Nigel Farage's mass deportation plan would make life worse for every single Brit

Nigel Farage’s mass deportations plan would make the UK a “pariah state”, experts have warned – and dismantle key human rights protections for British citizens.

The Reform UK leader has announced plans to deport 600,000 asylum seekers, including women and children, in his first term if his party win the next general election.

The party would bar anyone who comes to the UK on small boats from claiming asylum and pay countries like Taliban-controlled Afghanistan to take deportees.

Farage acknowledged that these people might be tortured or murdered in their home countries – but insisted it was a price worth paying.

“What really bothers me is what is happening on the streets of our country,” the right-wing firebrand told reporters. “What really bothers me is what is happening to British citizens.”

Read more:

• What the Epping asylum seeker hotel ruling means for Britain
• The simple reason Nigel Farage has seemingly had a change of heart on benefits
• Will Reform’s Britannia Card really help low-income households – or is it a ‘giveaway to the rich’?

The plan has been met with a chorus of condemnation from human rights advocates and international law experts.

”The only people who benefit from ripping up laws that protect everyone’s basic human rights are those in power,” a spokesperson for Liberty said.

Daniel Sohege, director at Stand for All, whose pro-bono consultancy focuses on human, refugee and migrant rights, echoed this concern.

“The vast majority of people who seek asylum here are granted it because they have genuine claims. If you force them back, you’re sending them to the very dangers they fled – often to their deaths,” he told Big Issue.  

“He’s talking about deporting between 500,000 and 600,000 people in a first term. That would amount to signing the death warrants of thousands of people.”

Under the plan, named Operation Restoring Justice, Reform UK, people would be arrested on arrival and detained at disused RAF bases, costing about £10 billion over five years.

Reform’s plan would require the UK to leave the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), repeal the 1998 Human Rights Act, disapply the 1951 Refugee Convention for five years, and create a legal duty for the home secretary to remove people that come illegally.

Such a departure would isolate us internationally, said Philip Armitage, lawyer at JUSTICE.

“The UK co-founded the ECHR, in reaction to the horrors of WW2, to give ordinary people tools to protect their rights. 

“Since then, it has been used by people across the country to secure their rights, from the victims of John Worboys to LGBTQ+ military personnel, those mistreated in care, and journalists protecting press freedom. It remains critical to peace in Northern Ireland and underpins UK-EU coordination on cross-border crime. 

“The only countries to have ever left the ECHR are Russia after its Ukraine invasion and Greece under military dictatorship. Staying a member is vital to protecting all our rights.”   

It’s “shocking stuff”, said Lauren Starkey, an independent social worker who works with NGOs to arrange care for asylum seeking children and young people.

“Nigel Farage likes to drape himself in the Union flag and talk about British pride… He’s talking about turning us into a pariah state,” she told Big Issue.

Sohege also emphasised the international legal ramifications.

“What Nigel Farage is talking about in practice isn’t just leaving the Refugee Convention. To do what he suggests, you’d also have to withdraw from the Convention on the Prohibition of Torture and the European Convention on Human Rights. That means leaving a significant number of international treaties, making the UK an outlier in the international order.”

“That loss of trust would have knock-on effects far beyond human rights—it would damage our ability to trade, to cooperate internationally, and to function as a respected member of the global community.”

The Human Rights Act 1998 brought fundamental rights from the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) directly into UK law, enabling individuals to bring cases in domestic courts. It requires public bodies – like the courts, police, NHS, and local authorities – to act compatibly with these rights. The rights it protects include the right to life, freedom from torture, a fair trial, respect for private and family life, and freedom of expression.

Repealing it would have serious domestic ramifications, added Sohege.

“Getting rid of the Human Rights Act means removing the legislation that protects human rights in UK law. The consequences are huge – for example, the Hillsborough inquiry was carried out under human rights law. Without it, British citizens would lose access to justice in cases like that.”

The Human Rights Act doesn’t just stop the state from violating people’s rights – it also creates a duty to protect people and properly investigate when things go wrong. These obligations were crucial in the Hillsborough families’ fight for justice, forcing public authorities to hold a full inquest and acknowledge official failings. Without the act, there would be no clear legal basis to demand that level of accountability and transparency.

“People often talk about this as if it only affects those who were born elsewhere. It doesn’t,” Sohege added. “The highest number of people trafficked in the UK are British citizens. If you strip away human rights protections, you’re putting them at risk too.”

“When you start stripping away human rights, it never only applies to one group. It always ends up affecting everyone.”

Do you have a story to tell or opinions to share about this? Get in touch and tell us more. 

It’s helping people with disabilities. 

It’s creating safer living conditions for renters.

It’s getting answers for the most vulnerable.

Big Issue brings you trustworthy journalism that drives real change. 

If this article gave you something to think about, help us keep doing this work from £5 a month.