调查问卷反馈地址：https://ukhomeoffice.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_1yMmiaG7zqwPuM6

问卷解释及参考回复

一、Background（背景信息）

这里主要是统计用途，对政策立场没太大影响，这里提供一套相对合理、便于匿名的填法，大家可以按自己真实情况改：

1. Are you responding…
   👉 Individual

2. 当前移民/国籍身份（如果你不是英籍）：
   👉 例如：I currently hold a UK visa (e.g. work, study, family, or other route)

3. 年龄
   👉 根据你自己实际情况选一个区间（例如：35–44）

4. 性别
   👉 按实际情况

5. 性别认同是否与出生登记性别一致
   👉 按实际情况

6. Ethnicity
   👉 如果你是华人：Asian or Asian British – Chinese

7. Where in the UK do you currently live?
   👉 按实际地区，如 London or Greater London

8. Occupation
   👉 如果以“律师/顾问”身份：A – Higher managerial, administrative, or professional
   （你也可以按自己真实职业改）

二、Earned Settlement 部分（总体框架）

Q1 Overall, how clear…

推荐选项：
👉 Somewhat unclear 或 Very unclear
（我倾向：Very unclear）

理由要点（可不用写太长）：

• 政府把一个本来简单的“5 年合法居住+守法”路线，变成充满条件叠加、加年减年的复杂系统，一般申请人根本算不清自己要多少年。

• 对“baseline 10 年”“某些职业 15 年”“收入门槛”“志愿服务减年”等如何互相作用，说明并不清晰，普通公众难以理解，更不利于法治确定性。

Q2 Which aspects are not clear?（多选）

建议勾选：

• The concept of earned settlement

• The overall purpose

• Which groups may be eligible for exemptions from the 10-year qualifying period

• How reductions to the qualifying period will be applied

• How extensions to the qualifying period will be applied

• How reductions and/or extensions will be applied if applicants meet multiple criteria

• How the proposed changes will apply to dependants and children

• Other（下面写一句话）

Other 文本示例：

It is also unclear how this complex system would interact with existing routes such as Long Residence, family life and human rights routes, and whether people already planning their lives around current rules can have any legal certainty.

Q3 Overall, to what extent do you agree…（总的赞同度）

推荐选项：
👉 Strongly disagree

如果想在后续开放题里展开，可记住几个核心反对点：

• 把永居从 5 年整体推到 10 年甚至 15 年，是对已经按现行规则规划人生、购房、子女教育的大量家庭的**“合约毁约”式**打击。

• 把“收入、纳税额、是否领福利”等作为加减年条件，本质是按收入和贫富划分“好移民”“坏移民”，歧视低收入但从事社会关键岗位的人（例如 care workers、清洁工、餐饮服务业等）。

• 取消 10-year Long Residence 独立路线，严重损害已经在英国长期稳定生活的人，违背一贯的政策预期。

• 把“no recourse to public funds (NRPF)”可能延伸到永居阶段，实质上把一部分永居持有人变成“二等居民”，既不公平，也伤害社会凝聚力。

三、Character（品行）

Q1 Do you have any comments on how ‘Character’ should be considered…?

示范回答（英文，强烈反对扩大打击范围）：

The existing suitability rules are already strict and sufficient. Serious criminality, deception and non-compliance can already lead to refusal, revocation or deportation. Using “character” as a flexible political tool to widen exclusions risks arbitrariness and disproportionality.

I strongly oppose any move towards a blanket position that “you should not be able to settle with a criminal record” without clear distinctions between minor, spent or historic offences and serious offending. This would disproportionately harm people who have rehabilitated, as well as over-policed communities. Character assessment should remain narrowly focused, proportionate and anchored in existing human rights and rehabilitation principles.

