Reform UK will pledge to use tariffs to force countries to take back migrants in plans set to be announced tomorrow. Nigel Farage’s party had already vowed to impose visa bans on those wanting to visit Britain legally from countries including Pakistan, Afghanistan, Syria, Eritrea, Sudan and Somalia if they do not accept returns of illegal immigrants and foreign criminals.

But Reform is now planning to go further by also threatening sanctions such as tariffs and banning foreign airlines from using British airspace. The party highlighted Egypt as a possible target for the measures. Reform leader Mr Farage said: “I will not tolerate countries who won’t take back illegal migrants. I’ll impose tariffs, airline bans and visa bans on any country that refuses. Only Reform will end the invasion of our country forever.”

Reform also plans to strike deals with third countries to deport those “extreme cases” where no country is willing to take them back, or it is inappropriate to return them to their home country. The party also wants to review every refugee status granted for the five years prior to a Reform government taking office.

Mr Farage will announce the measures at a press conference alongside home affairs spokesman Zia Yusuf on Monday.

It comes as more than 20,000 people have arrived in the UK on small boats so far this year.

But crossings have fallen 41% compared to this point in 2025 and are around a fifth lower than in 2024 and 2023.

More than 211,000 migrants have made the dangerous Channel crossing since 2018, but just 9,700 had been returned as of June this year.

Nigel Farage Pledges Huge Crackdown on Countries Refusing to Take Back Migrants

Nigel Farage has promised a major crackdown on countries that refuse to accept the return of their citizens who have no legal right to remain in Britain. The Reform UK leader says his proposed measures would include visa bans, trade tariffs and restrictions on airlines, putting diplomatic and economic pressure on governments that fail to cooperate with deportations.

The proposals form part of Reform’s wider immigration strategy, unveiled in October 2026, which would significantly change how Britain handles asylum claims and the removal of people who are not entitled to stay in the country. Farage argues that deportation decisions cannot be enforced effectively if foreign governments refuse to identify or receive their nationals. <Cite refs={[“turn353994search0″,”turn353994news21”]}/>

Visa Bans and Tariffs on the Table

Farage has said that countries refusing to take back deportees could face a range of penalties. These could include suspending visas for their citizens, imposing tariffs on imports and restricting airlines from operating in British airspace.

Pakistan has been cited as a potential target for tougher measures, while Reform has also discussed visa restrictions involving countries including Afghanistan, Syria, Eritrea, Sudan and Somalia. The party argues that such action would create a stronger incentive for foreign governments to cooperate with British authorities.

Under the proposed approach, the consequences would depend on the country involved and the options available to the UK government. Visa restrictions could affect people seeking to travel to Britain legally, while tariffs could place additional costs on businesses involved in trade between the countries.

Farage has presented these measures as tools to ensure that the UK can enforce its immigration rules. However, the proposals would require detailed planning, diplomatic negotiations and consideration of their wider economic consequences. <Cite refs={[“turn353994search1″,”turn353994search2”]}/>

A Wider Plan to Change the Asylum System

The pledge is part of a much broader Reform UK proposal to overhaul Britain’s asylum arrangements. Farage announced that a Reform government would seek to suspend the asylum system for up to five years, reject new applications during that period and review existing cases.

The party has also proposed examining asylum decisions made in the years before it entered government. Under its plans, people whose status was withdrawn could face removal, subject to the party’s proposed legal changes and the practical arrangements for deportation.

Reform says the objective is to remove people who have no right to remain in Britain and discourage future irregular arrivals. Its representatives have argued that the current system allows too many cases to remain unresolved for too long, creating uncertainty for communities and increasing the cost of accommodation and administration.

