Our latest Global Heads Huddle on Immigration Policy Development & Implementation revealed something fascinating: whilst regulatory changes dominated as the biggest challenge (cited by 50% of participants), the real debate that consumed the room was far more nuanced - how much immigration support should companies actually provide, and at what cost?
Our opening polls painted an intriguing picture. Nearly half the group (44%) rated themselves a confident 4 out of 5 on their immigration policy frameworks. Yet a quarter sat at the lowest confidence level of 1. This wasn't just statistical noise - it revealed a fundamental split between organisations with established approaches and those genuinely struggling to find the right balance.
Geographically, Europe emerged as the primary immigration headache (43% of respondents), with Americas close behind (29%). Notably, 29% selected multiple regions - meaning APAC, Africa, and Middle East challenges are likely represented within that group, just not as standalone primary concerns.
The conversation that dominated the session centred on UK Indefinite Leave to Remain (ILR) and permanent residency support globally. The approaches varied wildly, revealing starkly different philosophies.
Some organisations support employees and dependants through to ILR, viewing it as the most cost-effective long-term strategy. The logic? Get them over the line to permanent status and you stop paying for ongoing visa renewals entirely. Others flatly refuse to support ILR - viewing it as a retention mechanism that ties employees to the company, though members noted employees often pursue it independently anyway.
One member posed the uncomfortable question: "Is not supporting ILR really about cost, or is it about trying to tie people to the company?" The group's consensus leaned towards the former being a false economy. Supporting ILR may feel expensive upfront, but the ongoing renewal costs often exceed it. So, it clearly is a retention thing!
The discussion then extended beyond the troublesome UK! Members shared approaches to permanent residency in Canada (cheaper, more commonly supported), Australia and the UK (expensive, policies vary), and even the UAE Golden Visa as a cost-effective route for eligible employees. Clawback clauses featured prominently - with repayment periods ranging from one to two years depending on the organisation and jurisdiction.
Perhaps the most sobering moment came when discussing the recent UK salary threshold increases. One member shared they would sever employment if new immigration rules required significantly higher salaries they weren't prepared to pay. They've stopped hiring international graduates for precisely this reason.
The legal reality proved murky. Losing the right to work can constitute grounds for termination - but what if the employee actually meets the new criteria? The feeling in the room was clear: you can't simply decide not to sponsor if legal requirements are met, at least not without getting professional advice. It's a minefield requiring careful navigation.
The group's advice? Constant communication and proactive planning. Immigration landscapes shift rapidly, and employees need regular updates alongside warnings to plan ahead themselves.
An interesting framework emerged around segmenting immigration processes and policies into distinct categories: new recruits, ongoing support, traditional global mobility assignments, and international business travel. Each requires fundamentally different approaches.
On the vendor question - should you use one provider or separate vendors for international business travel versus traditional GM? The advice was pragmatic: it depends on how much of the process you own beyond just immigration. High-volume, low-touch international business travel might warrant a specialist like CIBT, whilst traditional assignments require high-touch support. The ideal scenario? An international business travel compliance tool linked to booking systems like Concur, identifying complex scenarios requiring GM support the moment a trip is booked. Even that's often too late, but it's a step in the right direction.
Members shared candid vendor experiences. One organisation uses their global vendor across all regions including challenging locations like West Africa. Another faces local HR pressure for regional providers in APAC - apparently a cultural preference.
The group leaned towards global providers for consistency, particularly for lean teams. But performance varies significantly. One member described one particular vendor as too robotic, unable to handle ad-hoc calls or think creatively. Frustrated, they've started calling another vendor that isn't actually contracted with them but they have a good relationship with. The takeaway? Immigration providers must understand your business, not just process paperwork.
The final segment demonstrated the sheer breadth of immigration responsibilities Global Heads manage. Who owns UK Right to Work checks? Most teams advise and oversee, but local HR or shared services execute. Though some do own it entirely - particularly lone GM professionals covering international aspects for their region.
Continuous service when employees relocate across entities sparked debate. One member had been quoted an industry survey claiming 85% of companies don't honour it - yet everyone on the call actually does. A very unhelpful data point for anyone facing similar questions! Interestingly though, the quoted survey cannot be found, so we wondered if there was some selective research occurring by a biased stakeholder!
And then the UK Autumn Budget dropped mid-session, announcing changes to Class 2 National Insurance contributions that eliminate voluntary contributions whilst abroad. Members immediately pivoted to discussing NIC implications on bonuses - with the surprising revelation that after analysing data, HMRC might actually owe companies money in some cases.
This session exposed a fundamental tension in immigration policy: the desire to control costs whilst maintaining competitive support that attracts and retains talent. Members are making difficult decisions - from refusing certain types of support to potentially severing employment when immigration costs become untenable.
Yet the consensus emerged that some "cost-saving" measures prove penny wise and pound foolish. Not supporting permanent residency to save upfront costs often results in higher long-term expenditure through endless renewals. The challenge isn't just finding the right policy - it's communicating constantly in a rapidly shifting regulatory landscape, segmenting approaches by employee type, and ensuring vendors truly understand your business rather than robotically processing applications.
It's this combination of strategic thinking, honest cost-benefit analysis, and pragmatic vendor management that separates effective immigration policy from expensive box-ticking exercises. Thanks to everyone who made this such a valuable, honest conversation!
This session represents just one example of the candid, peer-to-peer discussions that happen in our Global Heads Huddles - where senior mobility leaders tackle the challenges keeping them up at night in a safe, confidential environment. The real value isn't just hearing what others have done, it's being in the conversation, asking your own questions, and building relationships with peers facing similar dilemmas. Curious about joining our community of GM leaders? Drop me a line! greg@expat-academy.com