Reform have pledged to deport 600,000 people if they win power (Image: Getty)
Reform UK’s deportation plans will be like “Trump mark two” the party’s head of DOGE has claimed. Zia Yusuf, who this week stood alongside leader Nigel Farage as he pledged to remove 600,000 illegal migrants over five years, defended the party’s use of militaristic terms such as “invasion” and “fighting age males” to describe the ongoing migrant crisis.
Critics have argued that such language deliberately distorts the motivations behind those arriving in the UK via small boats, a figure that has reached record highs in 2025. He told the Sunday Times: “The notion that politicians can determine what is going to become mainstream language is for the birds. What is the dictionary definition of an invasion? It is an incursion by a group of people in an unwanted way.”
Get the latest politics news – straight from our team in Westminster and more
Invalid email
You agree you are 18 or over. We use your sign-up to provide content in ways you’ve consented to and to improve our understanding of you. This may include adverts from us and third parties based on our knowledge of you. You can unsubscribe at any time. More Info.
The party has vowed to detain and deport those who arrive by unofficial means (Image: Getty)
Earlier this week, Reform UK set out plans to revolutionise the asylum system if they win power at the next general election, with pledges to arrest asylum seekers on arrival, enforce automatic detention and enact forced deportation to countries such as Afghanistan and Eritrea.
It comes as more than 28,000 people have crossed the Channel so far this year in a record for this point as protests have been erupting outside hotels housing asylum seekers.
In the days since, Farage has backed away from claims that women and children would be deported to countries such as Afghanistan where women are unable to leave their home without a male chaperone and girls are denied education.
Yusuf, who has played a prominent role in the party’s rise stood by the tough policies, citing the example of Donald Trump in the United States as a blueprint to follow as he suggested that the party would try to encourage people to leave voluntarily.
He added: “We are going to move at great speed. It’ll be much more like Trump mark two than Trump mark one.
“They have been paying people to leave, and generally it’s about $1,000 if they leave voluntarily, and $17,000 if they have to remove them forcibly. So it is obviously far better value for the British taxpayer.”
Donald Trump has overseen a wave of deportations since returning to power (Image: Getty)
The American president ran an election campaign centred on immigration on the country’s southern border and has introduced a ruthless campaign of arrests and deportations for those in the country illegally.
In the wake of the Reform UK announcement, a spokesperson for the Prime Minister refused to condemn the controversial plans to deport illegal migrants to countries where they could face persecution, arrest, torture or even death, insisting that all options remain on the table.
The Archbishop of York however has labelled the plans “kneejerk”, insisting that Farage is not offering “long term solutions.”
Speaking to Sky News, he said: “We should actively resist the kind of isolationist, short term kneejerk ‘send them home’.
“You haven’t solved the problem, you’ve just put it somewhere else and you’ve done nothing to address the issue of what brings people to this country.”
Reform UK’s Mass Deportation ‘Like Trump 2.0’ – ‘We’ll Move at Great Speed’
Reform UK’s proposals for large-scale deportations have intensified Britain’s already heated debate over immigration, with the party promising to move rapidly against people it says have no legal right to remain in the country. The language surrounding the proposals has drawn comparisons with Donald Trump’s immigration policies in the United States, while Reform figures have insisted that a future government would act at “great speed”.
Immigration has become one of the most politically sensitive issues in Britain. Reform UK has placed border control and deportation at the centre of its political programme, arguing that successive governments have failed to enforce immigration rules effectively enough.
The party’s proposals have attracted strong support from some voters and equally strong criticism from opponents, who have raised questions about legality, cost, administrative capacity and the potential impact on families and communities.
The comparison with Trump’s approach is particularly significant because the former US president made immigration enforcement one of the defining issues of his political agenda. Trump’s administration and later political campaigns emphasised deportations, border enforcement and restrictions on irregular immigration.
Reform’s approach is being discussed in a similar political context, although Britain’s legal system and immigration arrangements are different from those of the United States.
The central promise from Reform is speed.
The party has argued that if it entered government, it would move quickly to establish the machinery necessary for large-scale removals. Rather than treating deportations as a marginal part of immigration policy, Reform wants enforcement to become a major government priority.
That would require substantial administrative changes.
A mass-deportation programme would involve identifying individuals without a legal right to remain, reviewing their individual circumstances, issuing removal decisions where appropriate, dealing with appeals and legal challenges, securing travel documentation and negotiating with countries willing to accept returnees.
Each stage can involve delays.
This is one of the main reasons why the debate over Reform’s proposals extends beyond political slogans.
The party can promise to act quickly, but implementing such a policy would require legislation, funding, personnel, detention facilities, transportation and international cooperation.
Reform has proposed creating a dedicated deportation command and expanding the infrastructure available for immigration enforcement. The objective would be to increase removals significantly and reduce the backlog of people who remain in Britain after losing their legal right to stay.
Supporters argue that the existing system is too slow.
They point to people whose asylum claims have been rejected but who remain in the country for extended periods, arguing that a credible immigration system must be capable of enforcing final decisions.
Opponents take a different view.
They argue that large-scale removals could create serious legal and humanitarian difficulties, particularly where individuals have families in Britain, have lived in the country for many years or face risks if returned to their country of origin.
These questions cannot be resolved simply by setting a numerical target.
Immigration cases are not identical.
Some people may have recently entered Britain illegally. Others may have made asylum claims and exhausted their appeals. Others may have developed family relationships or other connections to Britain while their immigration status remained unresolved.
