Up to 6,000 illegal migrants will be deported every week under a Reform UK government, Zia Yusuf has announced. Nigel Farage’s home affairs chief says 600,000 people will be removed over five years, a move he insists will end the small boats “invasion”.
In a hard-hitting speech, he said bluntly that the UK is being “invaded”. And he pledged: “When Nigel Farage becomes our Prime minister, gone are the days when your rights are trampled in the service of foreign citizens.
“Never again will British people be second-class citizens in their own country.”
Mr Yusuf will set out his radical masterplan – Operation Restoring Justice – in a major speech in Dover. His Trump-style proposals include sweeping legislative changes, including leaving the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), mass deportations, and a zero-tolerance approach to knife crime and Islamist extremism.
Reform’s Zia Yusuf in Huge Immigration Announcement – ‘Our Country Is Being Invaded’
Reform UK’s Zia Yusuf has put immigration at the centre of the party’s plans for government, declaring that Britain is being “invaded” and promising a dramatic expansion of immigration enforcement if Nigel Farage becomes prime minister.
Yusuf, Reform UK’s shadow home secretary, has outlined a programme that would combine military intervention in the English Channel, large-scale deportations, expanded detention facilities and tougher rules for people seeking to remain in Britain.
The language used by Yusuf is among the strongest in British political debate over immigration. But behind the rhetoric is a detailed set of proposals that Reform says would fundamentally change how Britain manages its borders and immigration system.
In a speech at the party’s September conference, Yusuf said more than 200,000 people had arrived on British beaches illegally in small boats over the previous eight years. He promised that a Reform government would deploy the Royal Navy, return people attempting to cross the Channel to France and launch what he described as the largest mass-deportation operation in modern British history.
Earlier in February, Yusuf had already used the term “invasion” when announcing Reform’s proposed UK Deportation Command.
“Our country is being invaded,” he told reporters in Dover, adding that, as home secretary, he would seek to “end and indeed reverse” what he described as an invasion.
The announcement has therefore become a defining part of Reform UK’s immigration strategy.
What Reform is proposing
At the heart of the programme is a proposed UK Deportation Command.
Reform says the new organisation would be responsible for identifying, detaining and removing people who have no legal right to remain in Britain.
The party has proposed a detention capacity of up to 24,000 people and annual deportation capacity of up to 288,000. That would require a substantial expansion of the current immigration detention system, together with more removal flights, staff and administrative resources.
The proposal has repeatedly been compared with America’s Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency, or ICE.
Yusuf has accepted that there are similarities in terms of immigration enforcement but has rejected the suggestion that Britain would simply reproduce the American model. He said a British Deportation Command would operate within Britain’s different policing environment and did not envisage its officers routinely carrying firearms.
Nevertheless, the comparison has become a central part of the political debate because Reform’s proposal would represent a major expansion of immigration-enforcement capacity.
Operation Fortress and the Channel
The deportation programme is only one half of Reform’s strategy.
The party also wants to prevent people from reaching Britain by small boat in the first place.
Its proposed Operation Fortress would involve the Royal Navy being deployed to the Channel to intercept boats attempting to cross.
In September, Yusuf said a Reform government would return people attempting to make the crossing to France and would seek to stop the boats within its first 100 days in office. Reform says its objective is to move from what it describes as open borders to much more secure borders.
That proposal raises practical questions about international cooperation.
France would need to accept returned passengers, while British authorities would have to determine how interceptions could be conducted safely and consistently.
There would also be questions about asylum law and the treatment of people who claim protection after being intercepted.
Reform’s position is that illegal Channel crossings should no longer result in automatic access to the British asylum system.
The scale of the deportation programme
The proposed deportation operation is unusually ambitious.
Reform has previously described a system capable of removing up to 288,000 people a year.
Reuters reported that the party’s plans included an “Illegal Migration Mass Deportation Act” that would create a legal obligation on the government to deport people without legal status. Reform has also proposed visa restrictions against countries that refuse to accept the return of their nationals.
Yusuf’s September speech went further in its political presentation, promising the removal of every foreign national who entered Britain illegally.
The distinction between the political objective and the practical process is important.
Not every person without legal status can necessarily be removed immediately. Authorities must establish identity and nationality, secure travel documentation and obtain cooperation from another country where required.
Some cases may also involve appeals, family circumstances or other legal issues.
The proposed target would therefore require an enormous administrative operation.
The legal framework would change
Reform’s immigration programme also includes major constitutional and legal proposals.
The party has said it would leave the European Convention on Human Rights and repeal the Human Rights Act.
It argues that Britain’s existing legal framework gives courts too much power to delay or prevent deportations.
Yusuf has proposed legislation designed to compel the government to remove people who have no legal right to remain and reduce the ability of judges to intervene in deportation cases.
Opponents argue that such changes would weaken important legal protections.
The disagreement is therefore not simply about the number of people deported.
It is also about how much power the executive should have over immigration decisions and what role courts should continue to play.
Any Reform government attempting to implement these proposals would have to pass legislation through Parliament and deal with the consequences of withdrawing from international agreements.
The “invasion” language
Yusuf’s use of the word “invasion” has attracted considerable attention.
He has defended the description by arguing that large numbers of people arriving without permission constitute an “incursion by a large number of people in an unwanted way”, saying the word should be understood according to its dictionary meaning.
The term has nevertheless been challenged by political opponents.
