Reform UK leader Nigel Farage (Image: Getty)

Nigel Farage is preparing to unveil a sweeping crackdown on asylum, including suspending the system for five years, scrapping outstanding claims and deporting refugees admitted under existing schemes, should his party take power. The Reform UK leader is expected to announce the proposals on Monday, arguing Britain faces a national security emergency and cannot continue accepting asylum seekers while the number of people living illegally in the country remains unknown.

The plans would mark a major overhaul of the UK’s asylum system, with Reform promising to close legal routes, review existing refugee cases and put pressure on foreign governments to accept deportees. Here are the seven key changes Reform wants to introduce.

Reform would suspend the asylum system for a full parliamentary term if elected, banning anyone from being granted asylum during that period.

The party would also declare all applications currently in progress void, effectively ending the processing of outstanding claims.

Get the latest politics news – straight from our team in Westminster and more

I would like to receive emails from the Daily Express featuring our latest products, services, offers, and promotions from across the Reach Plc family.

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.

All asylum tribunals, legal refugee routes and resettlement schemes would be abolished under the proposals.

Reform says Britain has no mandate for resettlement schemes and argues that the country should not continue admitting refugees through these routes.

Around 90,000 outstanding asylum and humanitarian protection appeals would not be heard under a Reform government.

Instead, those whose cases remain unresolved would face deportation, rather than having their appeals considered by the existing tribunal system.

Reform would immediately close resettlement schemes that Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood recently said would reopen.

Around a quarter of those expected to be admitted through the schemes would be Palestinians and women and girls from Afghanistan.

The party says anyone who has already arrived in Britain through these schemes would also be deported.

Labour Chairwoman Bridget Phillipson (Image: Getty)

Refugees granted asylum in the UK during the previous five years would have their cases reviewed by the Home Office.

The proposal would subject people already granted protection to fresh scrutiny, potentially putting their right to remain in Britain at risk.

Reform has already proposed visa freezes against countries that refuse to take back their nationals who have been deported from Britain.

Countries targeted would include Pakistan, Afghanistan, Syria, Eritrea, Sudan and Somalia. The measures would halt new visas for their nationals, putting pressure on their governments to co-operate with removals.

The party now plans to go further against countries that cannot be pressured effectively through visa restrictions alone.

Reform would consider tariffs, sanctions and airline bans to force foreign governments to accept deportees.

Shadow Home Secretary Chris Philp (Image: Getty)

Mr Farage told The Telegraph: “The country is currently facing a national security emergency and the first duty of government is to protect its citizens.”

He added: “A Reform government will always put British people first and protect our borders.”

The proposals have already drawn criticism from both Labour and the Conservatives.

Labour chairwoman Bridget Phillipson described the plans as “a clear sign of desperation and weakness”, accusing Mr Farage of pursuing increasingly extreme policies.

She said abandoning people escaping war and persecution would be rejected by the British public as an assault on the country’s common values.

Shadow home secretary Chris Philp, meanwhile, argued that the proposals largely copied existing Conservative policies.

He said the Conservatives’ own BORDERS plan went further by proposing withdrawal from the European Convention on Human Rights and the removal of illegal immigrants within a week of arrival, alongside measures targeting modern slavery claims and judicial review loopholes.

Reform’s Full Plan for Ending the UK’s Migrant Crisis – Seven Major Changes Explained

Nigel Farage’s Reform UK has unveiled an extensive plan to overhaul Britain’s asylum system, promising a dramatic change in how the country handles irregular migration, refugee applications and the removal of people who have no legal right to remain. The proposals would represent one of the most far-reaching changes to British immigration policy in recent decades, placing border enforcement and deportations at the centre of the party’s programme.

Announced on 12 October 2026, the proposals include suspending the asylum system for five years, ending outstanding claims and appeals, closing most legal resettlement routes and reviewing the status of some refugees who have already been granted protection. Reform argues that the existing system has failed to control irregular migration and that stronger action is required.

The party has presented its proposals as an emergency response to the Channel crossings and the wider problem of people living in Britain without legal permission. However, the plans have also generated questions about their cost, their practical implementation and whether some measures could conflict with existing legal obligations.

Here are the seven principal changes at the centre of Reform’s proposed immigration overhaul.

1. Suspending the asylum system for five years

The most far-reaching proposal is a five-year suspension of the asylum system under a Reform government.

Farage argues that Britain should temporarily stop granting asylum while the government establishes a new system for controlling its borders. The party presents the proposal as an emergency measure intended to discourage irregular arrivals and demonstrate that entry into Britain cannot automatically lead to a lengthy asylum process.