The proposals would represent a major departure from current policy. Reuters reported that the planned suspension could affect roughly 90,000 pending asylum applications, while new claims would be automatically rejected under the announced approach. The party has also said that some people could be sent to a safe third country where returning them to their home country was not possible or appropriate. <Cite refs={[“turn353994news21″,”turn353994search0”]}/>

Why Countries Refuse to Accept Deportees

Returning people to their countries of origin can be more complicated than issuing a deportation order. Authorities may need to establish a person’s identity and nationality, obtain travel documents and secure agreement from the receiving country.

Some governments cooperate with returns, while others may dispute nationality, delay documentation or refuse to accept particular individuals. In some cases, a person may also argue that returning them would expose them to persecution, torture or other serious harm.

Reform believes stronger penalties could persuade reluctant governments to cooperate. Yet the effectiveness of tariffs or visa bans would depend on the circumstances of each country. A government could respond to pressure by negotiating, but it could also retaliate diplomatically or economically.

Restrictions on travel may also affect students, businesspeople, families and other people who have no connection to illegal migration. Tariffs could increase costs for importers and consumers, depending on which products were targeted and whether businesses passed the additional expense on to customers.

These questions would become important if the proposals moved from campaign commitments to government policy.

Legal and Human Rights Questions

The proposed crackdown would also face legal challenges. Britain’s immigration system operates within domestic legislation and international obligations, including rules intended to protect refugees and people at risk of persecution.

Reform has said that implementing its wider plans would require significant legal changes, including action concerning the Human Rights Act and the 1951 Refugee Convention. Such proposals have drawn criticism from opponents who argue that blanket restrictions on asylum applications could prevent people with legitimate protection needs from having their cases considered.

The government and other political parties have also challenged aspects of Reform’s approach. Critics say that removing access to asylum procedures could create serious humanitarian and legal problems, particularly for people fleeing conflict or persecution. Supporters of stricter controls counter that a system must be able to distinguish between those who qualify for protection and those who do not.

The central question is how Britain could enforce immigration decisions while meeting its legal obligations. Any future administration would need to address that issue alongside the practical challenge of securing cooperation from other governments. <Cite refs={[“turn353994news21″,”turn353994search0”]}/>

The Economic and Diplomatic Risks

Using tariffs to secure cooperation on deportations would link immigration policy directly to international trade. Depending on the scale of the measures, affected countries could view them as an unfriendly act and respond with restrictions of their own.

Airline bans could create further complications, potentially affecting routes, passenger connections and commercial agreements. Visa restrictions might exert pressure on governments, but they could also disrupt legitimate travel and business relationships.

The consequences would vary considerably between countries. A trading partner with substantial commercial ties to Britain might face a different calculation from a country whose citizens make extensive use of British visa routes. In either case, the UK government would need to assess whether the pressure produced greater cooperation than the diplomatic and economic costs it created.

Reform has not yet demonstrated that every element of the proposed strategy would deliver the results it promises. The practical impact would depend on the details of the measures, the response of foreign governments and the legal framework in which they were implemented.

A Major Political Test for Reform UK

Immigration remains a prominent issue in British politics, and Farage has made border control a central part of Reform UK’s message. His latest pledge is intended to show that the party would use not only domestic enforcement but also international pressure to increase removals.

The announcement also places pressure on rival parties to explain how they would improve cooperation over deportations and deal with people who have no legal right to stay. The debate is likely to involve the costs of asylum accommodation, the speed of case processing, border security and Britain’s responsibilities towards refugees.

For Farage, the challenge would be turning a tough campaign promise into a workable system. That would require reliable arrangements for identifying people, obtaining travel documents, negotiating with foreign governments and resolving legal disputes.

His proposal is clear in its intention: countries that refuse to accept their nationals could face consequences. Whether visa bans, tariffs and airline restrictions would secure broader cooperation—or create new diplomatic and economic difficulties—would depend on how the policy was designed and implemented.

The pledge therefore represents more than a promise to increase deportations. It signals a proposed shift towards using Britain’s economic and diplomatic influence as part of immigration enforcement, a strategy that would face scrutiny over its effectiveness, cost and compatibility with the country’s legal obligations.