Labour has accused Reform of using divisive rhetoric, while other politicians have argued that people crossing the Channel include asylum seekers fleeing conflict and persecution.
The factual debate is complicated by the fact that people arriving by small boat are not necessarily all in the same legal category.
Some may ultimately qualify for protection, while others may have their claims rejected and become liable for removal.
The government’s responsibility is therefore not only to control the border but also to determine individual cases under the applicable law.
Reform’s argument about national security
Yusuf has framed immigration as a national-security issue rather than solely an economic or administrative problem.
When announcing the Deportation Command in February, he described immigration levels as a “national security emergency”. Reuters reported that Reform’s policy was aimed at stopping what the party described as an immigration “invasion”.
This framing reflects Reform’s wider argument that uncontrolled migration affects housing, public services, welfare expenditure and national cohesion.
The party says that a government must be capable of determining who enters the country and who is allowed to remain.
Its opponents dispute both the scale of the threat and the methods proposed to address it.
That disagreement is likely to remain central to Britain’s political debate.
Public attitudes are more complicated
Polling shows that immigration remains a highly significant political issue, but public attitudes are not simply divided into two opposing camps.
A YouGov study found that 79% of Britons believed there had been too much illegal immigration over the previous decade, while 48% believed legal immigration had also been too high.
The same research found substantially different attitudes toward legal and illegal migration. Respondents were much more negative about illegal migration, while views about legal migrants were more mixed.
The findings are relevant because Reform’s proposals encompass several different categories of migration.
People arriving by small boats, foreign workers, students, asylum seekers and people already settled in Britain are not interchangeable groups.
YouGov found that support for large-scale removals was much higher among Reform voters than among Labour or Liberal Democrat voters, but it also found that many respondents made distinctions between different types of migrants.
That suggests that public opinion on immigration is more nuanced than the political slogans sometimes imply.
The economic question
A major issue surrounding Reform’s plans is their economic impact.
The party argues that reducing illegal immigration would save money by lowering spending on accommodation, welfare and other services.
It also wants to restrict benefits for foreign nationals and reduce what it describes as incentives for people to migrate to Britain.
However, immigration also affects the labour market.
Foreign workers are employed across healthcare, social care, hospitality, construction, agriculture and other sectors.
Reducing legal migration could therefore have consequences for employers facing labour shortages.
This is particularly relevant to the NHS and social-care system, where international recruitment has played a significant role.
Reform says its answer would be greater domestic training and a stronger emphasis on British workers.
Whether those measures could replace migrant labour at the required speed would be an important question for any future government.
Reform’s wider immigration model
The proposals announced by Yusuf form part of a much broader attempt to redesign Britain’s immigration system.
The party wants to:
- stop small-boat arrivals;
- create a large deportation command;
- expand detention capacity;
- remove people without legal status;
- impose pressure on countries refusing to accept deportees;
- change asylum rules;
- restrict welfare access for foreign nationals;
- replace or reform existing settlement arrangements; and
- withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights.
The party says these measures would ultimately allow Britain to achieve what it describes as net-negative immigration.
That objective means not merely reducing the number of people entering Britain but reaching a position where departures exceed arrivals.
The first 100 days
Yusuf has repeatedly presented the programme as something Reform would begin immediately after entering government.
In September, he promised that the first 100 days would include the deployment of the Royal Navy to stop small boats and the beginning of a large-scale deportation programme.
This fits with Reform’s broader “First 100 Days” political strategy.
The party wants voters to believe that a Reform administration would move rapidly rather than spend years gradually changing policy.
But the practical timetable would depend on Parliament, government departments, the courts and foreign governments.
Creating detention facilities and establishing international removal arrangements cannot necessarily be achieved simply through a ministerial announcement.
A major test for Reform
Zia Yusuf’s immigration announcement is therefore about more than one policy.
It provides a window into how Reform UK says it would govern.
The party is proposing a state with significantly greater immigration-enforcement powers, a much larger deportation infrastructure and a different relationship between ministers and the courts.
The language is equally significant.
By describing illegal immigration as an “invasion”, Yusuf has deliberately placed the issue within a national-security framework and made border control one of the clearest dividing lines between Reform and its political opponents.
The government’s response is that it is already increasing removals and attempting to reduce illegal migration. Labour has also criticised Reform’s approach as divisive. Reuters reported that Labour said Reform wanted to divide the country rather than deliver for the British public.
The political argument is therefore becoming increasingly defined around two competing approaches.
Reform proposes rapid and extensive enforcement, including mass deportations and military involvement in the Channel.
Its opponents argue that immigration must be controlled while maintaining legal protections and international obligations.
For Reform, the next stage is turning its proposals into a credible governing programme.
If Nigel Farage eventually enters Downing Street, Yusuf’s plans would face immediate tests over money, manpower, legislation, international cooperation and the courts.
The political slogan may be simple — stop the boats, deport those without legal status and achieve net-negative immigration.
Delivering those objectives would be considerably more complicated.
What is clear is that Reform UK has made immigration one of the defining pillars of its political programme, and Zia Yusuf has emerged as one of the principal architects of that strategy.
His declaration that “our country is being invaded” has become the headline phrase attached to the policy.
The more consequential question, however, is what follows the rhetoric: whether the proposed Deportation Command, Operation Fortress and sweeping legal changes could actually be implemented at the scale Reform has promised.