Supporters of the policy argue that the existing arrangements create incentives for people to undertake dangerous journeys across the Channel. They believe a clear change in policy could undermine the business model used by people-smuggling networks.

However, suspending the system would raise fundamental questions about how the government would handle people arriving in Britain who claim to face persecution or serious harm if returned to their countries of origin.

The right to seek asylum is distinct from an automatic right to remain permanently. Each claim normally requires an assessment of the individual’s circumstances and the applicable legal protections.

A blanket suspension would therefore face substantial legal and practical challenges. The government would need to explain what would happen to people already in the country, how urgent protection cases would be handled and what legal framework would govern removals during the proposed suspension.

2. Cancelling outstanding asylum applications

Reform also proposes ending applications that remain unresolved when it takes office.

The party argues that clearing the existing caseload would allow the government to move away from a system it regards as slow and ineffective. Rather than allowing pending cases to continue through the usual process, the proposed approach would effectively terminate outstanding claims.

For Reform, this would form part of a broader effort to reset the system and establish a stronger deterrent against irregular entry.

The implications, however, would extend well beyond administrative efficiency. An unresolved application does not necessarily mean that a person has no valid claim to protection. Some cases may be delayed because of missing documents, complex evidence, administrative backlogs or difficulties establishing a person’s identity and circumstances.

Ending applications without individual assessment could leave people facing removal without their claims having been fully examined.

It would also create practical questions about how the Home Office would identify those eligible for removal, arrange travel documents and secure cooperation from other countries.

The central issue is whether the proposed reset could be implemented without bypassing the legal procedures that determine who is entitled to protection.

3. Abolishing asylum tribunals and existing appeal arrangements

A third element would remove the existing asylum tribunal arrangements for cases affected by the proposed suspension.

Reform’s announcement specifically targets outstanding asylum and humanitarian protection appeals. Reports on the plan have referred to approximately 90,000 unresolved appeals, although the precise number affected would depend on the scope and implementation of the policy.

The party argues that the present system allows cases to remain unresolved for too long, adding to accommodation costs and uncertainty about whether people can remain in Britain.

Appeals can indeed contribute to the length and expense of immigration proceedings. However, they also provide a mechanism for correcting errors and reviewing decisions that may have serious consequences for an individual’s safety.

A person whose claim is refused may argue that relevant evidence was overlooked, that their circumstances were misunderstood or that returning them would expose them to persecution or other serious harm.

Removing appeal rights would therefore represent more than an administrative change. It would alter the safeguards available to people challenging decisions about their future.

The government would need to establish how lawful decisions could be reviewed and how its proposals would interact with domestic and international legal obligations. The practical consequences would be significant, particularly in cases involving children, families and people with complex protection claims.

4. Closing most legal refugee routes and resettlement schemes

Reform proposes closing legal resettlement routes and ending most organised refugee schemes, with an exception for arrangements established for Ukrainians following Russia’s full-scale invasion in 2022.

The party argues that Britain should not continue admitting refugees through schemes it believes lack sufficient public consent or weaken the deterrent effect of tougher border controls.

Resettlement programmes operate differently from irregular Channel crossings. They generally involve identifying eligible people through organised procedures, conducting checks and arranging admission through a designated route.

Supporters of such schemes argue that they can provide a safer alternative for people who qualify for protection, reducing dependence on smugglers and dangerous journeys. Critics may question how many people should be admitted, how schemes should be funded and how responsibilities should be distributed between countries.

Ending most schemes would change the way Britain provides protection to people selected through those arrangements. It would not, by itself, settle the legal position of people who arrive independently and make asylum claims.

The proposal also raises questions about the treatment of people who have already received assurances that they may be eligible for resettlement.

Any transition would need clear rules about existing cases, eligibility and the treatment of people who have already begun the process.

5. Deporting people whose applications and appeals remain unresolved

The fifth proposal is closely linked to the cancellation of outstanding claims and appeals.

Rather than allowing unresolved cases to continue through the existing system, Reform wants people affected by its proposed changes to face deportation. The party argues that the current arrangements leave too many cases in limbo and make it difficult to enforce immigration decisions consistently.

The practical challenge is that an unresolved claim is not necessarily equivalent to a final refusal.

Before removal can lawfully proceed, authorities may need to establish identity, obtain travel documents, determine whether the receiving country will accept the individual and consider any relevant legal barriers.

Some people may have no legal basis to remain, while others may qualify for protection or have circumstances that require further examination.

