Britain’s Conservative Party has unveiled a sweeping new immigration platform built around a U.S.-style “Removals Force” charged with deporting 150,000 people a year—more than quadruple current return levels—and equipped with expanded enforcement powers across the country.
The proposal, set to dominate the Conservative Party conference in Manchester, would create a £1.6 billion unit explicitly modeled on the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). It would conduct unannounced facial-recognition checks, integrate closely with police—who would be required to carry out immigration checks during stops and arrests—and fast-track removals, according to briefings by party leaders.
Badenoch defended the plan in broadcast interviews on Sunday, calling it “credible,” though she declined to say precisely where all those people would be removed to, beyond vague references to home countries and “safe third countries.” The Conservative leader also floated withdrawing the UK from the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) if necessary to implement the policy.
Shadow Justice Secretary Robert Jenrick amplified the hard-line message in press statements, saying the country had been “pussy-footing for too long,” while the Daily Express framed the plan as a “bold” push that would “remove all new illegal immigrants within a week.”
What the plan would change
Conservative briefings outline a package that goes beyond the mere addition of a new enforcement body. The party says it would overhaul asylum rules to restrict refugee status mostly to those facing direct persecution by foreign states; abolish or limit immigration tribunal appeals; and cut legal aid access for immigration cases. Badenoch has repeatedly argued that the ECHR and domestic human rights laws hamper removals and signaled the party would legislate to curtail those constraints.
Scale versus the status quo
Achieving 150,000 removals a year would be a dramatic leap from current performance. Recent Home Office statistics show that approximately 34,000 people were returned from the UK in 2024 (both voluntary and enforced), the highest since 2017—but still far short of the new target. Enforced returns alone numbered in the low single-digits of thousands. Current flow, even with modest growth, would need a radical scale-up to approach the proposed figure.
On detention capacity, independent analysis suggests the UK’s immigration detention estate held around 2,200 beds in mid-2024, with most in use—implying a significant infrastructure expansion would be necessary to detain and process removals at the proposed scale.
Channel crossings context
The Conservatives present the plan as a response to surging small-boat arrivals across the Channel, which have grown in bursts. In one year ending June 2025, some 43,309 people were recorded arriving irregularly, marking a year-on-year increase of nearly 38%. Recent daily data showed multiple late-September days with hundreds of arrivals, underscoring how the route has become a flashpoint in public debate—even though migrants crossing in small boats represent only a fraction of total migration pressure.
The Rwanda backdrop—and Labour’s stance
Badenoch has blamed legal obstacles for the failure of the earlier Conservative government’s plan to offshore asylum processing in Rwanda, abandoned after Labour came to power. The current Labour government replaced it with a Border Security Command and has proposed a UK-France “one in, one out” pilot to assist returns. Labour ministers have called the Conservatives’ new 150,000 deportation target “not credible” and pressed for details about destinations, bilateral agreements and due-process safeguards.
Could the UK operate a UK-ICE?
Comparisons with U.S. ICE must be cautious. In the U.S., ICE is supported by far larger budgets, extensive detention capacity, and robust repatriation networks. The U.S. removal figures in recent years have ranged into the six figures, but those rely on a continental land border, long-standing removal treaties, and scale that the UK currently lacks.
Law, rights and ‘non-refoulement’
Any British “ICE-style” escalation would remain bound by international law and obligations against non-refoulement—the prohibition on sending people to places where they face torture, persecution or inhuman treatment. The U.N. refugee agency and human rights bodies have warned that proposals barring asylum access to irregular entrants conflict with these obligations. Repealing parts of domestic law does not nullify international commitments. Legal analysts also argue that withdrawing from the ECHR would not eliminate all constraints: courts would still interpret statutory and common law duties, and removal cases would continue to be litigated on risk-of-harm grounds.
Logistics: desks, detention and diplomacy
Scaling to remove 150,000 people per year would demand:
- return agreements and cooperation from dozens of origin states, many reluctant or slow to issue travel documents,
- major expansion of detention and case-processing capacity, including more beds, escort resources, charter flights,
- streamlined casework capable of withstanding judicial scrutiny—especially for families, children and vulnerable persons.
Current throughput figures and capacity estimates suggest a steep operational climb.
Politics and timing
The Conservatives’ pitch lands in a moment of political weakness and challenge from their right flank. Party strategists hope that a hard reset on borders might reinvigorate core support. But pressing questions—where would 150,000 people be sent, how would the UK compel acceptance, and how would courts treat accelerated removals—remain unanswered in weekend statements.
