Reform UK said it will deport anyone who arrived under Shabana Mahmood’s refugee resettlement scheme if the party is elected. Nigel Farage, the leader of Reform UK, said he will “immediately end” the scheme when he announces the policy next Monday, along with several other immigration plans. The Home Secretary reopened the UK Resettlement Scheme for new referrals on September 28, to provide “genuine refugees a safe and legal route to the UK”. Around a quarter of referrals will be for Afghan women and girls and Palestinian refugees, fleeing war and persecution, Labour said.

However, speaking to The Telegraph ahead of his speech, Mr Farage said: “Britain is not obligated to take in more migrants, and under a Reform government, these people will not be able to stay.” His severe plans will also revoke residents’ right to remain if they are not considered to be in danger in their home country.

Nations from across the world would be affected. Migration Observatory estimates suggest between 622,000 and 820,000 non-EU citizens had settlement status at the end of 2024, which did not include the approximately 4million EU citizens who were living in the UK before January 2021, and hold settled or pre-settled status.

Mr Farage will also announce a review of Britain’s Afghan resettlement schemes and pledge to publish their costs next week. This was designed to resettle Afghan citizens who worked for or with the UK Government in exposed roles, as well as vulnerable individuals.

Reform has also escalated plans first announced in February for Pakistan, Afghanistan, Syria, Eritrea, Sudan and Somalia. Mr Farage said Reform would impose tariffs on the countries if they refused to take back illegal immigrants and foreign criminals residing in the UK, speaking to The Times.

The party originally planned to impose strict visa bans for people legally seeking to visit the UK from these countries. Reform said it believes that tariffs may be more effective. The proposed list includes several of the countries with the largest numbers of asylum seekers in the UK in recent years.

The party will also conduct an audit of migration figures and publish a detailed breakdown of the number of people who have arrived in Britain since 2010, by nationality and route of entry.

Channel crossings have fallen this year. They reached a peak of around 46,000 in 2022. In the year ending June 2026, the number of detected arrivals fell to around 33,000.

Nigel Farage Announces Bombshell Deportation Plan for Afghan and Palestinian Migrants

Nigel Farage has announced sweeping plans to end Britain’s current asylum arrangements and deport people who have arrived through certain refugee resettlement schemes, including Afghans and Palestinians, if Reform UK wins power.

The proposals have triggered a major political debate over immigration enforcement, Britain’s responsibilities towards people fleeing conflict and the future of the country’s humanitarian protection system.

Farage says the UK must regain control over its borders and stop accepting people while the Government struggles to establish how many individuals are living in the country without permission. Critics argue that his plans could place vulnerable families at risk and undermine Britain’s long-standing commitment to offering protection to people escaping war and persecution.

The proposals were announced on October 12, 2026, as part of Reform UK’s plan to suspend the asylum system for five years. They remain political proposals rather than implemented government policy. <Cite refs={[“turn935348news9″,”turn935348search1”]}/>

A five-year suspension of asylum claims

Under Farage’s plan, a future Reform UK government would suspend the processing of new asylum claims for five years and declare approximately 90,000 outstanding applications and appeals void.

The party says people whose applications were rejected would then be liable for removal to their countries of origin or, where appropriate, to a third country willing to receive them.

Reform also proposes reviewing the status of people granted asylum since 2024. Under the plan, protection could be withdrawn from individuals whose countries of origin were considered safe by a future home secretary.

The party has said it would close most legal refugee resettlement routes, retaining an exception for arrangements established for Ukrainians following Russia’s full-scale invasion in 2022.

These measures would represent a fundamental change to Britain’s asylum system. They would also require detailed decisions about the legal status of existing refugees, the treatment of pending applications and the practical arrangements for removals.

Farage argues that the suspension would give the Government time to establish stronger border controls and improve its understanding of who is living in the UK.

Refugee organisations, however, have warned that suspending the system and automatically rejecting pending cases could create serious humanitarian and legal problems. <Cite refs={[“turn935348search0″,”turn935348search5”]}/>

Why are Afghan and Palestinian migrants affected?

The controversy has centred partly on a resettlement scheme that the British Government announced it would reopen, prioritising Afghan women and girls fleeing Taliban rule and Palestinians who have fled Gaza.

The Home Secretary, Shabana Mahmood, said in September that approximately a quarter of those expected to arrive through the reopened UK Resettlement Scheme would consist of these groups.

The programme is intended to provide a legal route to safety for people considered eligible under its criteria. It is distinct from irregular Channel crossings and from applications made by people already in Britain.

Farage has said a Reform government would immediately end the scheme and deport people who had arrived through it. He has also argued that admitting women and children could lead to family reunification applications involving husbands, partners and other relatives.

A Home Office source disputed that argument, saying those arriving through the scheme would not automatically receive the family-reunion rights Farage suggested. <Cite refs={[“turn935348search0″,”turn935348search4”]}/>

The disagreement highlights an important distinction between the Government’s resettlement arrangements and the family-reunion rules that apply under particular immigration categories.

It also raises a wider question: should a government be able to withdraw protection from people admitted through an official programme simply because a later administration disagrees with the policy?

Reform argues that the British public should have the final say over the country’s immigration arrangements. Opponents say people admitted because they faced serious danger should not have their protection withdrawn without an individual assessment of their circumstances.

Afghanistan: concerns over the safety of return

Afghanistan presents particularly difficult questions for any policy involving deportation.

The Taliban returned to power in 2021, and Afghan women and girls have faced extensive restrictions on education, employment and participation in public life. Conditions and risks vary between individuals, but some people could face serious danger if returned.

For Afghan women and girls admitted through resettlement arrangements, the question is therefore not simply whether they possess permission to remain in Britain. It is also whether the circumstances that justified their protection have changed sufficiently to make return safe.