四、Integration（融入）

Q1 1-year reduction for C1 English

推荐选项：
👉 There should be no reduction for these applicants

理由要点：

• 现有 B1/B2 英语 + Life in the UK 测试已经足够严格。

• 用更高英语水平换“减年”，只会进一步偏向高学历/白领群体，加剧不平等。

• 语言能力可以继续作为基本条件，但不应被用来创造“快速通道”与“慢车道”。

Q2 How do you think integration should be assessed?（多选）

为了不加重负担、同时否定复杂的新机制，可以这样：

勾选：

• Through a formal test (such a revised Life in the UK Test)
  （保留一个简明、一次性的正式测试即可）

不要勾选：

• 各种“ongoing evidence”“community testimonies”等（因为会巨大增加官僚负担，也易产生主观偏见）

可在开放题里说明：更多证据要求只会让系统更复杂，给申请人和社区机构增加文书负担，也让决策更主观，容易产生不公平。

Q3 Further comments on ‘Integration’?

示范回答：

Integration should be encouraged through positive, accessible measures, not by layering multiple subjective requirements onto settlement. A single, clear standard – such as an achievable English level and a fair, updated Life in the UK test – is sufficient.

Requiring ongoing proof of community participation or character references from British nationals would shift settlement into a discretionary, moralistic judgement about who is “good enough”, which is dangerous and discriminatory. Integration must not become a tool to exclude lower-income migrants, carers or people who work long hours and have less time and resources to engage in formal community activities.

五、Contribution（贡献）

Q1–2 收入≥£12,570 要求 & 需要豁免的群体

Q1：Do you think the following groups should be exempt…?
👉 两项都选 Yes（maternity/long-term illness & Ministers of Religion）

Q2：Any other groups that should be exempt?

示范回答：

Yes. Any group whose work is low-paid but socially essential – including care workers, cleaners, hospitality staff, delivery drivers and many others – should not be penalised by an income test. People with disabilities, carers, those in part-time work due to caring responsibilities, and people affected by economic shocks (such as COVID-19) should also be exempt.

More broadly, linking settlement to a fixed income threshold is inherently discriminatory. It favours already privileged, higher-paid groups and devalues unpaid care and low-paid essential work that keeps the country running.

Q3 低于 RQF 6 的职业，15 年才可永居？

推荐选项：
👉 Strongly disagree

理由要点：

• 把 RQF6 以下（大量护理、养老、服务业）推到 15 年，是赤裸裸的阶层歧视：

  • 同样是合法来英、缴税工作，却因为“学历/职业”不同，要在不稳定状态下多熬 10 年。

• 这与政府口头上对“key workers”“care workers”的赞美完全矛盾。

• 这么长的不确定期会极大打击这些行业招人，反而损害 NHS、养老体系和英国整体利益。

Q4 高收入者（>£50,270）可以缩短永居时间？

推荐选项：
👉 Strongly disagree

理由要点：

• 用高收入换短年限，本质等于：“富人快车道，穷人慢车道”。

• 永居本应基于长期守法居住、真实生活重心在英国，而不是“谁赚的钱多”。

• 会进一步拉大不同种族、性别和行业之间的机会差距（例如女性、少数族裔、更容易集中在低薪岗位）。

Q5 对不同收入档的减年（7 年/5 年）怎么看？

两行都选：
👉 There should be no reduction for these applicants

可以附一句说明：

Settlement should not be accelerated purely on the basis of high income. Using income bands to buy a shorter route to settlement entrenches inequality and treats immigration status as a privilege for the rich, rather than a recognition of long-term lawful residence and real life ties to the UK.

Q6 公共服务职业（NHS、教育等）是否应享减年？

这里存在两层逻辑：

• 你整体反对用“减年/加年”积分制；

• 但在当前问卷框架内，如果要表达“至少不要伤害 NHS/教师”，可以选 Yes，并在评论里强调：真正合理的做法，是恢复普遍 5 年永居，不靠复杂的加减年游戏。

推荐：
👉 选 Yes，并在开放题里写明：
“如果政府执意推进 earned settlement 模型，公共服务职业至少不应被新制度拖慢；但我根本不同意把永居变成收入积分游戏，最公平的仍然是普遍的 5 年路线。”

Q7 公共资金（福利/住房）惩罚：5 年 / 10 年 penalty

两行都选：
👉 There should be no penalty for these applicants

理由示范：

Accessing public funds already requires passing strict eligibility tests and is often a sign of hardship, not abuse. Adding a 5 or 10-year penalty on settlement for those who need short-term support effectively punishes poverty, disability and crisis.

