Overview: A new immigration taskforce and tougher border aims
The Conservative Party is expected to unveil a bold, controversial policy at its annual conference: the creation of an immigration taskforce modeled on the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). The plan, described by party sources as a “removals force,” would target the removal of up to 150,000 people a year and comes with a fresh £1.6bn funding package and sweeping powers for enforcement. Proponents argue the move would demonstrably curb illegal immigration, while critics warn of risks to civil liberties and the rights of legal migrants.
The core of the plan: powers, funding and operational ties
Under the proposed framework, the taskforce would operate with enhanced authority to identify and remove individuals deemed in the country unlawfully. Central to the proposal is the use of facial recognition technology to flag those eligible for removal, a capability that would be deployed without warning in some circumstances. The plan would also require closer cooperation with regular police work, with officers potentially carrying out immigration checks during routine stops or arrests.
Advocates frame the policy as a decisive step to secure borders and deter irregular entry. The fact that the taskforce would receive £1.6bn in funding underlines the seriousness of the plan in the government’s border strategy. Critics, however, question the proportionality and effectiveness of such measures, arguing they risk overreach and civil liberties violations.
Context: a border-facing theme for the conference
Immigration is expected to be a dominant theme at this year’s Conservative Conference in Manchester. The removals force is positioned as a cornerstone of a broader “borders plan” announced to delegates, signaling a shift toward stringent controls amid debates over asylum policy, channel crossings, and the UK’s international obligations. The leadership emphasises that a tougher stance on illegal migration would complement other reforms designed to “secure our borders.”
Asylum reform and eligibility changes
Part of Badenoch’s package includes a radical rethink of the asylum system. The proposal would grant refugee status only to those who are directly threatened by a foreign government. In this vision, many who escape conflict or who contend with restrictive laws on religion or sexuality could be excluded from asylum protection. The goal is to streamline decisions and ensure protections are reserved for those with clear, imminently verifiable threats.
Legal framework and potential rights implications
Several aspects of the plan would overhaul the current adjudication process. Notably, there are signals of abolishing immigration tribunals, shifting decision-making to Home Office officials with a narrower right of appeal. Critics worry that reducing independent review could erode due process and transparency. A related proposal indicates limiting access to legal aid for immigration cases, with opponents accusing the plan of weakening the rights of asylum seekers and other migrants.
Contemporary debate: the ECHR and political risk
On the eve of proposing such sweeping changes, Badenoch has floated removing the UK from the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) if the Conservatives win power. This move would mark a drastic departure from decades of alignment with the ECHR framework and could trigger significant legal and diplomatic questions. Proponents contend it is necessary to protect veterans and citizens, while opponents warn of adverse humanitarian and legal consequences and the potential for retaliatory actions abroad.
Public response and the road ahead
Public reaction to a plan of this scale is likely to be mixed. Supporters emphasize the need to curb illegal immigration and protect public services, while opponents argue the policy could lead to wrongful removals, racial profiling, and a chilling effect on legitimate migrants and asylum seekers. As the conference unfolds, observers will be watching for how the leadership balances the tough-on-border rhetoric with practical governance considerations, legal constraints, and the long-term economic and social implications of a more aggressive immigration regime.
What comes next
Whether the party can translate these proposals into legislation, and how much consensus it can build within its own ranks and with potential coalition or opposition partners, remains unclear. The policy’s success will hinge on its legal viability, operational feasibility, and its ability to win public trust while delivering tangible border security outcomes.