The proposal would also require extensive administrative capacity. Identifying people, making detention arrangements where lawful, organising transport and negotiating with foreign governments would all require staff, funding and operational coordination.

Reform has suggested that it would use a much more extensive deportation system, but the scale and speed of any programme would depend on cooperation from other countries and the legal framework in which it operated.

The number of people affected would therefore not necessarily translate directly into the number who could be removed within a particular timeframe.

6. Reviewing refugee status granted since 2024

Another significant proposal is to review the status of people granted asylum since 2024.

Under the plan described by Reform, people who received protection from countries that a future Reform government classified as safe could lose their permission to remain in Britain.

The party argues that refugee protection should be subject to closer scrutiny and that the government should be able to reconsider decisions where circumstances or the original basis for protection have changed.

However, a country being designated safe for general immigration purposes does not automatically mean that every person from that country can safely return.

Individuals may face different risks depending on their background, political activities, ethnicity, religion, family circumstances or other factors. A proper assessment would need to consider the person’s situation and any applicable legal protections.

Reviewing existing refugee status on a large scale would also create a substantial administrative burden. Officials would need to identify the cases involved, reassess the relevant evidence and establish what legal process would apply when protection was withdrawn.

The proposal could affect people who have already established lives in Britain, including families and children. The consequences would therefore extend beyond the immigration system to housing, education, employment and community life.

The precise scope of the proposed reviews and the safeguards available to affected individuals would be crucial to understanding how the policy could operate.

7. Expanding immigration enforcement across the state

The seventh major change is a broader system of immigration enforcement intended to identify people who do not have legal permission to remain.

Reform’s published proposals envisage a much more extensive role for state agencies in identifying people targeted for deportation. Reporting on the plan has described proposals to use information from areas such as housing, utilities, licensing and other public functions to support enforcement.

The party argues that the authorities need better information to identify people who are in the country unlawfully and ensure that immigration rules are enforced.

Supporters of stronger enforcement say that reliable information can help authorities locate individuals who have exhausted their legal rights to remain. They also argue that employers and other organisations should face consequences when they knowingly facilitate unlawful employment or residence.

Critics, however, raise concerns about privacy, mistaken identification and the possibility that people could become reluctant to contact public services if they fear that their information will be used for immigration enforcement.

Any system involving the sharing of personal information would need clear legal authority, safeguards against misuse and procedures for correcting errors.

It would also require a distinction between people who are unlawfully present and those whose status is unresolved or who have a lawful basis to remain.

The effectiveness of such a system would depend on accurate records, appropriate oversight and the capacity to act on reliable information.

The legal and financial challenges

Taken together, Reform’s proposals would require a major restructuring of the asylum system. They would affect the processing of claims, the availability of appeals, refugee resettlement, the review of existing protection decisions and the enforcement of immigration rules.

The party argues that a more restrictive system would reduce the attraction of irregular migration and make removals more effective. Its supporters believe that a clear change in policy is needed to restore public confidence in border control.

However, implementation would be complicated. Detention facilities, casework staff, transport, legal proceedings and cooperation with receiving countries all carry costs. A large-scale deportation programme would require significant operational resources, and the final cost would depend on the number of people involved and the arrangements used.

Legal challenges could also affect the timetable. Policies that conflict with applicable domestic or international obligations may require amendments, exceptions or alternative procedures.

The consequences for public spending cannot be assessed solely by comparing deportation costs with current asylum accommodation expenditure. A full evaluation would need to account for implementation costs, legal proceedings, staffing and the potential effects on public services and employment.

What happens next?

Reform’s plan has placed immigration at the centre of the political debate and sets out a markedly different approach from one based on processing claims under the existing system.

The seven changes are proposals, not measures that have already taken effect. Their implementation would depend on Reform entering government, introducing the necessary legislation and overcoming the legal and practical obstacles involved.

The wider debate concerns how Britain can reduce dangerous Channel crossings, disrupt people-smuggling networks, process claims efficiently and enforce lawful immigration decisions.

For supporters of Reform, the plan offers a fundamental break with the current approach. For critics, its most controversial elements raise concerns about fairness, legal safeguards, cost and the treatment of people who may genuinely need protection.

Ultimately, the success of any immigration policy must be judged by its results: whether it reduces dangerous journeys, improves enforcement, delivers reliable decisions and uses public money effectively while complying with the law.

Reform’s seven-point approach would change the asylum system substantially. Whether it could deliver the outcomes the party promises would depend on the details of the legislation, the capacity of the agencies involved and the ability of the government to implement its proposals in practice.