It is morally wrong and economically short-sighted to remove the safety net from migrants who are lawfully here and contributing in many ways. Settlement should not be used as a threat to deter people from accessing essential support when they are vulnerable.

Q8 一旦获永居，是否应享有福利资格？

推荐选项：
👉 Strongly agree

理由要点：

• 永居的本意就是：在法律上接近本国公民，享有劳动市场和福利体系的完整权利。

• 把 NRPF 延伸到“永居阶段”，实质上制造“二等永居”，破坏社会凝聚力，也与“长期缴税、长期生活在英国”的事实不相称。

• 如果政府担心财政，可以从整体税制、反避税、提高富人税等角度解决，而不是压在少数长期居住的移民身上。

Q9 志愿服务/回馈社区是否应缩短时间？

推荐选项：
👉 Agree 或 Strongly agree

同时在开放题里加一句：

Recognising volunteering is positive, but it cannot justify extending the baseline to 10 or 15 years. The fairest approach is to maintain a simple 5-year route for all, with no need for complex discounting or penalties.

Q10–13（如果你不是“有志愿者的组织”，可以跳过）

如果系统必须填：

• 关于“evidence of volunteering – easy or difficult?”：
  👉 选 Somewhat difficult（强调操作成本高）

• Overall impact on organisation：
  👉 选 A somewhat negative impact 或 No impact

• Q13 “Further comments on ‘Contributions’?”
  可写：

Turning settlement into a complex contribution-scoring exercise will increase bureaucracy, uncertainty and legal disputes. Many forms of contribution – unpaid care, emotional labour within families, informal community support – cannot be measured in income or certificates. A fair system should recognise long-term residence, family ties and basic compliance, rather than trying to quantify every aspect of a person’s life.

六、Residence（居住 / 违规惩罚）

Q1 对非法入境 / visit 签 / overstay 的惩罚年数

三行全部选：
👉 There should be no penalty for these applicants

（理由：已有其他严厉后果，再加 5–20 年是过度惩罚、可能违背人权义务）

可在 Q2 写：

The immigration system already has severe consequences for irregular entry or overstaying, including lack of lawful status, difficulties in working, renting and accessing services, and potential removal. Adding a further 5–20-year penalty for settlement is disproportionate and risks trapping people in limbo for decades.

In many cases, irregular entry or overstaying is driven by lack of safe routes, exploitation, or genuine mistakes in a very complex system. The focus should be on creating safe, lawful routes and clear rules – not multiplying punishments that in practice hit families and children the hardest.

七、Eligibility and Equalities（特定群体 & 平等）

Q1 各类签证群体是否从 5 年升到 10 年？

表里会有：Global Talent 3/5 年、Innovator Founder 3 年、人道主义路线等。

总原则：

• 所有当前 3 年、5 年路线，都应维持当前年限或进一步减免，而不是统一升到 10 年。

• 在表格中对每一行都选：
  👉 Reduction (of 5 or 7 years from the standard qualifying period of 10 years)
  用这个方式表达：你完全反对把他们拉到 10 年。

Q2 Dependants of Global Talent / Innovator Founder 是否保留 5 年？

推荐选项：
👉 Strongly agree

理由：

• 家庭要一起规划人生，主申请人 5 年能永居，配偶却要更久，破坏家庭统一与稳定。

• 家庭成员同样在英国工作、生活、纳税，也应享有同样时长的路径。

Q3 是否“不要”过渡安排（no transitional arrangements）？

题目是：“To what extent do you agree or disagree that there should not be transitional arrangements…?”

我们要表达：绝对不同意“没有过渡安排”。
👉 选：Strongly disagree

并在后面评论里（Q12 或其他开放题）重点批判：

Removing transitional protections for people who have already invested years of their lives, finances and family plans under the current rules would be deeply unfair and would undermine trust in the UK immigration system. People have taken life-changing decisions based on the promise of a 5-year route or a 10-year Long Residence route. Retrospectively moving the goalposts is morally wrong and legally risky.

