The denial of benefits will be an obvious and effective way of persuading migrants to go back BUT if you don’t think this will lead to violent protest as well as acts of terrorism you live in a more passive world than me.
Any acts to encourage remigration will have violent consequences, it can’t be avoided.
No remigration also has its violent consequences (anti terrorist forces arresting suspects yesterday?).
We are already on a rocky road whatever decisions are made.
It’s reported that Labour have made a deal with India bringing in migrants with the migrants and employers paying no national insurance taxes for 3? years (unprecedented and appalling) which will make that road infinitely more dangerous.
“The exemption applies to the staff of Indian companies temporarily transferred to the UK, and to UK firms' workers transferred to India. Social security contributions will be paid by employers and employees in their home country only, rather than in both places.”
“Pushed on the fact the UK has similar arrangements with other countries, Badenoch stressed that in those cases there were equivalent numbers of UK nationals working in those countries, whereas that was not the case with India, making the agreement "very lopsided" which would result in being a "net cost to the Treasury."”
It’ll make Rishi Sunak’s missus and his father-in-law happy as it makes Infosys better able to undercut British firms when competing for IT contracts in the UK.
If the Tories had negotiated such a trade deal with India, you can bet your life that Labour would be going absolutely mental.
To quote Milton Friedman, "The government has NO intentions; only PEOPLE have intentions."
So the question of whether uncontrolled immigration is a symptom of a collapsing State apparatus, or a result of general incompetence, or even a long well-thought-out plan? It's probably all of the above, as different groups of people inside the government try to push their own agendas.
Half a billion pounds of EU funding says maybe there was a plan, under the Asylum Migration and Integration Fund (AMIF). No idea if this is still active (govt page last updated in 2024, so perhaps). But this stuff also needs to be ditched, so the people in government can, at least, start singing the same tune. Either admit they are paying vast amounts of money to bring people in. Or admit they are trying to do something to stop people being brought in!
Here's a video discussing some of these government awards:
An excellent, well laid out and (presumably) comprehensively researched document. I agree totally with the sentiment that forced mass deportations are a non-starter and, in fact, find myself unable to dissent to any of the sentiments and ideas for change expressed.
Perhaps I am naive in the extreme but what I find so difficult to understand is why those in authority and power over us have allowed such a situation, as that in which we currently find ourselves vis-a-vis mass, uncontrolled immigration, to come to pass.
A great read, but sadly nothing will happen. Every govt policy is designed to attract even more foreigners to our shores - just look at the latest wheeze of making Indians cheaper to employ than Brits.
Sooner or later people will work out that the scum who own the planet are just moving their little worker animals around at the expense of local taxpayers so they can run their business with the lowest possible labour costs. And bollocks to the countries and cultures that are being destroyed
This comment primarily addresses differences in the way Pete and Homeland appear to understand remigration.
As I explain, the text about remigration on Homeland's website is, in places, somewhat contradictory. Nevertheless I think it's clear that Homeland understands remigration to mean something different to Pete. And this, I think, adds unnecessary confusion to discussions around remigration.
I also offer some brief observations on the removal of illegal immigrants from the UK.
HOMELAND: CONTRADICTORY STATMENTS?
Homeland's "Immigration & Remigration" webpage [1] is divided into three sections. The second section deals with immigration and the third with remigration. This third section consists of four introductory paragraphs followed by eight expandable sections listing Homeland's various remigration policies. The first two introductory paragraphs are set out below (capitals added).
_________
"Remigration involves systematically reversing laws and policies that permit and encourage mass IMMIGRATION while implementing new laws and policies to facilitate and encourage mass EMIGRATION. It prioritises the removal of criminals who harm society, creates safe voluntary routes for others to emigrate, and is guided by clear criteria such as criminality, political extremism, and cultural alignment.
Remigration SIMPLY refers to a comprehensive EMIGRATION policy, introduced by democratic means, and is as normal as any other, such as the recruitment of guest workers or provision of temporary refuge. By contrast, the decades-long “replacement migration” experiment imposed particularly across Europe and the UK, was initiated without public consent and is far from normal."
_________
The observant reader will note that in the first paragraph, Homeland suggests that remigration relates to both immigration and emigration policy. Whereas in the second paragraph Homeland suggests that remigration relates simply to emigration policy.
I'm confident that pretty much everyone who's discussing remigration understands the term as relating to matters of emigration. And that's certainly how the Wikipedia entry on "remigration" understands the term [2].
And I think Homeland actually understands remigration as pertaining to emigration. And that's because pretty much all the policies listed in the remigration section (Section 3) relate to emigration whilst immigration policies are explained in a separate section (Section 2).
