In a world defined by movement — for education, work, safety, and love — immigration law stands as both a gatekeeper and a guide. Whether you’re looking to settle in London or start a new life in Mumbai, your journey is shaped by the rules written into each country’s legal system. The United Kingdom hereinafter to be referred as UK and India, once bound by colonial rule, today stand as sovereign nations with distinct yet surprisingly comparable immigration frameworks. Both face the challenges of managing migration in a globalized world, balancing national interest with humanitarian responsibility.
This article dives into the immigration laws of these two countries, how they’ve evolved, how they differ, and what connects them.
Historical Roots: Colonial Legacies and Legal Foundations
The UK and India share a legal history — India’s legal framework, including its early immigration controls, was influenced by British colonial rule. Laws like the Foreigners Act 1946, in India came into existence during the final years of British rule and continue to underpin immigration policy today.
The UK’s own immigration controls began taking formal shape around the same time. The Immigration Act 1971 is a cornerstone of British immigration law, introducing key terms like “leave to enter” and “leave to remain” — ideas similar to India’s “visa” and “residency” requirements.
Both countries’ systems evolved as responses to post-war migration, independence movements, economic growth, and — more recently — globalization.
Entry into the Country: Who Can Come and How
India operates a visa-based entry system. Visitors can apply for tourist, student, employment, business, or medical visas, with durations ranging from a few months to several years. Most applications are now digital through the e-Visa platform, and long-term visitors (over 180 days) must register with the FRRO (Foreigners Regional Registration Office).
The UK post-Brexit, has a points-based immigration system. Applicants must meet criteria around job offers, salary thresholds, English proficiency, and skills. Work visas, student visas, family reunification visas, and visitor visas are all tailored through this framework. The Home Office oversees entry, with strict border checks and documentation.
Similarity: Both countries segment immigration by purpose — work, study, family, or medical — and offer digital application systems.
Difference: The UK uses a points-based system to prioritize skilled labor, whereas India evaluates eligibility more traditionally, based on specific visa categories.
Settlement and Citizenship
Becoming a long-term resident or citizen is a significant step.
In India, there are limited paths to permanent residency or citizenship. Most foreigners live on long-term visas. Citizenship can be acquired through birth, descent, registration, or naturalization (typically after 11 years of residency), as per the Citizenship Act 1955.
In contrast, the UK allows immigrants to apply for Indefinite Leave to Remain (ILR) after 5 years (in most cases), followed by naturalization as a British citizen — if they meet language and residency requirements and pass the Life in the UK Test.
Similarity: Both countries require time spent living legally before a person becomes eligible for citizenship.
Difference: The UK offers a faster and more structured route to citizenship. India’s route is longer and more selective, with tighter controls.
Asylum and Refugee Protection
India hosts many refugees (Tibetans, Sri Lankan Tamils, Rohingyas, Afghans), but it lacks a formal refugee law. The UNHCR handles many asylum cases, and the state exercises wide discretion. India is not a signatory to the 1951 Refugee Convention, so protections are often ad hoc.
The UK, on the other hand, has a formal asylum system. It is a signatory to the Refugee Convention and offers legal rights to recognized refugees. However, recent changes, including the Illegal Migration Act 2023, have sparked criticism for limiting protections — especially for people entering via irregular routes.
Similarity: Both countries face public debate around refugee rights and border security.
Difference: The UK has a codified asylum process; India’s refugee handling is based on executive discretion and UN collaboration.
Deportation and Penalties
In India, the Foreigners Act 1946, and The Passport (Entry into India) Act 1920, empower the government to deport or detain foreigners who violate visa conditions or pose security risks.
The UK also enforces deportation under the Immigration Acts of 1971, 2014, and 2016, especially for those who overstay visas, commit crimes, or breach immigration rules. Deportation decisions can be appealed in immigration tribunals, though rights have been narrowed in recent years.
Similarity: Both countries have strict deportation rules, especially for national security and immigration fraud.
Difference: The UK system allows more formal legal challenge routes, whereas in India, the executive has broader discretion.
The Human Impact: More Than Just Laws
Behind these laws are people with hopes, fears, and dreams — a student wanting to study abroad, a nurse helping in hospitals, or a refugee fleeing conflict. Immigration law affects how these lives unfold.
In both countries, legal complexity can lead to confusion and hardship. Lack of legal aid, language barriers, bureaucratic delays, and policy changes can turn a hopeful journey into a frustrating one.
This is where lawyers, NGOs, and rights groups play a crucial role — not just interpreting the law, but ensuring it’s applied fairly and humanely.
What Can They Learn from Each Other?
India could benefit from a formal refugee law and clearer settlement pathways.
