Welcome to the weekly Free Movement newsletter!
Last week, the Home Secretary gave evidence to the Justice and Home Affairs Committee, defending the earned settlement proposals against criticism that people with indefinite leave would be making net positive economic contributions for decades. She was urged to modify her language and to stop characterising this cohort as a drain on public services. She declined, though with the incoming PM facing a revolt over these policies, she may have to soon.
There was also a brief discussion of the Immigration and Asylum Bill (which has its second reading today), including the replacement of immigration judges with adjudicators in the new Independent Immigration Appeals Authority – an approach that Public Law Project says is prioritising speed over justice. When pressed on whether adjudicators would have access to a legal adviser, as magistrates in the criminal justice system do, the Home Secretary confirmed the system would work in exactly the same way, but adjudicators would also be trained.
Lord Dubs asked where the new policy on refugee family reunion was. The answer was: nowhere yet. The Refugee Council have estimated that the suspension has prevented 16,300 people from reuniting with family members. More details are expected later in the year.
A new statement of changes to the immigration rules also dropped towards the end of last week. There was nothing too drastic, though there was a welcome fix for people who are on immigration bail, who will no longer be refused solely on that basis where the exception for overstayers applies. Read Alex Piletska’s commentary here.
Elsewhere on Free Movement, James Lamont has written a guide for employers who will need to learn how to conduct right to work checks following significant changes. These will come into force from 1 October and the advice is to get clued up now. We also have an explainer on the Tameside duty of inquiry from Rebecca Hacker which is cropping up more and more in cases challenging unfairness in immigration decisions.
Last week we covered the case of A1, where the First-tier Tribunal missed the fundamental issue concerning whether or not the appellant, who was appealing the decision to revoke his refugee status, still supported a terrorist organisation. This was central to assessing whether he was still a danger to the UK.
The latest episode of the Free Movement monthly update podcast is also out. Mala Savjani was back, which we timed well because she was able to tell us all about Wilsons Solicitors’ challenge to the Home Office’s good character citizenship policy. Listen on Spotify, Apple or here.
For everything else on Free Movement and elsewhere, read on.Â
Jasmine
What we’re reading
Community refugee sponsorship: how the Home Office can get its new safe‑and‑legal route right, The Conversation, 6 July 2026
July 2026 Briefing: Immigration and Asylum Bill, Refugee Council, 9 July 2026
Sinister calls and threats against schools: how a migrant charity was targeted by the right, The Bureau of Investigative Journalism, 6 July 2026
People power – public to determine asylum appeals, Law Gazette, 6 July 2026
The Immigration and Asylum Bill 2026: cruel, costly, and completely unnecessary, Work Rights Centre, 6 July 2026
New Research: The Impact of Accommodation Delays on Release from Immigration Detention, Bail for Immigration Detainees, 8 July 2026
APPGs Publish New Report on the Effects of Recent Changes to Immigration, Asylum and Refugee Policy on Poverty and Inequality, APPG Migration, 8 July 2026
Plan to build council houses for migrants halted due to cost, The i Paper, 10 July 2026