave to Remain (ILR), a status that which if acquired, would enable them to live and work in the UK indefinitely and access a raft of state benefits, from social housing, Universal Credit (UC), personal independence payments (PIP) and more.
Reform may have to either accept the Boriswave is here to stay, or revoke previously issued citizenship grants
The Centre for Policy Studies released a report estimating if the Boriswave is allowed to settle under the current ILR rules, this would have a lifetime net fiscal cost of £234 billion under their base scenario. This figure was based on Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) data on migrant earnings that has since been withdrawn, but if anything is likely to be an understatement. This is because the OBR assumes most migrants arrive at age 25 and bring no dependents, something we know to be categorically false, post-Boriswave.
For example, if we look at the number of Health and Care Worker visas issued, of the 694,294 visas issued between 2021 and Q1 2025, 408,277, or 59 per cent of those visas issued went to dependants, not the main applicants (workers) themselves.
Fast forward to September 2025 and Reform UK, the party currently leading in the polls, pledged that if they win the next General Election, they will abolish ILR entirely, including rescinding it retrospectively, to prevent the Boriswave from settling.
Zia Yusuf, wrote on X:
Our solution to this problem is to abolish ILR completely. That means no new awards and those who currently hold it will have it rescinded. We will replace it with a five year renewable work visa, with a much higher qualifying salary, much reduced ability to bring dependents and a much higher required standard of English. Crucially, this visa will give holders no access to welfare.
This is welcome news to those who have been warning about the long-term economic, social, cultural and demographic impact of the Boriswave, if they are allowed to settle in the UK permanently.
But there is one problem with Reform’s policy.
Under current rules, most migrants can qualify for Indefinite Leave to Remain after being present in the UK for 5 years. The Boriswave started arriving on 1 January 2021, meaning the first cohort of the Boriswave will begin to qualify for Indefinite Leave to Remain from 1 January 2026, just mere months away from now.
Once a migrant has Indefinite Leave to Remain, they can apply for British citizenship after a further 12 months, meaning the earliest cohorts of the Boriswave could start to qualify for British citizenship from 1 January 2027.
If significant numbers of the Boriswave obtain ILR and subsequently citizenship, both of which have 90 — 95 per cent grant rates, then Reform’s plan will be meaningless, as by the time the next election rolls around, which could be as late as the 15th August 2029, much of the Boriswave could already have British citizenship and would be immune from any revocation of ILR, even if rescinded retrospectively.
Already we see record numbers of British citizenship grants being issued by the Home Office. In 2024, the Home Office issued 269,806 British citizenship grants, the highest since records began in 1962.
This figure is up from the 206,619 British citizenship grants issued in 2023, the 175,972 citizenship grants issued in 2022, and the 130,568 citizenship grants issued back in 2020, a massive 107 per cent increase in just 5 years.
In the most recent figures from the Home Office, for year-end June 2025, there were 256,864 grants of British citizenship, with 79 per cent of these grants going to non-EU nationals, most notably from India, Pakistan and Nigeria — this is not some influx of EU nationals suddenly acquiring citizenship post-Brexit, in fact citizenship grants to EU nationals are down 7 per cent.
Reform is not currently proposing to review British citizenship grants. At a press conference when asked Nigel Farage said:
No, no. If you’ve been granted UK citizenship, you have been granted UK citizenship. To be absolutely clear. There should be no confusion over that. You know, we would not retrospectively change that, because you become a legal citizen of this country. We would never ever suggest otherwise.
When the immigration white paper was released back in May 2025, it did mention increasing the qualifying period for settlement (Indefinite Leave to Remain) from 5 years to 10 years, but didn’t make a firm commitment to apply this retrospectively, which is something I wrote about for The Critic. While reporting from the BBC and The Times, at the time suggested the Government’s intention was to apply this retrospectively, we’ve had no confirmation since and the promised consultation still hasn’t been launched.
Two Parliamentary Petitions passed the 100,000 signature threshold recently, one titled “Keep the 5-Year ILR pathway for existing Skilled Worker visa holders” and the other titled “Keep 5-year ILR terms to Hong Kong British National (Overseas) visas”.
This led to a debate in the House of Commons, at which here was significant opposition from backbench Labour MPs, who cited how retrospective application is unfair and goes against “British values”, with Bell Ribeiro-Addy, remarking that because much of the Boriswave have come from Commonwealth countries, they can vote in the UK and influence policy outcomes, despite not being citizens; a very subversive remark and a perfect example and reminder of why Commonwealth voting must be abolished, as outlined by Chris Bayliss here.
Only one member appeared to speak in favour of retrospective application of the a 10-year ILR qualifying period, Conservative MP Katie Lam, who remarked that MPs should be prioritising the wishes of the British public, not the wishes of foreign nationals.
With Reform appearing to rule out reviewing and revoking citizenship grants, this leaves Reform banking that Labour increases ILR to 10 years and applies this retrospectively, without any major carve outs or exceptions that allow large numbers of migrants to qualify sooner. According to the Financial Times, quoting a source close to the Home Secretary, Shabana Mahmood, the changes will not apply to migrants already here:
Mahmood’s reforms, to be consulted on later in the year, build on Labour’s previous pledge to extend the default period that migrants need to be in Britain before they can apply for indefinite leave to remain from five to 10 years. This policy would not apply to migrants who had already arrived in Britain, a person close to Mahmood said on Monday.
However LBC and The i are reporting that the Government is examining retrospective application of the proposed rule changes, to contend with the Boriswave rapidly approaching the time in the UK to apply for ILR.
It’s possible the Government is briefing different things to different media outlets and journalists to gauge public opinion. It’s also possible journalists are misunderstanding the briefs they are being given. As a hypothetical, it’s perfectly possible to apply the 5 to 10 year change to the qualifying period for those already here, but keep any existing language or volunteering requirements, or lack thereof. This could very easily lead to confusion.
Nonetheless, if Indefinite Leave to Remain isn’t increased to 10 years and this change doesn’t apply to those who are already in the UK but are yet to obtain ILR, then much of the Boriswave could be citizens by the time of the next election and would be immune from any rescinding of ILR. In this scenario, Reform would have to either accept the Boriswave is here to stay or be willing to cross the Rubicon and revoke previously issued citizenship grants.