Similarly, in Pete's writings on remigration, most of his discussion focuses on various means of getting people out of the country! So for the remainder of the discussion I assume remigration pertains to emigration only.
UNDERSTANDING REMIGRATION: DIFFERENCES BETWEEN PETE AND HOMELAND
The following four policies are among those listed in Homeland's remigration section.
1. Deportation of foreign national offenders
2. Deprivation of Citizenship and Deportation for Criminals of Foreign Origin
3. Removal of Illegal Immigrants
4. Expanding the Existing Return Program and Introducing Remigration Centres
Given their titles, the first two are clearly deportation policies. However, the third policy talks of "removal" rather than "deportation". But if one looks at the accompanying text, it states that
"Given the significant numbers of undocumented migrants, a dedicated removals department, separate from the Home Office, should be established to manage DEPORTATIONS efficiently".
So whilst the first three are policies involving deportation (also known as "forced return"), the fourth policy is one of "voluntary return", that is paying people of foreign origin to leave the country voluntarily.
Thus, it's very clear from Homeland's list of policies that the party understands remigration as including both forced and voluntary return. However, in this piece, Pete understands remigration as consisting only of voluntary return (and measures to incentivize it). For example he writes that
"In summary, mass deportations sound appealing, but we are more likely to break the back of the problem with remigration measures."
And elsewhere [3] he's written
"Deportation is a means to deal with foreign offenders and illegals. Remigration is a category of measures aimed at enabling and facilitating mass emigration of legal immigrants".
Or to put it another way, whilst Pete doesn't regard deportation as an aspect of remigration, Homeland does. I'd note that Homeland's understanding is the one that's in keeping with the understanding set out in the Wikipedia article on remigration [2].
THOUGHTS ON THE REMOVAL OF ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS
If one reads the text relating to Homeland's policy on "Removal of Illegal Immigrants" it would seem that the sole approach is deportation. But if one reads the text relating to Homeland's policy on "Expanding the Existing Return Program and Introducing Remigration Centres" it suggests that some illegal immigrants might leave via voluntary return. It would be helpful if Homeland were to summarize its approach to removing illegal migrants in one place rather than the reader having to piece it together from reading different sections of text.
However, whilst Homeland appears to regard both deportation and voluntary return as complementary policies with regard to removing illegal immigrants, Pete seems to be placing less emphasis on the role of deportation than Homeland does on its website and than he has done in previous posts [3]. Which I guess illustrates that thinking evolves! Which can only be a good thing!
I'll end by mentioning that the Centre for Migration Control, in conjunction with Rupert Lowe has recently published a paper on the removal of illegal immigrants entitled "Mass Deportations: A Blueprint" [4]. It discusses the relationship between deportation and voluntary return and may be of interest.
"Immigrants should have zero entitlement to housing, benefits, healthcare or free education for their offspring".
I think it's crucial to know what's meant by "immigrants" here. Does it include first generation immigrants who are British citizens? What about second and third generation immigrants who have citizenship? If so, I can see the potential for serious unrest.
On a related note it strikes me that there's arguably something of a tension between claiming on the one hand that the purpose of remigration policy is "to create a hostile environment for migrants, to the point where there is no economic merit in staying here and no real way to get a foothold", and on the other that remigration is "humane".
I think the "humane" claim becomes particularly difficult to make if the plan is to withdraw entitlements to benefits, social housing, free healthcare and free education from British citizens of foreign origin. For this would create a two-tier citizenship under which native citizens had greater entitlements than citizens of foreign origin. Such a policy would also surely fail the "non-discriminatory" test.
An excellent blueprint. This is a must read document for a future sane government. It’s a shame you won’t apply your considerable intellect to helping Reform Pete as your time is largely wasted with Homeland. But you know this.
A refreshingly grown-up approach to the subject. I have become weary of 'sink the boats' comments by people who clearly have no understanding of how public opinion can shift, or be shifted, to round on policies they initially embraced.
Mass immigration is happening in all white founded nations and it has to be said that the sub replacement birth rates for 2 generations has created the scope for it.
In the UK viewing it through any left/right political binary is obsolete and self delusional, as the" right "has made the political, economic and legal choices to enable it more.
Being part of organisations like the UN, WHO, NATO, the commonwealth etc make it almost impossible to stop the globalists agenda. The Brexit deceit is shown by Irelands subsequent corporate tax haven revenue surge and the Schengen illegal immigration catch up that both countries are engaging in, while it allowed the Tories to flood the country with 5 million non European immigrants in just a few years.
The denial of benefits will be an obvious and effective way of persuading migrants to go back BUT if you don’t think this will lead to violent protest as well as acts of terrorism you live in a more passive world than me.
Any acts to encourage remigration will have violent consequences, it can’t be avoided.
