What is the UK reforms party current policy on immigration?
Executive summary
Reform UK’s immigration platform is a hardline package of measures designed to sharply cut both irregular and legal migration: a “freeze” on immigration, a pledge to stop small‑boat Channel crossings by detaining and deporting arrivals, replacement of Indefinite Leave to Remain (ILR) with a renewable visa and tougher language and welfare rules, and large‑scale deportations of people without lawful status [1] [2] [3] [4]. The programme—branded in policy papers such as “Operation Restoring Justice”—is explicit about mass removals and removing legal protections it sees as obstacles, but analysts warn the plans raise serious legal and practical barriers and could provoke major court challenges [5] [6] [7].
1. Freeze, stop the boats, detain and deport: the headline enforcement drive
Reform’s public messaging promises an immediate “freeze” on immigration and a four‑point approach to halt Channel crossings, including detaining and deporting everyone who arrives by small boat and, where “needed”, returning people to France rather than admitting them to the UK [1] [5] [2]. The party has explicitly said those arriving on small boats would be barred from claiming asylum and would be removed as soon as possible, a stance that goes further than current government policy and mirrors Reform’s “detect, detain, deport” framing [2] [8].
2. Abolish ILR and create a renewable visa to keep migrants second‑class
One of Reform’s most radical proposals is to scrap Indefinite Leave to Remain and replace it with a new visa requiring renewal every five years, higher English language standards, and stricter limits on family reunification—measures the party says will shrink long‑term settlement and reduce welfare access for non‑citizens [4] [3]. Party officials argue this will compel many to “leave voluntarily” if denied benefits, and those who remain would face enforcement and deportation [3] [9]. Critics say that retrospectively removing settled status from hundreds of thousands would be politically explosive and legally fraught [3] [10].
3. Mass deportations, welfare exclusion and stated savings
Reform has proposed deporting very large numbers—reporting it would be “prepared to deport 600,000 migrants over five years”—and to restrict migrants’ access to welfare on the grounds that welfare should be “for UK citizens only,” with the party claiming substantial long‑term savings from these measures [2] [9] [3]. Independent and political opponents dispute the fiscal arithmetic and point out practical constraints: removals require receiving states and extensive enforcement capacity, and claimed savings have been challenged by other parties [3] [8].
4. Legal reset: disapplying rights, courting constitutional conflict
Operation Restoring Justice signals an intent to curtail legal protections that Reform says hinder removals, including measures to limit Human Rights Act or ECHR protections in immigration cases and even proposals that raise questions about habeas corpus or indefinite detention for certain groups—moves that scholars and the Institute for Government warn would trigger serious constitutional and legal conflicts with the courts [7] [6]. Legal commentators note key terms like “illegal migrant” are left imprecise in Reform’s documents, leaving ambiguity over whether asylum seekers would be swept into enforcement measures [6] [8].
5. Political positioning and the critics’ case
Reform positions itself as the most hardline option among major UK parties, competing with Conservative proposals to tighten controls, but the party’s approach has drawn criticism for being legally unrealistic, morally contentious and electorally risky—some analysts argue abolishing ILR could alienate voters who accept controlled migration but not permanent exclusion, while others flag the operational difficulty of mass deportations and third‑country return arrangements [11] [10] [8]. Reform’s rhetoric taps into public concern over migration numbers, but independent fact‑checking and legal analyses show many proposed mechanisms lack clear, deliverable detail and would face substantial judicial and diplomatic hurdles [5] [7].