The UK could reconsider aspects of the hostile environment policy, especially post-Brexit, to attract talent and uphold human rights.
Both countries need to streamline bureaucracy, improve digital access, and ensure immigration policies are aligned with global best practices and local realities.
Part Three: Policy in the Past, Present, and Future on UK immigration:
Since 1997, UK policymakers have introduced sweeping reforms to manage migration, transitioning from a historical model based on colonial ties to a more regulated, skills-based system. Originally, laws like the British Nationality Act 1948 allowed free movement from Commonwealth nations, encouraging post-war immigration. However, political pressure led to increasingly restrictive laws in the 1960s and 70s, culminating in the Immigration Act 1971, which introduced tighter controls.
Post-Brexit, UK immigration policy underwent another major shift. Free movement for EU citizens ended, and a revised PBS now applies universally, prioritizing skilled labor, salary thresholds, and English proficiency. While this system offers consistency, it raises concerns over labor shortages and reduced refugee protections.
Looking ahead, UK migration policy must balance economic needs, humanitarian obligations, and social integration. Its evolution reflects broader questions about national identity, inclusion, and the values the country upholds in a globalized world.
From 1997 onward, the UK embraced a “managed migration” approach, focusing on economic benefits while responding to public concerns. Key reforms included the Points-Based System (PBS) in 2008, streamlined visa processes, and stricter asylum regulations. Yet, these changes often sparked criticism for fostering a hostile environment, especially toward undocumented migrants.
Post-1945 Immigration Policies: A UK–India Comparison
After 1945, both the United Kingdom and India were navigating seismic shifts. The UK was adjusting to the decline of its empire and an influx of migrants, while India was newly independent, managing partition, displacement, and building its national identity.
UK’s Approach: Control and Integration
The UK’s response to post-war immigration was a balancing act. On one side, it sought to limit immigration, particularly from its former colonies, using laws in 1962, 1968, and the landmark 1971 Immigration Act, which essentially said: “We are full.” Even British passport holders from Commonwealth countries like India, Pakistan, and Jamaica were now subject to strict controls.At the same time, the UK introduced Race Relations Acts in 1965, 1968, and 1976 to combat racism and promote social cohesion — trying to integrate those who had already arrived. The result was a divided policy: welcoming in principle, restrictive in practice.
India’s Approach: Internal Movement and Minimal External Migration
India, on the other hand, was focused inward. The country was dealing with millions of refugees from Partition in 1947 — mainly between India and Pakistan. Immigration was largely a matter of national security and humanitarian response, rather than labor or economic migration.India introduced the Foreigner’s Act (1946) and Passport (Entry into India) Act (1920) to manage who could enter, but immigration control wasn’t as aggressively enforced unless it related to security concerns, such as illegal infiltration across borders. There was no formal refugee law, but India hosted large refugee communities (Tibetans, Bangladeshis, Afghans) based on political and moral grounds.
While the UK was crafting an identity around who could belong, India was trying to heal, unify, and stabilize its population. Immigration policy was less about restricting outsiders, and more about absorbing those displaced by trauma, especially during Partition and later crises.
Key Differences at a Glance:
| Aspect | United Kingdom | India |
| Focus | Restricting migration from former colonies | Managing refugees and border movement post-Partition |
| Major Laws | Immigration Acts (1962, 1968, 1971) + Race Relations | Foreigners Act (1946), Citizenship Act (1955) |
| Refugee Protection | Codified in asylum processes (eventually) | No formal refugee law, but moral/humanitarian response |
| Integration Approach | Anti-discrimination laws for resident migrants | Minimal – social integration was community-based |
| Public Sentiment | Growing tension over race and identity | More focus on internal unity and national rebuilding |
Conclusion: A Shared Future in a Global Age
While the UK and India have taken different paths in shaping their immigration laws, both reflect similar, deeply human tensions — a delicate balancing act between security and compassion, control and opportunity. On one hand, governments aim to protect borders, regulate movement, and maintain order. On the other, they must uphold the ideals of inclusion, human dignity, and the chance for individuals to start anew.
In today’s globalized and interconnected world, immigration is no longer just a legal process. It’s a human experience — filled with hope, sacrifice, and resilience. Whether it’s a skilled professional arriving in London to pursue a dream job, or a family landing in Delhi seeking safety and stability, every migrant brings more than just a passport — they bring a story, a contribution, a future.
Heathrow or IGI Airport, visa stamps or border checks — these are just the visible parts of migration. The deeper truth lies in the values behind the laws: are they fair, inclusive, humane? Do they recognize that movement is a natural part of being human?
Because in the end, immigration laws don’t just govern who gets in — they reflect who we are as nations, and who we aspire to be.
Contributed by : Loveshika (intern)