In brief
- Residency and citizenship solutions provide clients with optionality, both to support the diversification of family, business and wealth, and in times of global uncertainty.
- However, immigration planning requires deep and careful consideration. While holding multiple nationalities is often desirable, there are some circumstances where this can create complications, such as in a genuine emergency: a client with several passports may find that none of them provides the protection they actually need.
- The interaction between investment migration and refugee and asylum law deserves greater attention in political risk planning conversations.
- Effective plan B planning requires a holistic assessment of where clients could genuinely build a life.
Introduction
For much of the last decade, when a client arrived at our offices and we asked for a copy of their passport, the standard response was: "Which one?" That reflex is changing. The advice underpinning a genuine plan B looks very different today from how it looked ten years ago.
Passive passport collection has given way to a deeper question, one shaped by watching what happens when things go wrong: if a family needed to uproot at short notice, where would genuinely be safe, sustainable and desirable to live? Political instability, war, conflict and politically motivated prosecutions are not receding. The question that matters is no longer which documents a family holds, but where they and their children could actually continue their lives.
The architecture of "Plan B" has changed
In years gone by it has been commonplace for high-net-worth clients to accumulate passports much as they built a portfolio of alternative assets. That landscape has since shifted. Despite the remaining appeal of many citizenship and residency-by-investment programmes, political scrutiny has intensified, and some programmes have closed altogether. This has fed a broader reputational concern among some high-net-worth clients when considering their global immigration options.
The more fundamental shift for some, however, is not the closure of individual programmes. It is the change in the underlying question. Where do I actually want to be, and what would it genuinely mean to live there? When planning is driven by real contingency rather than by tax planning or a few weeks a year abroad, the questions asked become correspondingly more serious. As more high-net-worth families see others forced to rely on their plan B, the exercise becomes less theoretical and far more grounded in what is actually needed: Is the destination politically stable? Is the rule of law reliable? Is the healthcare system one you would trust? Are the schools good enough that your children's education would not suffer? Is the business environment genuinely open? And is the country on the cover of that passport actually somewhere you could call home? These are questions that demand sustained, serious advisory work, not a transactional mindset.
Why London remains compelling
London remains one of the most desirable destinations in the world for internationally-minded, high-net-worth families, and there are signs that the policy environment is moving in a more welcoming direction. It is a truly global city: a common law jurisdiction with centuries of institutional reliability; legal and financial infrastructure trusted internationally; a time zone bridging Asia and the Americas; a cultural life of exceptional depth; and an educational ecosystem among the best in the world.
On the policy side, momentum may be building around the potential reintroduction of a UK investor visa route. The closure of the Tier 1 Investor visa in 2022 left a gap that is yet to be filled, and the recognition that the UK is competing internationally for capital and talent has not disappeared. Increasingly, the value of state-backed investment visas is being discussed as a level to bolster the UK's strategy for economic growth. Discussions around a reformed investor visa have gained traction in policy circles, and we believe the arguments for it are compelling. Mishcon de Reya recently supported the Institute for Public Policy Research in their report on the design of a new investor visa and have contributed to discussions with Government around this topic. Whilst client desire for a UK investor visa is clear, in the meantime there are viable alternative options which can suit a range of individuals, families and businesses alike.
For the clients we advise, London is rarely the place they are trying to leave. More often, it is the place they are trying to secure the right to remain in, or the ability to return to, when uncertainty elsewhere makes that necessary.
Global options still have value
Residency routes, long-term visa options and citizenship programmes remain available in various forms, and for the right client in the right circumstances they can form a meaningful part of a well-structured plan. The point is not that these options lack value; it is that they must be considered with high levels of scrutiny, both of the programme itself and of the destination. What a status actually confers in practice, how secure it is against future regulatory change, and what daily life in that country would genuinely look like are questions that require comprehensive, unflinching answers.
When more passports create more problems
One dimension of this conversation is rarely discussed openly, yet it has become increasingly relevant in our practice: the interaction between multiple nationalities and the right to seek international protection, including asylum.
Asylum is available to individuals with a well-founded fear of persecution in their country of nationality who are unable or unwilling to avail themselves of that country's protection, for a Convention reason, including political opinion. The critical phrase is country of nationality.
Where a client holds multiple nationalities, the legal position becomes significantly more complex: a person with more than one nationality is generally expected to seek protection from whichever of those countries is able and willing to protect them, before asylum in a third state will be considered. In practice, a client who has accumulated passports across several jurisdictions may discover, too late, that none of them offers the protection they actually need, or a place they would want to build a life.
This is not an argument against holding multiple nationalities. It is an argument for understanding, clearly and in advance, what each nationality actually means in a genuine emergency, and for ensuring that a client's overall structure has been considered with that scenario in mind. The relationship between investment migration and refugee and asylum law deserves more attention than it typically receives in planning conversations involving political risk. Wealth is not a shield against state persecution; in some cases, it is precisely what makes someone a target.
The adviser's role has evolved
Advisers now need to help families think clearly and honestly about where they want to be, and whether the options they have assembled genuinely serve that purpose. That requires a breadth of perspective extending beyond immigration law: tax planning: an understanding of geopolitics, educational infrastructure, healthcare systems, and the social and cultural realities of different destinations. It requires asking clients questions they may not have asked themselves, and treating the possibility of things going wrong as a scenario that deserves careful planning. For families thinking seriously about these questions, London remains not a departure point, but a destination.
A plan B needs to actually work, it needs to be considered, informed and tested well beyond the passport; which may not turn out to be the answer at all.
How Mishcon de Reya can help
Contingency planning is most effective when it begins before a crisis. If you or your clients are beginning to think about plan B; whether that is securing the right to remain in the UK, understanding what existing nationalities or residency rights actually mean in practice, or navigating a situation where political risk is looming, early, specialist immigration advice can make a significant and sometimes critical difference to the options available.
Lucy Humphreys is a Managing Associate in the Private Client team at Mishcon de Reya, with particular experience advising high-net-worth individuals, globally mobile families and politically exposed clients on immigration contingency planning and international protection matters.
To discuss any of the issues raised in this article, please contact Lucy.