by Sian Mason and Katy Swaine Williams
The government’s sweeping proposals on ‘earned settlement’, set out in a consultation paper in November 2025, aim to make it harder for migrant people to settle permanently in the UK. If implemented, they will cause significant harm to migrant victim-survivors of violence against women and girls (VAWG) and their children.
Alongside many others, and in solidarity with our sister organisations, CWJ has responded to the consultation by opposing the idea of ‘earned settlement’ which, as proposed, would be inherently discriminatory on the grounds of sex, race, disability and economic status, and calling for specific protection for migrant victims of VAWG. Former Deputy Prime Minister, Angela Rayner MP, has deemed the proposals “un-British" and 100 MPs have signed a letter to the Home Secretary expressing their opposition.
Step Up Migrant Women UK have made the case that migrant victim-survivors are already excluded from existing protections under the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, because the lack of a firewall creates fears amongst victims that reporting abuse could lead to their deportation. As pointed out by CWJ’s CEO, Harriet Wistrich, in her recent evidence to peers on the Act,
“Abusers know how to manipulate that [gap in protection] and how to keep [migrant victim-survivors] stuck in their relationship.”
She added that the government’s immigration proposals “are going to make that far, far worse and really put the lives of those who don’t have established immigration status at huge risk”.
Choum’s story
Choum’s story (not her real name), shared in our recent ‘Doing his job for him’ report, powerfully illustrates how VAWG and insecure immigration status can interact to trap migrant victim-survivors in harmful situations and contribute to additional harm, including criminalisation. Choum is an Asian woman who first met her now ex-husband in her home country of Cambodia. He is white British and they moved to the UK and had two children together. He started to control her, stopped her speaking with family and friends, and assaulted her sexually and physically. He threatened that she would never see the children again if she left him or disclosed his abuse.
Choum’s immigration status made this a particularly powerful threat, since she was afraid she would not be able to remain in the UK. She only felt able to end the relationship once she received Indefinite Leave to Remain in the UK, but she remained living with her abuser to co-parent their children. He continued to rape her; when she would not allow him to do this anymore, he left with the children, and she was forced to make an emergency application to the family courts for their return. After she disclosed the abuse in those proceedings, he responded by making counter-allegations to the police, claiming she had harmed their children. Choum was then subjected to a three-year campaign of counter-allegations by him to social services and the police, during which she was arrested and interviewed. Although the allegations were unsubstantiated and the investigation was eventually dropped, the record of Choum’s arrest remains disclosable and has had a long-term impact on her employment prospects and mental health.
Punitive extensions of time to settle
The government’s proposals would increase the qualifying period for settlement from 5 years to at least 10 years. This would increase further in cases involving irregular or unlawful residence, disregarding the fact that this is often a direct consequence of VAWG. An extension of the qualifying period would also arise for those who have claimed public funds. However, victim-survivors of VAWG rely on government support to ensure they can escape abuse. Increasing the requirements that migrant women must meet and extending the time before they can have secure immigration status, will deepen and extend the opportunity for perpetrators to exploit and abuse women like Choum.
‘Zero tolerance’ approach to offending history
The government’s intention to require migrant people to have a spotless criminal record in order to settle permanently, ignores the widely recognised fact that victim-survivors are often unfairly criminalised as a direct or indirect consequence of VAWG, including trafficking, modern slavery and exploitation. This may take many forms, including where victim-survivors use force against their perpetrator in self-defence, where they are coerced by their perpetrator into offending, where they face malicious counter-allegations by their abuser as in Choum’s case, or where they are accused of immigration-related offences in circumstances beyond their control.
The proposals risk exacerbating the injustices already faced by victim-survivors who – far from being protected from abuse – find themselves penalised first by the criminal justice system and then by the immigration system.
Narrow and subjective definition of ‘contribution’
The proposals would require migrant people to make a financial ‘contribution’ to the UK in order to settle and would shorten the qualifying period if they engage in volunteering. These measures ignore the financial barriers faced by migrant victim-survivors of VAWG, who may be subject to economic abuse, and who face barriers to participating in the economy or volunteering due to trauma, mental health needs and/or the abuse itself – as well as caring responsibilities.
By framing ‘contribution’ primarily in financial or voluntary terms, the proposals adopt a narrow understanding of value that overlooks the unique circumstances faced by victim-survivors. This is not trauma-informed and is likely to exclude those most in need of security and stability.
Migrant victims are marginalised by these proposals and the government’s Freedom from Violence and Abuse strategy
As Hibiscus and others have pointed out, the government’s Freedom from Violence and Abuse strategy does not meaningfully include Black and minoritised migrant women but “further marginalises them, entrenching a two-tier system of protection in which some survivors are deemed worthy of safety and others are neglected”.
The absence of clear safeguards and exemptions for victim-survivors of VAWG in the ‘earned settlement’ proposals further undermines the strategy as a whole and would create a settlement system that is fundamentally harmful to victim-survivors of VAWG. The government’s immigration white paper, published in May 2025 stated: ‘We recognise the challenges migrant victims of domestic abuse can face and we will strengthen the protections in place to support them to take action against their abusers, without fear of repercussion on their immigration status.’ However, the ‘earned settlement’ consultation paper disregards the clearly detrimental and dangerous impact the proposals are likely to have for victim-survivors and fails to offer adequate safeguards.
We join EVAW, LAWRS, Hibiscus and SBS, and FiLiA and Project Resist, in urgently calling on the government to reconsider these proposals as a whole.