Q4 Vulnerable groups 是否保留当前安排并豁免新规则？

表里有：

• Victims of domestic violence and abuse

• Bereaved partners

• Children / young adults who grew up in the UK without status

• Adults with long-term care needs

对所有行都选：
👉 Yes（retain current arrangements & exempt）

Q5 还有其他 vulnerable groups？

可以写：

Yes. Low-paid key workers (especially in care and health support roles), single parents, people with disabilities, survivors of trafficking and exploitation, and long-term residents who arrived as children should all be treated as vulnerable in the sense that they should not face extra hurdles or extended waiting times for settlement. Many already experience structural disadvantages in the labour market and society; the settlement system should not add to this.

Q6 Armed Forces & family：保留现状 or 更快？

推荐：

• Members of HM Armed Forces：Further reductions should be applied 或至少 Retain

• Immediate family members：同上

理由：他们为英国承担了极大牺牲，不应成为“earned settlement”加严的对象。

Q7–8 Dependants 是否要“自己赚取永居”？

问题是：

To what extent do you agree or disagree that dependant partners/children should earn settlement in their own right?

我们要反对“把家庭成员从属于独立积分制”，所以：

• Q7（partners）：👉 Strongly disagree

• Q8（children）：👉 Strongly disagree

并可补充观点：

Family unity is a core principle. Dependant partners and children structure their lives around the principal migrant’s status and work. Forcing them to “earn settlement in their own right”, through income or other criteria, ignores unpaid care, gendered division of labour and children’s best interests.

Q9 Resettled refugees 10 年路线？

推荐选项：
👉 Strongly disagree

理由：

• 难民本身就是受迫害群体，需要的是迅速稳定的长期身份，以便康复、融入和就业。

• 把他们拖在不稳定状态下 10 年，不利于心理健康、就业融入，也与英国一贯的人道政策形象不符。

Q10–11（只对提供移民服务的机构）可以留空，或简单回答：

• Q10：Yes – many groups will face barriers

• Q11：勾所有：documentation / complexity / language / financial / health / access to advice
  并强调：新政策严重加大了法律复杂性，小机构和弱势群体难以承受。

Q12 进一步意见（尤其是对子女影响）

示范回答：

The proposed earned settlement model will hit children particularly hard. Children do not choose their immigration route, their parents’ income level or whether their family needs to access public funds. Yet, under these reforms, they would bear the consequences in the form of much longer insecurity, greater risk of poverty and instability, and potential separation from parents if different family members qualify at different times.

A fair system must prioritise children’s best interests by providing clear, short and predictable routes to settlement for those who grow up in the UK or whose families have established their lives here. Extending qualifying periods to 10 or 15 years does the opposite.

八、Impact on organisations（如果以“个人”身份，可以不答）

如果你偶尔也想以“organisation / law firm”身份填写，可以简单这样：

• 对吸引候选人、留住员工、workforce planning：全部选 Very negative impact

• 行政负担：Very negative impact

• “是否会减少未来赞助意愿”：Much less likely to sponsor

• 开放题：说明新政策会严重打击英国对国际人才的吸引力，增加合规复杂度和成本，促使人才转向加拿大、澳大利亚和欧盟国家。

Sample Letter to the Home Office – Formal Consultation Response to “A Fairer Pathway to Settlement”

Dear Sir or Madam,

I am writing to submit my formal response to the consultation on “A Fairer Pathway to Settlement”. Having carefully reviewed the Command Paper and the proposed model of “Earned Settlement”, I must express my profound dissatisfaction and strong opposition to the policy framework in its entirety.

My objections concern the purpose, design, fairness, legality, and practical consequences of the proposed reforms. In its current form, the “earned settlement” model represents a profound departure from the principles of good administration, legal certainty, social fairness, and basic human dignity.

