Nigel Farage says the plan would remove one million migrants from the UK (Image: Getty)
A Reform government could remove one million people during its first term in office, Nigel Farage has declared. He insisted tough plans to kick out people who entered the UK illegally would save billions of pounds, and end a growing threat to the nation’s national security.
Those set to be removed would be offered a free plane ticket and £1,000. Those who refuse the offer would be forcibly deported. Mr Farage said: “There is no way that British taxpayers and British people should have to live with a whole load of people who illegally broke into our country, who disguised their identities and are now living off the British taxpayer – potentially for the rest of their lives, disjointing communities and, perhaps most frustratingly of all, going straight to the top of the social housing list.”
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.
Speaking alongside Reform home affairs spokesman Zia Yusuf, Mr Farage announced plans to remove up to 400,000 people who have been granted asylum in the UK over the past five years. Those people either arrived illegally, came on a visa but applied for asylum after the visa expired, or arrived from nations now considered safe.
Those affected currently have a legal right to remain after being given asylum, but that status would be revoked.
It follows an earlier pledge to deport everyone currently here illegally or who arrives on a small boat while Reform is in power, which the party estimates would affect 600,000 people.
Mr Farage said the nation was braced for a new wave of arrivals over the summer.
He said: “I have little doubt there will be tens of thousands more people who will come into Britain, posing a threat not just to our finances, posing a threat to many of our women and girls, but equally, given the situation the world is in, posing a genuine threat to our national security.”
He pointed out that he had previously warned of an “invasion”, adding: “My prediction that there would be an invasion has proved to be true, even if some people at the time did not like the use of that word.”
And the Reform UK leader said voters had been calling for effective immigration controls, only for their concerns to be ignored.
“It is unfair, it is immoral, it is wrong at every level. And it is one of those issues where the public’s faith in the democratic system has broken down,” he said.
The party plans to charter five flights a day to deport migrants, and will sweep away legal objections by leaving the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
It also plans to build detention centres in “remote parts of the country” to hold up to 24,000 people at a time awaiting removal.
Conservatives accused Reform of copying their policy, which they call the Borders Plan.
Chris Philp, Shadow Home Secretary, said: “The Conservatives have already proposed a detailed Borders Plan to pull out of the ECHR and completely ban asylum claims by illegal immigrants. Instead, we would deport them within a week of arrival.
“The Conservatives’ Removals Force will deport 150,000 immigrants each year with no right to be here. Reform is slow in catching up with our ideas – but without the detail that will ensure it works in practice.”
Nigel Farage to Offer Migrants £1,000 Each to Go Home as Reform Targets One Million Removals
Nigel Farage has outlined an immigration policy that would seek to remove around one million people from the United Kingdom, with those leaving voluntarily potentially offered financial assistance of £1,000 each. The proposal forms part of Reform UK’s wider approach to immigration, which combines voluntary departures with a much tougher programme of enforced removals.
The scale of the proposal immediately raises questions about cost, legal authority, administration and the distinction between different categories of migrants. Reporting on Farage’s plans has described the proposed £1,000 payment as an incentive for people to leave Britain, alongside the provision of travel arrangements. Reform has presented the wider policy as part of an attempt to reduce the number of people without lawful status in the country.
Farage has made immigration one of the central themes of Reform UK’s political programme. In recent months, the party has also proposed stronger action against small-boat crossings, including its “Operation Fortress” plan, under which migrants arriving by small boats would be transported back to France or Belgium. Farage has argued that such measures would reduce dangerous Channel crossings, although the French government has rejected the proposed approach and described it as incompatible with French sovereignty and international law.
The proposed £1,000 payment represents a different mechanism. Instead of relying exclusively on compulsory deportation, the policy would attempt to encourage some people to leave voluntarily by providing money and assistance with the journey.
A voluntary-departure incentive
At the heart of the proposal is a relatively simple idea: people who agree to leave Britain voluntarily would receive financial support. According to reporting on Farage’s plan, the proposed payment would be £1,000 per person, alongside a free ticket home.
Voluntary return programmes are not a new concept in immigration policy. Governments have used financial and practical assistance to encourage people without a secure immigration status to return to their countries of origin. Such schemes can be less expensive and administratively complicated than prolonged detention, legal proceedings and enforced removal.
However, the proposed scale makes Farage’s plan significantly different from a small voluntary-return programme.
If one million people were each given £1,000, the direct payments alone would amount to £1 billion. That figure would not include flights, administration, casework, enforcement, accommodation or other associated costs.
The £1 billion calculation is therefore useful as an illustration of the scale of the proposal rather than a complete estimate of its cost.
The policy also depends on identifying who would qualify. The term “illegal migrant” is frequently used in political debate, but immigration cases can involve people with different legal statuses, including failed asylum seekers, people whose visas have expired, people awaiting decisions and individuals with no lawful basis to remain.
A workable programme would therefore require detailed eligibility rules.
The one-million target
The reference to one million removals is another major element of the proposal.
Farage has said that a Reform government would seek to remove approximately one million people during its first term. Reporting on the policy has described this as a combination of voluntary and compulsory removals.
Such a target is considerably broader than simply responding to people arriving in small boats.