Farage has argued that a future government should reassess protection and remove people who no longer meet its criteria. Reform says it would not deliberately send people to be killed or tortured and has suggested that third-country arrangements could be considered in exceptional cases.

However, identifying a suitable third country is not straightforward. A receiving country must agree to accept the individual, and arrangements must address the person’s legal status, safety and access to protection.

A government would also need reliable information about conditions in Afghanistan and the individual circumstances of each person considered for removal.

The existence of a general deportation policy cannot by itself establish that every proposed return would be safe or lawful.

Palestinians fleeing Gaza

The proposed restrictions have also raised questions about Palestinians who have escaped Gaza and may qualify for resettlement in Britain.

The conflict has caused widespread destruction and displacement, leaving many families facing the loss of homes, livelihoods and access to essential services.

People who flee such circumstances may have different immigration statuses and individual protection needs. Some may qualify for a specific resettlement programme, while others may seek asylum through a separate process.

Farage has argued that Britain should not continue admitting refugees through schemes he believes lack sufficient public consent. He says his government would close most legal resettlement routes and review the status of people already admitted.

Critics argue that people who have been accepted under an official programme should not automatically be treated as having lost their right to remain simply because the Government changes.

For Palestinians, any assessment of return would need to take account of the circumstances in their particular destination and the risks they might face. It would be misleading to assume that every Palestinian has the same circumstances, just as it would be wrong to assume that every Afghan faces an identical level of danger.

Threats against countries that refuse deportations

Farage has also promised to take action against foreign governments that refuse to accept the return of their nationals.

His proposals include visa restrictions, possible flight bans, tariffs on imports and threats involving certain foreign assets held in Britain.

Pakistan has been a particular focus of his comments, while countries including Afghanistan, Syria, Eritrea, Sudan and Somalia have been mentioned in reporting about possible restrictions.

Farage argues that foreign governments should not be able to prevent deportations indefinitely without facing consequences.

The approach would make international cooperation over removals a central part of Reform UK’s immigration policy.

But economic sanctions are not guaranteed to secure cooperation. Tariffs could increase costs for British businesses and consumers, while visa restrictions and flight bans could create diplomatic disputes or affect people who have no involvement in the deportation disagreements.

The effectiveness of such measures would depend on the specific country, the sanctions chosen and the willingness of both sides to negotiate.

A future government would also need to establish how the proposals could operate alongside its wider diplomatic and trade relationships. <Cite refs={[“turn935348search2″,”turn935348search5”]}/>

The legal and humanitarian debate

The proposed suspension of asylum claims has drawn criticism from refugee charities, which argue that people fleeing war and persecution must have access to a process that considers their individual circumstances.

The Refugee Council warned that closing the asylum system could drive people underground rather than resolve the challenges associated with irregular migration. Other critics have questioned whether the proposed mass removals could be carried out at the scale and speed Reform envisages.

Farage has proposed leaving the European Convention on Human Rights, repealing the Human Rights Act and changing the UK’s approach to the 1951 Refugee Convention as part of his wider programme.

These would be substantial legal and constitutional changes. They would not remove every practical obstacle to deportation or automatically make every proposed removal lawful.

The principle of non-refoulement, which protects people from being returned to places where they face certain serious dangers, is central to international refugee protection. A person’s immigration status does not, by itself, establish that returning them to a particular country is safe.

Any future government seeking to change the system would need to consider its legal obligations, the circumstances of individual cases and the arrangements available for people who cannot safely be returned.

The debate therefore concerns not only the scale of deportations, but also how decisions would be made and what safeguards would remain in place.

How practical would mass deportation be?

Reform has said its wider programme could result in the removal of more than one million people, including foreign offenders and people without a right to remain.

That is a political projection, not a verified estimate of how many people could actually be deported under the proposed arrangements.

Carrying out removals on such a scale would require substantial administrative capacity, detention facilities, transport, staff and cooperation from foreign governments. Authorities would also have to establish identities, secure travel documents and resolve legal challenges.

The party has proposed embedding immigration checks in parts of everyday administration, including housing, workplace inspections and other regulatory activity. Supporters argue that this would help identify people who have no permission to remain.

Critics warn that such measures could increase the risk of mistakes and discourage some people from accessing essential services. The impact would depend on the detailed rules, the accuracy of the information used and the safeguards available to individuals.

Even if a government could identify people it wanted to remove, it would still need a lawful destination and a practical means of carrying out each deportation.

A defining test for Reform UK

Farage’s announcement signals a more sweeping approach than simply increasing removals of people whose asylum claims have failed. It would also change the arrangements for people admitted through certain official resettlement schemes and reopen questions about protection already granted.

Supporters say the proposals would restore control over immigration and demonstrate that Britain can enforce its own rules. They argue that a government must be able to decide who enters the country and under what conditions.

Opponents say the approach risks treating people with very different circumstances as though they were part of a single category. They argue that people fleeing persecution or war should have their cases assessed individually and that the consequences of returning someone to danger must be taken seriously.

The proposals also face practical questions about international cooperation, legal challenges and the cost of carrying out removals on a large scale.

For now, the plan remains a Reform UK commitment rather than an implemented policy. Its eventual impact would depend on whether the party entered government, the legislation it introduced, the agreements it could secure and the legal framework that remained in place.

The controversy over Afghan and Palestinian migrants has brought these questions into sharp focus. The challenge for any future government will be to explain how it intends to enforce immigration rules while making clear how it will handle individual protection needs, international obligations and the practical limits of deportation.

Ultimately, the success or failure of the proposals cannot be measured by the force of the announcement alone. It will depend on the detailed policy, the evidence supporting individual decisions and whether the system can operate effectively without placing people at unacceptable risk.