Overview of the plan
The Conservative Party has outlined a sweeping border proposal aimed at removing as many as 750,000 people deemed to be in the UK illegally over a five-year period, should they win the next general election. Announced as the party convenes its annual conference in Manchester, the plan centers on reforming how asylum applications are handled and accelerating removals through a new enforcement framework.
Key elements include banning asylum claims by those who enter the UK unlawfully, restricting the ability of rejected applicants to appeal in the courts, and shifting appeals to decisions made by Home Office officials. The package also rebrands and expands the Home Office’s immigration enforcement arm into a “Removals Force,” with a significantly boosted budget intended to speed up removals and deter future arrivals.
What the plan entails
Officials would be directed to remove people “within hours or at most a few days” after decisions are made, according to the party’s proposals. The Removals Force would receive a funding increase to about £1.6bn per year, with an extra £820m potentially unlocked by closing asylum hotels under the plan. The unit would be granted a broader mandate to remove at least 150,000 people annually, totaling 750,000 over the life of a Parliament.
The plan would apply not only to people living in the UK illegally at present but also to future illegal entrants and to foreign nationals convicted of crimes above minor offenses. The scale would mark a dramatic rise from the roughly 35,000 removals recorded in the previous year and reflect a push to align UK policy with a tougher stance on border control.
Legal and policy changes
A central pillar is the potential withdrawal from the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), a move the party has signaled before and reaffirmed in the run-up to the conference. Abolishing the Immigration Tribunal is another key change, with the proposal to transfer asylum appeals to Home Office officials instead of independent tribunals. The plan also contemplates expanding biometric checks and allowing facial recognition tools to be used by police without public notification.
Under the proposals, the Home Office would operate a new detention capacity, with facilities able to hold between 1,000 and 2,000 migrants while removals are completed. The outline also suggests limiting asylum grounds to cases where individuals face persecution from their own government, explicitly excluding claims tied to general conflict or discrimination related to religion or sexuality in other regimes.
Costs, logistics, and real-world implications
Proponents argue the plan could be financed by savings from closing asylum hotels and by maximizing efficiency in removals. Critics, however, warn of practical challenges, including safety, legal redress, and potential violations of international law. Contracting out removals to private operators, coordinating with overseas authorities, and ensuring humane detention standards would be part of the implementation puzzle.
Advocates say the plan would send a clear signal to would-be migrants and help restore public confidence in border controls. Opponents emphasize the risk of misapplication, the erosion of judicial oversight, and the potential for wrongful removals or the mistreatment of asylum-seekers who may not have viable alternatives.
Reaction and political context
With polls showing challenges for the governing party, leaders and activists are weighing how far to push immigration reforms as a core electoral issue. Critics from opposition parties and refugee advocates argue the plan could undermine international protections and lead to legal challenges at various courts, possibly delaying implementation or triggering crisis responses at the border.
Analysts note that any significant shift—especially moves to withdraw from the ECHR or abolish the Immigration Tribunal—would have wide-ranging diplomatic and legal consequences, potentially prompting new debates about human rights commitments and the UK’s standing on the world stage.
What it means for migrants and the asylum system
If adopted, the plan would dramatically alter the landscape for people seeking refuge and for the agencies tasked with processing those claims. The accelerated removal framework, reduced access to courts, and new detention capacities would all change how asylum processes work in practice, with significant implications for due process, fair trial guarantees, and international obligations.
Conclusion
Britain’s opposition to illegal migration has long been a potent political theme. The Conservatives’ latest conference pledge takes that stance further, proposing a comprehensive overhaul of asylum policy and enforcement. As the party prepares for a likely election contest, the challenge will be to translate ambitious targets into a workable, lawful, and humane policy that can withstand legal scrutiny and public scrutiny alike.