No remigration also has its violent consequences (anti terrorist forces arresting suspects yesterday?).
We are already on a rocky road whatever decisions are made.
It’s reported that Labour have made a deal with India bringing in migrants with the migrants and employers paying no national insurance taxes for 3? years (unprecedented and appalling) which will make that road infinitely more dangerous.
Regarding the UK-India trade deal and NI, if the BBC reporting is correct, it is not applicable to every Indian migrant.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c5y6y90e5vzo
“The exemption applies to the staff of Indian companies temporarily transferred to the UK, and to UK firms' workers transferred to India. Social security contributions will be paid by employers and employees in their home country only, rather than in both places.”
But it’s still totally shite…
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c24q4ng9y11o
“Pushed on the fact the UK has similar arrangements with other countries, Badenoch stressed that in those cases there were equivalent numbers of UK nationals working in those countries, whereas that was not the case with India, making the agreement "very lopsided" which would result in being a "net cost to the Treasury."”
It’ll make Rishi Sunak’s missus and his father-in-law happy as it makes Infosys better able to undercut British firms when competing for IT contracts in the UK.
If the Tories had negotiated such a trade deal with India, you can bet your life that Labour would be going absolutely mental.
To quote Milton Friedman, "The government has NO intentions; only PEOPLE have intentions."
So the question of whether uncontrolled immigration is a symptom of a collapsing State apparatus, or a result of general incompetence, or even a long well-thought-out plan? It's probably all of the above, as different groups of people inside the government try to push their own agendas.
Half a billion pounds of EU funding says maybe there was a plan, under the Asylum Migration and Integration Fund (AMIF). No idea if this is still active (govt page last updated in 2024, so perhaps). But this stuff also needs to be ditched, so the people in government can, at least, start singing the same tune. Either admit they are paying vast amounts of money to bring people in. Or admit they are trying to do something to stop people being brought in!
Here's a video discussing some of these government awards:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2SMK9Fdni44
An excellent, well laid out and (presumably) comprehensively researched document. I agree totally with the sentiment that forced mass deportations are a non-starter and, in fact, find myself unable to dissent to any of the sentiments and ideas for change expressed.
Perhaps I am naive in the extreme but what I find so difficult to understand is why those in authority and power over us have allowed such a situation, as that in which we currently find ourselves vis-a-vis mass, uncontrolled immigration, to come to pass.
A great read, but sadly nothing will happen. Every govt policy is designed to attract even more foreigners to our shores - just look at the latest wheeze of making Indians cheaper to employ than Brits.
Sooner or later people will work out that the scum who own the planet are just moving their little worker animals around at the expense of local taxpayers so they can run their business with the lowest possible labour costs. And bollocks to the countries and cultures that are being destroyed
A stimulating and thought-provoking read.
This comment primarily addresses differences in the way Pete and Homeland appear to understand remigration.
As I explain, the text about remigration on Homeland's website is, in places, somewhat contradictory. Nevertheless I think it's clear that Homeland understands remigration to mean something different to Pete. And this, I think, adds unnecessary confusion to discussions around remigration.
I also offer some brief observations on the removal of illegal immigrants from the UK.
HOMELAND: CONTRADICTORY STATMENTS?
Homeland's "Immigration & Remigration" webpage [1] is divided into three sections. The second section deals with immigration and the third with remigration. This third section consists of four introductory paragraphs followed by eight expandable sections listing Homeland's various remigration policies. The first two introductory paragraphs are set out below (capitals added).
_________
"Remigration involves systematically reversing laws and policies that permit and encourage mass IMMIGRATION while implementing new laws and policies to facilitate and encourage mass EMIGRATION. It prioritises the removal of criminals who harm society, creates safe voluntary routes for others to emigrate, and is guided by clear criteria such as criminality, political extremism, and cultural alignment.
Remigration SIMPLY refers to a comprehensive EMIGRATION policy, introduced by democratic means, and is as normal as any other, such as the recruitment of guest workers or provision of temporary refuge. By contrast, the decades-long “replacement migration” experiment imposed particularly across Europe and the UK, was initiated without public consent and is far from normal."
_________
The observant reader will note that in the first paragraph, Homeland suggests that remigration relates to both immigration and emigration policy. Whereas in the second paragraph Homeland suggests that remigration relates simply to emigration policy.
I'm confident that pretty much everyone who's discussing remigration understands the term as relating to matters of emigration. And that's certainly how the Wikipedia entry on "remigration" understands the term [2].
And I think Homeland actually understands remigration as pertaining to emigration. And that's because pretty much all the policies listed in the remigration section (Section 3) relate to emigration whilst immigration policies are explained in a separate section (Section 2).
Similarly, in Pete's writings on remigration, most of his discussion focuses on various means of getting people out of the country! So for the remainder of the discussion I assume remigration pertains to emigration only.
