Immigration into Britain is out of control. The following policy is an outline of our general intent and approach. It is grounded in the belief that a nation does not owe the world unfettered access through its borders or entitlement to its welfare systems. The state’s primary obligation is to its own people, ensuring their well-being, security, and preserving genuine national unity.

However, we recognise that mass, uncontrolled immigration is not an isolated issue. It is a symptom of a collapsing administrative state and a political system that has strayed from the principles of natural law, weakening the bond between nation and state. Though we set out our thinking on proper administration below, to fully address the problem, we believe the state must be rebuilt from the ground up and rooted in our best traditions and history.

We believe that immigration control must be built into every aspect of policy from education, health, and policing to trade, foreign policy, and taxation. Control will only be possible when the apparatus of state is reformed to be accountable and run in the service of our people.

Defining and protecting national borders and identity is not merely an administrative duty; it is deeply connected to the natural human desire for political sovereignty and self-determination. This desire is especially strong among those who share a common heritage, cultural traditions, and a homeland. Therefore, policy must prioritise the protection of these elements to maintain social harmony and the unity of our people.

We believe our approach is the most serious and sensible of any political party in the UK. Rather than wasting time with superficial “net zero” promises, we directly confront the real issues of demographic replacement, overpopulation, cultural degradation, and crime directly. What we propose is a radical but necessary overhaul of the entire system.

Our policy is divided into three parts: Ongoing Campaigns, Immigration, and Remigration. The Immigration and Remigration sections contain sub-sections. Click on each heading to expand and explore these sections further. Sources for facts and figures are provided in the endnotes, which may be amended over time.

1. Ongoing Campaigns

Localised Opposition

We strongly oppose the use of hotels, military bases, HMOs, and other council accommodations to house migrants. The priority must be to house our own people first, not individuals from around the world. It is a grave misuse of taxpayer money to allocate resources to this cause while many of our citizens face homelessness and hardship. Diverting funds to support incomers while our own people suffer on the streets is not only unjust but deeply irresponsible. Every Homeland Party councillor is committed to ending this practice.

These efforts are far more effective when we work closely with local communities and when councillors are actively involved in the opposition. Focusing our efforts on areas where we already have support, rather than spreading ourselves too thin, is key to success. Consistent pressure in a local area is the most effective way to gradually grind the liberal establishment down. All of our people should aim to join their local councils—not only to tackle this issue but to address many others that affect the well-being of our communities.

Immigration Referendum

We call for a binding referendum on mass migration, as polling has consistently demonstrated that the public does not support large-scale immigration. For too long, the state has blatantly disregarded the clear wishes of the people. We believe that a campaign for an immigration referendum is not only necessary but achievable, even before assuming governmental power, and that the people’s voice should directly influence immigration policy. To learn more about this idea, please visit our page Immigration Referendum Explained.

2. Immigration

Click on the headings below to expand each section

Implement a Moratorium on Immigration

Mass immigration is both unwanted and unnecessary. To protect our people and our land, we will enforce an immediate moratorium on immigration. This pause is essential to prioritise the nation’s resources and infrastructure for the benefit of our citizens, to help restore public safety, and to allow for a thorough reassessment of immigration policy that better aligns with our long-term national interests.

Under exceptional circumstances and for strategic purposes (such as defence and energy), limited immigration for work may be allowed on a case-by-case basis. Employers would need to sponsor individuals, demonstrating that no suitable UK citizen is available for the role and that the position was not created solely to recruit a foreign worker. Sponsorship must ensure that these workers do not place any additional burden on the state and must include comprehensive medical insurance. To further discourage reliance on foreign labour, employers would be required to make significant investments in local training and productivity improvements.

Currently, the UK operates 29 different types of work visas, including specific arrangements for nationals from countries like India and Turkey.⁽¹⁾ We propose rationalising these visa categories to align with the strict criteria outlined here.

