---

Restore Britain has published a policy paper outlining the legal obstacles to and the practical logistics of deporting every illegal migrant in Britain.  At this time, it is estimated that there are in the region of 2 million illegal immigrants in Britain.

Using a two-pronged approach of voluntary and enforced removals, “it would take exactly 3 years to deport all of the roughly 1.8 million illegals we believe to be living in our midst,” the paper states.

Let’s not lose touch…Your Government and Big Tech are actively trying to censor the information reported by The Exposé to serve their own needs. Subscribe to our emails now to make sure you receive the latest uncensored news in your inbox…

Restore Britain is a new political movement led by Rupert Lowe, Member of Parliament for Great Yarmouth.  It describes itself as a grassroots effort aimed at reshaping how Britain is governed and has the foundational principles of “low tax, small state, slash immigration, protect British culture, restore Christian principles, carpet-bomb the cancer of wokery, fight lawfare, empower individual enterprise and plenty more.” On its “Join Us” page, Restore Britain adds free speech and direct democracy as core principles

“2029 is the ultimate objective, but that does not mean we cannot effect real and positive change in the next four years. If we don’t, there won’t be a Britain to restore,” Mr. Lowe says.

On 9 October, Restore Britain published its policy paper titled ‘Mass Deportations: Legitimacy, Legality, and Logistics’, which sets out a blueprint for the removal of every person living in Britain illegally – combining sweeping legal reforms with a fully costed operational plan.

According to Restore Britain, the 113-page paper is the first of its kind to detail how the mass deportation of all illegal migrants could be achieved lawfully, logistically and efficiently within three years, likely faster. 

It proposes a “Great Clarification Act” to reassert parliamentary sovereignty over the courts, the repeal of the Equality Act and Human Rights Act, withdrawal from the European Convention on Human Rights and the abolition of Britain’s asylum system in its current form.

Below, we have reproduced the Executive Summary from the paper.

Mass Deportations: Legitimacy, Legality, and Logistics – Executive Summary

The British people are suffering. Much of that suffering has to do with an illegal immigration catastrophe that makes us poorer, less safe, and more despairing of our own institutions.

Restore Britain’s policy paper, Mass Deportations: Legitimacy, Legality, and Logistics, sets out a comprehensive plan for detaining and deporting every single person who has broken illegally into our national home.

We propose to achieve this goal by mixing forced removals with subtler tactics for making residence in Britain unliveable for those with no right to be here. Part I deals with the legal obstacles to mass deportations, all of which must be cleared. Part II deals with the practical logistics of mass deportations. Neither is good enough without the other.

Part I: The Legal Obstacles to Mass Deportations

At Restore Britain, we note with alarm that our ability to defend our own borders against unarmed invasion confronts serious barriers in the form of domestic laws and international agreements. In Part I, we call for the removal of these obstacles as a prerequisite to restoring national sovereignty. We view such laws as manmade mechanisms that can and must be changed in the interests of the British people. Our proposals assume a government with the political will and the majority in Parliament to pass major reforms.

We start by giving a non-exhaustive but important list of domestic laws to be prioritised for repeal and/or amendment. Among the objectives of the changes we recommend are to relieve the state of any duty to support asylum seekers unless they cooperate with a ramped-up process of detention and eventual removal, the abolition of non-detention-related accommodation centres and time-consuming immigration tribunals, and an end to the Equality Act (2010).

We next address the United Nations Refugee Convention of 1951, which has been embedded in much of our domestic legislation. We call for the repeal of all references to its rules and principles, especially those allowing asylum claims after safe-country travel. We take the view that the Convention is unsuited to an era of mass migration on an unprecedented global scale. As far as our own law is concerned, we think that refugee status should only ever be extended to those arriving directly and seeking genuine asylum from countries that neighbour us. All other claims must be rejected as a matter of course. Given that every one of Britain’s immediate neighbours is presently classed as a safe country, this would effectively mean scrapping our whole asylum system. It has been abused for far too long. In the longer term, we push for a new worldwide status quo that would impose an obligation on self-described refugees to seek asylum in their home continent. This would reduce cultural conflicts and give world leaders a stronger incentive to support regional stability.

The European Convention on Human Rights and the Human Rights Act (1998) both have a well-known track record of blocking particular deportations, let alone mass deportations. They do so by handing down disruptive judgments, typically by appeal to preventing torture (Article 3) and safeguarding family life (Article 8). We consider the merits of full withdrawal from the ECHR/repeal of the HRA on the one hand and selective disobedience of rights-based rulings on the other. Ultimately, we conclude that withdrawal and repeal are for the best – despite the fact that such measures will give rise to political difficulties, though not a legal dead-end, in Northern Ireland relating to the Belfast Agreement.

While we acknowledge these concerns, we argue that withdrawal and repeal need not jeopardise peace on the Irish mainland, particularly given that we propose to retain in our law a minuscule fraction of select ECHR precedents that have direct relevance to Northern Ireland’s peculiar history. Any sliver of retained case law would have no reasonable bearing on immigration policy. It would be applied by British courts, maintaining social cohesion and legal continuity without doing anything to hinder deportation efforts.