UNDERSTANDING REMIGRATION: DIFFERENCES BETWEEN PETE AND HOMELAND
The following four policies are among those listed in Homeland's remigration section.
1. Deportation of foreign national offenders
2. Deprivation of Citizenship and Deportation for Criminals of Foreign Origin
3. Removal of Illegal Immigrants
4. Expanding the Existing Return Program and Introducing Remigration Centres
Given their titles, the first two are clearly deportation policies. However, the third policy talks of "removal" rather than "deportation". But if one looks at the accompanying text, it states that
"Given the significant numbers of undocumented migrants, a dedicated removals department, separate from the Home Office, should be established to manage DEPORTATIONS efficiently".
So whilst the first three are policies involving deportation (also known as "forced return"), the fourth policy is one of "voluntary return", that is paying people of foreign origin to leave the country voluntarily.
Thus, it's very clear from Homeland's list of policies that the party understands remigration as including both forced and voluntary return. However, in this piece, Pete understands remigration as consisting only of voluntary return (and measures to incentivize it). For example he writes that
"In summary, mass deportations sound appealing, but we are more likely to break the back of the problem with remigration measures."
And elsewhere [3] he's written
"Deportation is a means to deal with foreign offenders and illegals. Remigration is a category of measures aimed at enabling and facilitating mass emigration of legal immigrants".
Or to put it another way, whilst Pete doesn't regard deportation as an aspect of remigration, Homeland does. I'd note that Homeland's understanding is the one that's in keeping with the understanding set out in the Wikipedia article on remigration [2].
THOUGHTS ON THE REMOVAL OF ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS
If one reads the text relating to Homeland's policy on "Removal of Illegal Immigrants" it would seem that the sole approach is deportation. But if one reads the text relating to Homeland's policy on "Expanding the Existing Return Program and Introducing Remigration Centres" it suggests that some illegal immigrants might leave via voluntary return. It would be helpful if Homeland were to summarize its approach to removing illegal migrants in one place rather than the reader having to piece it together from reading different sections of text.
However, whilst Homeland appears to regard both deportation and voluntary return as complementary policies with regard to removing illegal immigrants, Pete seems to be placing less emphasis on the role of deportation than Homeland does on its website and than he has done in previous posts [3]. Which I guess illustrates that thinking evolves! Which can only be a good thing!
I'll end by mentioning that the Centre for Migration Control, in conjunction with Rupert Lowe has recently published a paper on the removal of illegal immigrants entitled "Mass Deportations: A Blueprint" [4]. It discusses the relationship between deportation and voluntary return and may be of interest.
[1] https://homelandparty.org/our-thinking/migration/
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remigration
[3] https://x.com/FUDdaily/status/1916776579465687168
[4] https://www.rupertlowe.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/Mass-deportations_-plan_A_Blueprint.pdf
Pete writes
"Immigrants should have zero entitlement to housing, benefits, healthcare or free education for their offspring".
I think it's crucial to know what's meant by "immigrants" here. Does it include first generation immigrants who are British citizens? What about second and third generation immigrants who have citizenship? If so, I can see the potential for serious unrest.
On a related note it strikes me that there's arguably something of a tension between claiming on the one hand that the purpose of remigration policy is "to create a hostile environment for migrants, to the point where there is no economic merit in staying here and no real way to get a foothold", and on the other that remigration is "humane".
I think the "humane" claim becomes particularly difficult to make if the plan is to withdraw entitlements to benefits, social housing, free healthcare and free education from British citizens of foreign origin. For this would create a two-tier citizenship under which native citizens had greater entitlements than citizens of foreign origin. Such a policy would also surely fail the "non-discriminatory" test.
An excellent blueprint. This is a must read document for a future sane government. It’s a shame you won’t apply your considerable intellect to helping Reform Pete as your time is largely wasted with Homeland. But you know this.
Does Reform want any help, or would it accept it if offered?
A refreshingly grown-up approach to the subject. I have become weary of 'sink the boats' comments by people who clearly have no understanding of how public opinion can shift, or be shifted, to round on policies they initially embraced.
Mass immigration is happening in all white founded nations and it has to be said that the sub replacement birth rates for 2 generations has created the scope for it.
In the UK viewing it through any left/right political binary is obsolete and self delusional, as the" right "has made the political, economic and legal choices to enable it more.
Being part of organisations like the UN, WHO, NATO, the commonwealth etc make it almost impossible to stop the globalists agenda. The Brexit deceit is shown by Irelands subsequent corporate tax haven revenue surge and the Schengen illegal immigration catch up that both countries are engaging in, while it allowed the Tories to flood the country with 5 million non European immigrants in just a few years.