Brandon To: The Hong Kong litmus test for Conservative immigration policy

Brandon To is a Politics graduate from UCL and a Hong Kong BN(O) immigrant settled in Harrow.

A few days ago I organised a community forum in Parliament. Over 60 local constituents met our MP to discuss the proposed changes to settlement rules and how it affects Hong Kongers.

The discussion was not about open borders. It was not about special treatment. It was about something more fundamental:

What kind of immigrants does Britain actually want?

For years, our national debate has swung between two extremes. On one side, an open-door policy that forces Britain to accept everyone, including poorly integrated immigrants. On the other, a rising frustration that sees all immigration as inherently destabilising.

Conservatives should reject both.

If we believe in social cohesion and responsibility, our immigration policy must be selective, with benchmarks for integration and contribution.

And judged against that, Hong Kongers are not the problem, but rather the model immigrants that Britain should welcome.

Since the BN(O) route opened in 2020, Hong Kong arrivals have shown high employment rates, low (to almost none) welfare dependence, low crime involvement and rapid civic participation. Many have joined churches. Others have volunteered locally. I personally joined the Harrow Litter Pickers shortly after arriving because I see Harrow as my home now.

We do not march demanding Britain change for us. We adapt to Britain.

Yet the Government’s proposed changes risk unintentionally penalising Hong Kongers.

While the government claims that Hong Kongers remain on their 5-year to ILR route, the devil lies between the lines. Changes to income thresholds (from none to £12,570) and eligibility criteria (from B1 to B2 English) when many Hong Kong families are almost reaching settlement status are essentially punishing immigrants who followed the rules in good faith.

Salary is one proxy for economic integration, but it’s not the only one. The BN(O) route was never designed as a low-wage labour scheme. Many Hong Kong arrivals came with life savings, have invested in property, started small businesses, or are supporting children in British schools as full-fee payers. Others are elderly retirees with independent means. Some mothers have stepped back from employment due to caring responsibilities — a choice that British society has never treated as non-contribution when made by citizens.

A rigid income threshold risks mistaking administrative simplicity for serious policy design. It may filter out precisely the kinds of law-abiding, asset-holding households that Britain strives to welcome.

This is not a plea for leniency. It is a plea for predictability. That Hong Kong families will not be punished alongside other poorly integrated immigrants.

However, there seems to be a lack of such rhetoric in the party that introduced the BN(O) scheme back in 2020.

In the current political climate, many Conservative MPs are understandably cautious. With Reform polling strongly in parts of the country, any public support for a migrant group, risks being caricatured as weakness. But a confident Conservative Party should be able to distinguish between blanket hostility and selective endorsement.

Reform’s instinct is blunt opposition to migration in all forms. Labour’s approach is bureaucratic rigidity that fails to recognise contribution.The Conservative approach should be different: firm control overall, but clear differentiation between those who integrate and those who do not.

There are already colleagues who understand this.

I have had the privilege of meeting Sir Iain Duncan Smith (MP for Chingford and Woodford Green) and Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst (MP for Solihull West and Shirley), both of whom have been consistent voices of support for Hong Kongers. Their backing has never been rooted in sentimentality. It is rooted in principle: that Britain should stand by those who integrate, contribute and align with our values.

They understand that support for Hong Kongers is not a contradiction of conservative immigration policy, but rather an expression of it.

Kemi Badenoch has similarly indicated that routes such as BN(O) should remain protected. That instinct is correct. It reflects a broader truth: firmness on illegal or non-integrating migration must sit alongside clarity about the types of migrants Britain actively welcomes.

If we fail to make those distinctions, we leave the field to those who argue all migration is harmful, or to those who refuse to recognise legitimate public concern. But if we have the confidence to say that some migration strengthens Britain, and to defend that position, we reclaim the intellectual ground. Hong Kongers are not asking for special treatment. We are asking for consistency with the very principles Conservatives claim to uphold.

If the Party believes in contribution and integration, then Hong Kongers are not liabilities. We are the case study.

The question is whether the Conservative Party has the confidence to say so?