Why Britain’s Legal Migrants Deserve a More Honest Conversation
Few issues divide public opinion in modern Britain quite like immigration. It is a subject dominates political debate, influences elections and frequently occupies newspaper headlines, explores Vitalis Jude Ngadi, a Solicitor of the Senior Courts of England & Wales.
Yet, amid the competing narratives, one important distinction is too often overlooked: not all migrants come to the United Kingdom under the same legal framework.
The public conversation frequently portrays migrants as placing an unsustainable burden on public services and the welfare system. While legitimate debate about immigration policy is essential in any democratic society, that debate should be grounded in facts rather than assumptions.
When it comes to those who enter the United Kingdom lawfully under the Skilled Worker route, the evidence paints a very different picture.
A family relocating under the Skilled Worker visa scheme—a principal applicant accompanied by an adult partner and one child—can expect to pay well in excess of £20,000 in combined Home Office application fees and Immigration Health Surcharge (IHS) before setting foot in the United Kingdom, depending on the duration of the visa and the circumstances of the applicants.
These are not incidental administrative charges; they represent one of the highest upfront legal migration costs in the developed world.
The scale of those costs is not merely anecdotal.
In 2025, the Royal Society published an international comparison of visa costs which concluded that the UK’s upfront charges for Skilled Worker visas were 1,033 per cent higher than the average charged by comparable science-leading nations, rising to 1,082 per cent when adjusted for purchasing power parity.
Whatever one’s political views on immigration, it is difficult to dispute that the United Kingdom has chosen to make lawful migration exceptionally expensive.
The financial commitment, however, does not end once a migrant arrives.
Like every other employee, Skilled Worker visa holders pay income tax, National Insurance contributions, council tax where applicable, VAT and every other tax imposed upon individuals living and working in the United Kingdom.
They contribute to the Exchequer from the outset of their employment and participate in funding the public services upon which society depends. Healthcare provides a particularly interesting example.
Most temporary migrants are required to pay the Immigration Health Surcharge as a condition of obtaining their visa, in addition to Royal Society, UK Immigration Costs: An International Comparison of Skilled Worker, Researcher and Student Visas in 2025 (2025).
paying general taxation once employed. Whether one characterises this as contributing twice towards the cost of the National Health Service is ultimately a matter of perspective, but there can be little doubt that temporary migrants make a financial contribution towards healthcare
that extends beyond that required of British citizens before accessing NHS services.
Perhaps the greatest misconception concerns access to public funds. Most Skilled Worker visa holders are granted leave subject to the condition of “No Recourse to Public Funds” (NRPF).
In practical terms, this means they are generally unable to access a wide range of welfare benefits available to those with settled status or British citizenship, including Universal Credit, Housing Benefit and other forms of state financial assistance.
The legal position therefore sits uneasily alongside the common assertion that skilled migrants relocate to Britain to rely upon the welfare state.
The immigration framework itself substantially prevents that outcome.
There is another aspect of the Skilled Worker route that receives comparatively little public attention: the dependence of immigration status upon continued sponsorship by a licensed employer.
Unlike British citizens, whose right to remain in the country is unaffected by changing employment, a Skilled Worker visa holder’s lawful residence is directly linked to their sponsor.
Should employment come to an end, the employer is required to notify the Home Office, and the worker is ordinarily afforded only a limited period in which to secure another licensed sponsor or make alternative lawful immigration arrangements.
While the law permits sponsored workers to change employers, doing so is neither immediate nor unrestricted.
A new employer must hold a sponsor licence, issue a fresh Certificate of Sponsorship and satisfy the requirements of the Immigration Rules before the worker may lawfully continue under the Skilled Worker route.
The practical consequences are significant. Many sponsored workers understandably hesitate before raising workplace grievances, refusing unreasonable demands or leaving unsatisfactory employment, conscious that the loss of sponsorship may place not only their employment but also their family’s future in the United Kingdom at risk.
This is not to suggest that the Skilled Worker route is equivalent to forced labour. Such a characterisation would neither reflect the law nor accurately describe the experience of many employers who act responsibly and lawfully.
Nevertheless, it is entirely legitimate to ask whether a system that ties immigration status so closely to continued sponsorship inevitably
creates an imbalance of bargaining power capable of exposing some workers to exploitation.
None of this should be interpreted as an argument against sensible immigration controls.
Every sovereign state has both the right and the responsibility to regulate who may enter its borders. Equally, public concern about immigration levels is neither irrational nor illegitimate per the Immigration Rules, Appendix Skilled Worker; Immigration Rules, Part 6A – Public Funds (No Recourse toPublic Funds); Home Office, Immigration and Nationality Fees (GOV.UK). Home Office, Skilled Worker: Caseworker Guidance (GOV.UK); Immigration Rules, Appendix Skilled Worker.
However, responsible policymaking requires an informed public debate. It is difficult to sustain the proposition that Skilled Worker migrants are a burden upon the welfare state when they enter the country only after paying substantial government fees, continue paying taxes
like every other resident, remain excluded from most public funds and live under immigration conditions that provide little financial or employment security.
The distinction between lawful economic migration and dependency upon the state is not a matter of political opinion; it is a matter of law.
As lawyers, we are trained to separate perception from evidence. The same discipline should inform the national conversation on immigration.
Public confidence is strengthened not by slogans, but by facts. The legal framework governing Skilled Worker migrants demonstrates that they are not merely participants in the British economy—they are, from the outset, among its contributors.
Counsel Vitalis Jude Ngadi, who leads the Mojatu Probono Legal Centre, is a passionate double-qualified Attorney at Law and he practices as a Solicitor of the Senior Courts of England & Wales and and he is also a Barrister in the Supreme Courts of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.
“This is not to suggest that the Skilled Worker route is equivalent to forced labour.”
Vitalis Jude Ngadi
About The Author