1. A fundamental objection: Settlement must not become a wealth-based points game

The proposed system turns settlement—from what has long been a stable, rules-based outcome of lawful residence—into a complex, punitive, and discriminatory scoring regime.
The framework:

• Prioritises wealth and high salaries

• Punishes low-paid but socially essential workers

• Penalises periods of hardship or caring responsibilities

• Creates a two-tier hierarchy of migrants based on income and class

• Imposes uncertainty for over a decade on people already integrated into UK society

This contradicts the UK’s long-standing approach to settlement as a recognition of long residence, lawful conduct, and genuine ties to the UK, rather than a reward for high earnings or “contribution points”.

2. The proposals are unclear, incoherent, and administratively unworkable

The Command Paper lacks clarity on:

• The interaction of multiple reductions and extensions

• How applicants are expected to calculate their qualifying period

• Which groups receive exemptions

• The treatment of dependants and children

• How the scheme interacts with existing routes such as 10-year Long Residence, family life, or human rights routes

The structure is so convoluted that ordinary migrants—and even immigration professionals—cannot determine how many years an applicant will need. This is incompatible with the principle of legal certainty.

3. The proposals violate legitimate expectations and undermine trust in the UK immigration system

Thousands of migrants and families have made life-changing decisions—purchasing homes, raising children, establishing careers—based on the clear expectation that settlement requires 5 years, or 10 years under the Long Residence route.

To retrospectively impose 10 to 15 years, without any credible transitional protections, constitutes:

• A breach of legitimate expectation

• An abuse of power under established administrative law principles

• A deeply unfair shifting of the goalposts

• A severe erosion of trust in the integrity of the UK immigration system

The UK should not build a system that punishes people for believing in the rules that the government itself set.

4. Income thresholds, job-level stratification, and welfare penalties are discriminatory

I strongly oppose:

• Income-based reductions

• Extending settlement to 15 years for RQF 3–5 occupations

• Penalising applicants for accessing public funds during crises

• Linking settlement eligibility to years of “not claiming benefits”

• The removal of the 10-year Long Residence route

These measures disproportionately harm:

• Key workers in health and social care

• Cleaners, delivery workers, hospitality and retail staff

• Single parents

• Women (who are statistically more likely to work part-time due to unpaid care)

• Ethnic minorities

• People with disabilities

• Families in temporary financial difficulty

Penalising the poor for being poor is neither moral nor proportionate.

5. Harm to families and children: a direct conflict with the principle of the best interests of the child

I strongly disagree with proposals requiring:

• Dependant partners to “earn settlement independently”

• Children to remain in limbo for 10+ years

• Families to qualify at different times

Children do not choose their parents’ income, visa category, or temporary hardships, yet they would bear the consequences under this policy.

This contradicts the UK's obligations under:

• The Children Act 1989

• The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child

• Long-established domestic case law prioritising the best interests of the child

A fair settlement system must protect children, not subject them to prolonged insecurity.

6. Excessive penalties for overstaying or irregularity undermine proportionality

Existing immigration law already imposes significant consequences for irregular entry or overstaying, including:

• No right to work

• No right to rent

• No access to services

• Risk of removal

Imposing a 5-20 year penalty on top of these is unjustified and wholly disproportionate.
It risks trapping people in undocumented limbo, encourages exploitation, and harms entire families.

7. The proposals undermine the UK's competitiveness, economic growth, and global reputation

The new system will:

• Discourage global talent from choosing the UK

• Make recruitment and retention harder for UK employers

• Increase administrative burden on the Home Office

• Encourage high-skilled migrants to relocate to competitor countries

• Damage the UK’s reputation for fairness, stability, and rule of law

At a time when the UK already faces labour shortages and international competition, this policy would actively push people away.

8. Conclusion: The “earned settlement” model must be withdrawn entirely

For all the reasons outlined above, I consistently selected:

• Strongly disagree

• There should be no extensions/penalties

• The current 5-year routes and 10-year Long Residence should be maintained

• Settlement should remain simple, predictable, and fair

I therefore urge the Home Office to:

Withdraw the “earned settlement” framework, retain the existing 5-year settlement routes, and preserve the 10-year Long Residence route without modification.

This is essential for maintaining fairness, legal certainty, social cohesion, and the UK's attractiveness to the global workforce.

Thank you for considering this response.

Yours faithfully,
[Your Name]