In the event that any remaining laws continue to be abused to hinder such efforts, we have an ace up our sleeve: the Great Clarification Act. A groundbreaking Restore Britain proposal, our Great Clarification Act would reiterate Parliament’s full power to defeat troublesome court decisions in real time by a simple majority.

On the Windsor Framework and EU relations, we make the case that withdrawal from the ECHR and repeal of the HRA does nothing to breach the terms of our post-Brexit trading settlement with our European neighbours. However, we accept that the status of our UK-EU Trade and Cooperation Agreement may face minor issues on non-trade provisions like criminal justice and continental data-sharing. In any case, these could already do with a lick of paint to address the special challenges of the 21st century. We call for imaginative new partnerships with the EU on border security and much else to replace the creaking edifice of outdated systems.

Last of all, we tackle judicial activism – a major block to national sovereignty and patriotic government. As we have seen, our Great Clarification Act would enable Parliament to correct misguided rulings through an exacting but clear process. Other reforms include stricter criteria for judicial review, removing biased judges, and restoring the Lord Chancellor’s role in appointments.

All of the above changes are essential if we wish to implement the practical logistics of mass deportations laid out in Part II.

Part II: The Practical Logistics of Mass Deportations

In Part II, we detail the actual steps that will have to be taken to achieve mass deportations. We run with the assumption that there are between 1.8-2 million foreigners living in Britain without permission. Any sensible government should want to make the removal of every single one of them as undramatic and cost-free as possible. There is no point in flexing our muscles for the sake of it while getting little in the way of practical dividends.

In view of this fact, our plan would involve a two-pronged approach of voluntary removals and enforced removals, each supporting and reinforcing the other.

Inspired in many ways by the second Trump administration, we call for a “hostile environment” to encourage self-deportations, combined with somewhere in the region of 150,000 to 200,000 forced deportations per year. Assuming a conservative ratio of three voluntary exits for every forced exit, together with a similarly conservative annual average of 150,000 forced deportations, it would take exactly 3 years to deport all of the roughly 1.8 million illegals we believe to be living in our midst. Our preferred realistic estimate, developed towards the end of Section VIII, puts the full length of mass deportations at an even more encouraging 2 years and 5 months.

We focus first on fostering a culture of voluntary returns. These cost less and scale better than forced deportations. E-visas should be made the only acceptable proof of legal residency for non-British citizens, with strict audits on gig economy platforms where illegal workers thrive. Right to Work checks should be expanded to contractors and the self-employed, particularly in sectors that are known to serve as illegal hotspots like construction and hospitality. Non-compliant employers must face heavy fines or jail. Future government contracts should also be handed out on the strict condition that private companies enlisted for their services can demonstrate compliance with the hostile environment. In relation to housing, we demand Right to Rent checks at tenancy start, with considerable penalties and potential asset seizure for landlords who fail to comply. We propose changing homelessness laws to exclude illegal immigrants, redirecting them to deportation.

In healthcare, we call for an end to so-called “safe surgeries” that shield illegal immigrants, requiring status proof for NHS access and upfront charges for non-emergency care. Data-sharing across public services should make a priority of tracking the illegal population.

In banking, we propose biometric checks for accounts and closing any without valid status. A remittance tax on countries that refuse to take back their own citizens should also be levied to raise deportation funds and pressure uncooperative governments. We also envision an app or portal offering reintegration aid, to be promoted through PR campaigns and embassy partnerships. Publicising enforcement and embedding support in community roles will boost compliance.

With respect to forced deportations, we propose expanding Immigration Enforcement with thousands of new staff, including veterans and police, funded by fines, seized assets, and higher visa fees for high-overstay countries. Data integration is critical: councils, NHS, and other agencies should be required by law to share information that assists in identifying illegal immigrants. Employers, landlords, and banks must report suspicious activity. A public reporting portal, together with rewards for successful whistleblowing, should be brought online to encourage help from the law-abiding people of Britain.

We call for a dramatic increase in detention capacity, using sites like former RAF bases to detain thousands awaiting deportation. Private firms should be enlisted to manage these facilities for maximal efficiency. For the deportations themselves, a combination of commercial flight seats, extra charter flights, and military transport should be employed, depending on the needs of the case at hand.

Crucially, we demand the retrospective revocation of anyone recently rewarded with asylum for illegal entry. Again to influence uncooperative countries, we advocate sanctions like visa bans, aid cuts, and tariffs, plus a NATO-like coalition of Western nations doing likewise to compound the diplomatic pressure on places like India, Nigeria, and Pakistan. Third-country processing deals, along the lines of past models, should be secured to ease coordination problems and boost capacity.

We expect all this to require expenditure in the tens of billions over five years, but savings from reduced public spending and revenue from fixed penalty notices and taxes on remittance payments will no doubt offset such costs.

Featured image taken from ‘Rupert Lowe Launches “Restore Britain”’, Caldron Pool, 1 July 2025