Channel crossings have become one of the most visible parts of Britain’s immigration debate, but they represent only one route into the country. Immigration enforcement also involves people who entered legally and subsequently lost their right to remain, people whose asylum claims were unsuccessful, and other categories of people subject to removal decisions.
That distinction matters because a policy aimed at one million removals would necessarily involve a large administrative operation extending well beyond Channel arrivals.
Recent Home Office figures illustrate the difference between the Channel issue and the broader immigration system. The Standard reported that 14,526 people had crossed the Channel in small boats during 2026 by the point covered by its August report, more than 40 per cent below the equivalent figure for 2025.
The figures demonstrate why the one-million target cannot simply be understood as a plan to return small-boat arrivals. It concerns a much wider population.
The financial argument
Reform’s argument is partly based on the idea that removing people who have no legal right to remain could eventually reduce the cost to the British state.
Supporters of tougher immigration enforcement frequently argue that accommodation, welfare, healthcare, legal proceedings and other services can impose substantial costs when people remain in Britain for long periods while their cases are resolved.
Critics, however, have questioned the financial assumptions behind mass-removal proposals. Previous analysis of Reform’s wider deportation programme has argued that the costs of enforcement, legal challenges, transport and administration could be substantially higher than the party’s projected savings.
The debate therefore involves two separate calculations.
The first is the immediate cost of removing people. The second is the potential long-term cost of allowing people without a legal right to remain to stay in the country.
A serious assessment would need to consider both.
The proposed £1,000 payment adds another dimension. At one million people, the headline figure alone reaches £1 billion. But if voluntary departures reduce detention, legal and enforcement expenses, the overall cost could be lower than simply multiplying the payment by the number of people leaving.
Conversely, if only a relatively small proportion of eligible migrants accepted the offer, the government might need to rely heavily on compulsory removals to reach its overall target.
Legal and diplomatic obstacles
The most difficult part of any large-scale removal programme may not necessarily be the financial calculation.
International law, domestic immigration law and individual legal rights impose restrictions on how governments can remove people.
For example, a person cannot simply be sent to any country because the British government wishes to reduce immigration numbers. Questions can arise about nationality, documentation, diplomatic arrangements, safety and legal challenges.
The same issue has already appeared in the debate over Reform’s proposed “Operation Fortress”. Farage has argued that returning people intercepted in the Channel could be lawful, while the French government has publicly disputed that position.
That disagreement illustrates a wider problem: immigration policy frequently requires cooperation from other governments.
Britain may decide that a person should be removed, but the receiving country may need to confirm nationality, issue documentation or accept the individual.
A programme involving hundreds of thousands of people would therefore require extensive international cooperation.
The politics of voluntary return
The £1,000 offer also raises a political question about how voluntary return should be presented.
For Reform, the payment could be framed as an incentive intended to achieve departures more quickly and with fewer enforcement costs. Farage’s supporters could argue that giving someone money to leave voluntarily is preferable to spending substantially more on detention and forced removal.
Opponents are likely to focus on the size of the proposed payment and ask whether taxpayers should provide financial incentives to people who have no continuing legal right to remain.
There is also a practical question about whether £1,000 would be sufficient to persuade large numbers of people to leave.
The answer could vary substantially according to nationality, family circumstances, employment, property ownership, legal status and prospects in the person’s country of origin.
For someone who has established a life in Britain, a £1,000 payment may have little effect. For another person who has already decided to return, it could make departure easier.
Consequently, the success of the scheme would depend on behaviour that cannot simply be assumed in advance.
Part of a broader Reform strategy
The proposal should also be viewed alongside Reform UK’s wider immigration policies.
Farage has advocated much stronger border enforcement, tougher action against illegal immigration and substantial increases in removals. His recent proposals regarding Channel crossings demonstrate that the party is seeking a comprehensive change in the government’s approach rather than a single new voluntary-return scheme.
The party’s political argument is that Britain needs a fundamentally different immigration system, with greater emphasis on enforcement and removals.
Whether such policies could achieve the stated objectives would depend on legislation, administrative capacity, international agreements and the courts.
Farage’s own recent political messaging has also continued to place immigration and border control at the centre of Reform’s programme. In a September 2026 statement, the party leader again presented immigration and national policy as major areas in which he believed the government needed to take a different direction.
A proposal with major practical consequences
The idea of offering £1,000 to migrants who agree to leave Britain is therefore only one part of a much larger policy.
The headline figure is striking because one million departures at £1,000 each would represent £1 billion in direct payments. But the real financial and administrative implications would depend on how many people actually accepted the offer, how much enforcement was required, and what additional costs were involved.
The policy would also need to operate within Britain’s legal framework and depend on cooperation from foreign governments.
For Reform UK, the proposal represents an attempt to combine financial incentives for voluntary departures with compulsory removals for people who do not leave. For its critics, the scale and cost of the programme raise questions about feasibility and value for money.
What happens in practice would depend on the precise legislation and administrative system established by any future government seeking to implement it.
The debate therefore extends beyond the £1,000 figure. It concerns how Britain defines lawful residence, how removal decisions are enforced, how taxpayer money is used, and what obligations the country has toward people whose immigration claims have been rejected.
Those questions are likely to remain central to Britain’s political debate as parties develop competing approaches to immigration and border control.