Anne Marie Waters 

December 9th 2019 

In our unique immigration policy, For Britain proposes radical reform. We know that migration concerns many Britons, and we also know that an important aspect of this concern is culture, or way of life. Cultural compatibility is vital, but is ignored in mainstream politics. Instead we are told that we now live in a multicultural society, and that this is entirely positive.

We do not accept this, we know that multiculturalism has caused serious and long term damage to the rule of law, cohesion, and a unifying British identity.

Furthermore, immigration has simply been too high, running at 100,000s of people per year added to the population. This is affecting the economy, particularly the government’s welfare bill, in a variety of significant ways. Housing costs are high, NHS spaces are sparse, and people are sending their children to schools bus rides away. We can’t turn a blind eye to the realities of mass immigration any longer.

Contrary to their scripted rhetoric at election time, the Conservatives intend to make immigration to the UK even easier. Boris Johnson has encouraged amnesty for illegal immigrants and in doing so, sent a dangerous message to the world; that Britain’s immigration laws are meaningless and don’t need to be adhered to.

Labour would open the borders to unlimited numbers.

A significant element of our immigration policy is to freeze immigration for 5 years. This is not a gimmick, it can be done, and it is necessary. Decades of dysfunction in migration must be called to a halt, and we must know exactly where we stand. We are clear that this will not impact the economy as work visas will still be issued, but we are also clear that dependence on foreign workers will be reduced in the near future, as we will invest in Britons and improve their options in the jobs market.

So what do we mean by “freeze immigration”? Let’s start with looking at immigration and how it happens.


The highest number of visas issued is to those coming to work – current rules say they must have a job offer.  While For Britain understands the need for foreign workers, and we will issue temporary work visas for that reason (including during the 5 year freeze), what cannot be accepted is the hiring of foreign workers at the expense of Britons.  The NHS is a good example.  While we consistently hear that the NHS couldn’t survive without foreign workers, 80,000 British students were unable to secure nurse training places in 2014, despite the health service hiring thousands of foreign nurses.

We are told that young Britons don’t want to work, but how can this be true when so many are refused opportunities?  It isn’t true; it is an excuse for cheaper labour at the expense of young Britons.  It must end.

The NHS must be obliged to offer training places for both doctors and nurses to British citizens first.  If it cannot afford this training, then funding should be re-prioritised.  For example, if the billions spent on ‘health tourism’ were instead spent on training young Britons, there would be little medium to long term need for foreign workers.  Similarly, young British aspiring doctors struggle to find medical school places, even while there is a shortage of doctors; a shortage that is filled with temporary doctors from across the world.  This presents enormous problems in terms of language and cultural differences between medical staff and patients.


In 2016-2017, there were more than 400,000 foreign students in the UK.  Most of these students make enormous contributions to our education system and economy and are welcome.  However, there is evidence to suggest that illegal immigration by those pretending to be students is a specific and significant issue.  In 2012, the National Audit Office reported that 50,000 people had entered Britain illegally the previous year by pretending to be students. For Britain will prioritise bringing illegal immigration to an end, while continuing to welcome legitimate students from across the world who bring huge assets to our country and economy.

Indefinite Leave to Remain

Applications for indefinite leave to remain are open to family members of British citizens, or those settled in the UK.

For Britain proposes calling a halt to both indefinite leave to remain and the granting of British citizenship for a period of 5 years.  This is both a radical and effective proposal that will transform migration to this country.  Britain needs time to get a grip on the entirely chaotic immigration situation as it is today.

We also propose a freeze on the numbers of workers and students coming from outside the UK, in order to incentivise the creation of greater opportunities for Britons.


Immigration via marriage and family is enormously important and needs a considered political response.  We don’t seek a situation where British citizens with foreign husbands/wives cannot live in Britain, but there are elements of family migration that need frank discussion and urgent reform.

According to Migration Watch:

“as late as 2001, it was estimated that 60% of Pakistani and Bangladeshi marriages in Bradford were with a spouse from the country of origin”. 

A rule to ensure that marriages to spouses from outside the UK were not solely for the purpose of arranging admission to the UK (the Primary Purpose Rule), was abolished by Labour in 1997.  Migration Watch states that “Since the abolition of the rule, the number of fiancé(e)s and spouses admitted to the UK has increased significantly”. 

For Britain will re-instate the Primary Purpose Rule.

It was reported in late 2018 that forced marriage of young British-born girls (primarily) is being used to facilitate migration to the UK. This must end.

Another route of family migration to the UK is via the asylum system – therefore this too must be transformed.  The current rules state that families may join asylum seekers in the UK if they were separated at the time of seeking asylum.  Families of migrants who have been given asylum or 5 years’ humanitarian protection, but do not yet have British citizenship, may come here. This invites entire families to Britain, and given the rather loose definition of asylum seeker, it’s an even bigger concern.

For example, when the mass exodus from Syria towards Europe began, along with Syrians came people from all over Africa and the Middle East with no discernible grounds for asylum.  Even the European Union admitted that only 1 in 5 “asylum seekers” were actually coming from war-torn Syria.  Therefore, For Britain proposes reform of asylum.  Only those who meet the strict definition of asylum seeker should be considered, and only when local government can afford to house such asylum seekers.  Asylum will be temporary and family reunification will end.

Marriages that are not recognised by UK laws, such as polygamous or child marriages, should not be considered valid in the UK.  Cousin marriage should also be prohibited.

Following a period of 5 years, migration will re-open, but For Britain believes that the cultural compatibility of migrants must be considered.

If migration to Britain is necessary, it should only be available to those with similar cultural values.  Europe, the United States, Australia, New Zealand and other countries with similar cultural values should be prioritised.  But even with this in place, individuals from within those societies will also be scrutinised, and those found to actively reject British culture, or our majority way of life, will be refused.

In summary, For Britain will bring an end to mass immigration.  We do not accept ‘net migration’ figures as an appropriate indicator of migration problems in our country.  If, for example, 1 million Middle Eastern migrants were to enter Britain, and 1 millions Brits leave, that would equate to 0 ‘net migration’.  It would also equate to a replacement of the British people in Britain.  Therefore, ‘net migration’ targets will cease and our migration policy will aim to keep Britain British.


Anne Marie Waters


For Britain