A functioning deportation system therefore has to distinguish between different categories of cases.
That distinction is particularly important when politicians use broad terms such as “illegal migrants”.
An individual who has crossed a border unlawfully, an asylum seeker awaiting a decision and a foreign national whose visa has expired can all have different legal circumstances.
The government’s responsibilities also differ depending on the case.
Reform’s proposals have nevertheless gained political attention because they offer a clear answer to voters who believe the current system has lost credibility.
Farage has repeatedly argued that Britain needs to regain control of its borders and reduce immigration substantially. The party has connected immigration to wider concerns about housing, public services, wages and national sovereignty.
The Trump comparison adds another dimension to the debate.
Trump’s immigration agenda has demonstrated how a political movement can make deportation a central electoral message. His rhetoric has frequently presented mass removals as evidence of a government’s determination to enforce immigration law.
Reform’s supporters see similarities in the emphasis on speed and enforcement.
But Britain’s constitutional and legal framework presents different constraints.
The UK is bound by domestic legislation, judicial oversight and international commitments. Any future government attempting to implement a large-scale deportation programme would have to operate within those legal structures unless Parliament changed the relevant laws.
Even then, international relationships would remain important.
Countries do not always accept the return of people who have no legal right to remain in another state. Governments may require documentation before accepting returnees, while some countries may be unwilling or unable to cooperate with removal programmes.
That means deportation capacity depends partly on diplomacy.
It also depends on resources.
Large-scale removals require trained immigration officers, detention capacity, transportation and administrative systems. Expanding these systems would involve significant public expenditure.
Reform argues that the cost should be viewed alongside the expense of maintaining the existing system, including asylum accommodation and enforcement.
Critics counter that the financial consequences of mass deportation could be much greater than political estimates suggest.
The disagreement demonstrates why detailed policy analysis will be important if Reform’s proposals move closer to implementation.
The party would have to answer questions about exactly who would be targeted, what legal process would apply, how quickly decisions could be reviewed and how families would be treated.
The issue of children would be particularly sensitive.
A policy focused on removing adults may encounter cases involving children who were born in Britain or have spent most of their lives in the country. Decisions involving families can involve complex legal and ethical considerations.
There is also the question of people who cannot be removed immediately.
Some individuals may have no valid travel documents. Others may come from countries that do not cooperate with returns. Others may face legal barriers to removal.
A government promising rapid deportation would therefore need a strategy for dealing with cases in which removal cannot immediately take place.
This is where political promises meet administrative reality.
Reform’s proposed approach has nevertheless changed the terms of the immigration debate.
For years, British governments have faced criticism from different sides over immigration. Some voters have demanded lower migration and stronger borders, while others have argued for more generous asylum policies and greater protection for refugees.
Reform has attempted to make enforcement the central answer.
The party’s message is straightforward: immigration rules should be enforced, and people who have no legal right to remain should ultimately be removed.
The controversy arises over how that objective should be achieved.
Speed can be politically attractive, but immigration decisions require accuracy.
A mistaken removal can have consequences for an individual’s family, legal status and safety. A slow process can undermine public confidence and increase the cost of the system.
A government therefore has to balance enforcement with due process.
That tension is not unique to Britain.
The United States has faced similar debates over the balance between immigration enforcement and individual legal protections. Trump’s policies have generated intense political conflict precisely because supporters and opponents place different priorities on those competing considerations.
Reform’s comparison with Trump reflects this wider international debate.
However, Britain’s circumstances remain distinct.
The UK does not have exactly the same border arrangements, constitutional structure or immigration system as the United States. Britain’s relationship with Europe, its asylum responsibilities and its domestic legal framework create their own constraints.
That means any Reform government would have to develop a specifically British approach rather than simply reproduce American policy.
For Nigel Farage, the political opportunity is clear.
Immigration remains an issue capable of mobilising voters who believe established parties have failed to deliver meaningful change. By promising rapid action, Reform can distinguish itself from governments that have announced tougher controls but struggled to achieve the desired results.
The risk for the party is that voters will eventually demand details.
How many people could realistically be removed each year?
How much would the programme cost?
How many detention places would be required?
How would Britain secure agreements with foreign governments?
What legal protections would remain?
How would families be treated?
And what would happen when courts intervene?
Those questions would become unavoidable if Reform moved from opposition into government.
The debate therefore goes far beyond the dramatic phrase “Trump 2.0”.
It is about whether Britain can construct an immigration enforcement system capable of carrying out large numbers of removals while maintaining legal safeguards and administrative accuracy.
For supporters, the answer is likely to involve a much more forceful state.
For critics, the emphasis will be on the limits imposed by law, practical capacity and individual rights.
The political significance of Reform’s proposal is nevertheless undeniable.
The party has succeeded in making mass deportation part of the mainstream political conversation and has forced Labour and the Conservatives to respond to questions about enforcement.
Whether its proposed programme could be implemented at the speed promised remains uncertain.
What is clear is that immigration will continue to be one of the defining issues in Britain’s political debate.
Reform is promising a dramatic change in direction, with Farage arguing that a government led by his party would move quickly rather than accept what it regards as years of delay.
The coming political debate will therefore focus not only on whether voters support tougher immigration enforcement, but on what a workable system would actually look like.
Behind the headlines about “Trump 2.0” and moving at “great speed” are difficult questions about law, administration, cost, diplomacy and individual circumstances.
Those questions will ultimately determine whether Reform’s ambitious deportation proposals can move from political rhetoric into government policy.