In the United Kingdom, political tension around migration is rising again after Nigel Farage, the leader of the right-wing populist movement, announced a plan to deport hundreds of thousands of asylum seekers and a radical rethinking of Britain’s role in international obligations. According to him, the government under his leadership should withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights and repeal the Human Rights Act to stop the migration flow, which, he says, threatens national security. As of 2024, the country recorded 108,100 asylum applications, and the flow of migrants across the English Channel from France had significantly increased – more than 28,000 people arrived by boat in a year.

The Reform UK plan, marketed as the most radical migration restructuring in contemporary British politics, envisages the creation of detention centers on military bases, where up to 24,000 people could be held at once. The party claims that such infrastructure would enable up to 288,000 deportations per year, and in Reform’s first Parliament they could deport up to 600,000 people.

“The mood in the country on this issue is a mix of complete disillusionment and growing anger,” Farage said at a Tuesday press conference. “This is an invasion, for these young men are entering our country illegally.”

– Nigel Farage

Reaction from experts and human rights advocates

Experts and human rights advocates question the ethics and feasibility of such plans. Laura Smith, co-chair of the Legal Department of the Joint Council for Immigrant Welfare, called the idea “unrealizable” and stressed that it should not be assumed that the government cannot act through international legal agreements; in her view, treaty frameworks protect people applying for asylum at the time their case is considered.

“Honestly, this is nothing more than a dangerous fantasy,” said Laura Smith. “In addition to being morally abhorrent to send people to a country where they may face torture and death, it is a mistake to think that the government cannot do this solely because of international legal agreements.”

– Laura Smith

Another partner at Bindmans LLP, Roberta Haslam, stressed that Farage’s vision is “unrealizable”; in her words, the costs of deporting hundreds of thousands of people would be “astronomically high,” and the Rwanda plan previously demonstrated how complex such agreements can be (this plan had previously been ruled illegal by the UK Supreme Court).

“The Rwanda plan demonstrates how complex such arrangements can be,”

– Roberta Haslam

UK law currently provides for liability for entering without a visa or prior permission, which can carry a prison term of up to four years. However, international conventions protect those who immediately apply for asylum; if their cases are successful they cannot be held accountable for the manner of entry. Farage’s plan goes beyond prior concepts of Rwanda deportations, and his team is also discussing the possibility of payments to the Afghan regime for returning migrants who entered the country illegally.

“We have a budget of 2 billion pounds to offer to countries,”

– Zia Yusuf

Yusuf also noted that the government already provides Afghanistan with about £151 million per year in humanitarian aid and criticized that Britain’s “aid” is being misused. After Farage’s remarks, government representatives did not provide concrete sites for hosting deportation flights, highlighting the plan’s sensitivity and uncertainty.

Overall, human rights and legal experts agree that mass deportations, undertaken heedlessly, could violate existing norms and undermine the country’s international reputation. They emphasize that even with political will, it is difficult to reconcile radical steps with the legislative and judicial procedural norms that govern asylum and removal.

Ultimately, discussions of such initiatives reveal the characteristic tensions between hardline migration-reform policy and the legal frameworks that protect people seeking asylum. In light of current migration challenges, the United Kingdom continues to face questions about balancing security, humanitarian obligations, and the practical feasibility of implementing radical plans within the law.