By implementing these measures, we would effectively end unwanted and unnecessary low-skill immigration, particularly the disproportionately high levels from culturally incompatible regions such as Africa, India, and Pakistan, where immigrants often require further taxpayer-funded education. Any necessary immigration would be minimal, consisting only of highly skilled individuals who meet stringent requirements, including fluency in English, and would most likely come from neighbouring European countries where qualifications align with UK standards. All permitted roles would be strictly temporary and would not offer a pathway to citizenship.

Strengthen Defence of Our Borders

We must take all necessary measures to defend our borders, deploying appropriate resources to stop illegal migration across the Channel and other routes. Illegal immigration is so-called because it is illegal; individuals entering unlawfully are committing a criminal offence punishable by fine or imprisonment. Based on these criteria, such individuals should be deported as a matter of course. All unprocessed migrants who enter illegally will be promptly returned, using military transports if necessary, to ensure robust and effective border security.

Removal of Incentives

To discourage unwanted and unneeded migration, it is essential to remove the incentives that attract individuals to our country. To this end, we would eliminate all benefits and all entitlements to housing or free healthcare for immigrants.

Additionally, for many immigrants, criminal enterprises within the black economy act as a significant pull factor, particularly from regions such as Albania. These individuals are drawn by the prospect of making easy money. Law enforcement must intensify efforts to crack down on foreign gangs involved in crimes such as phone theft, drug trafficking, sex trafficking, and car theft. Strengthening the response to such activities on a local basis will help eliminate these incentives and reduce the pull factor of quick, illicit earnings.

Reform the Asylum System

We propose a reformed asylum policy that focuses on accepting refugees only from neighbouring countries or European conflicts in which our state is directly involved. This approach is based on the principle that conflicts should eventually end, allowing refugees to return and help rebuild their own countries. The current asylum system has become a loophole exploited by criminal gangs, economic migrants and pro-migration NGOs funded by billionaires.

Unless a sudden outbreak of war occurs in Europe, refugee admissions would be capped at fewer than 1,000 annually, prioritising those genuinely at risk—such as political dissidents, journalists, informants, and intelligence assets.

All asylum seekers would be admitted under the assumption they would ultimately return home; asylum would not offer a pathway to citizenship. Furthermore, no asylum seeker would receive taxpayer-funded legal aid. We will exit the 1951 Refugee Convention and implement our own asylum system with robust safeguards, ensuring it is never used as a “free-for-all” and serves its intended purpose.

End State Funding and Charitable Status for Pro-Migration Non-Government Organisations (NGOs)

We propose ending all state funding for NGOs promoting pro-migration agendas and revoking their charitable status. Furthermore, we would introduce legislation to prevent these organisations from receiving foreign financial support. This approach ensures that public funds are directed to causes aligning with national interests, refocusing charitable resources towards domestic priorities.

Our proposal does not limit individuals’ rights to participate in lawful political activity or to form associations and fund them domestically. Rather, we believe that charitable status—and the associated tax benefits—should be reserved for organisations with legitimate charitable purposes rather than those engaging in political activism.

Charitable activities benefit from tax exemptions due to their public service, such as aiding those in need. NGOs that pursue agendas undermining national values do not meet these criteria. We propose legal reform to ensure that only apolitical organisations with clear charitable functions qualify for tax-exempt status, safeguarding the integrity of the charity system and prioritising the well-being of citizens.

This proposal would involve updating the Charities Act 2011 and expanding the National Security Act 2023 to address foreign funding for political organisations that threaten our national sovereignty and the integrity of the nation-state or deny our right to self-determination.

Reintroduce the Primary Purpose Rule (PPR)

We will reinstate the Primary Purpose Rule (PPR), an immigration measure that was in effect from 1983 to 1997. The PPR required immigrants seeking entry to the UK on the basis of marriage to demonstrate that the marriage was not primarily intended to secure admission. The removal of this rule led to a significant increase in spousal immigration, including cases of forced marriages. By reinstating the PPR, we aim to ensure that marriage-based immigration is genuine and not used as a means to bypass immigration controls.

English Fluency Testing and Skills Validation

We would implement rigorous English fluency testing and skills validation for all prospective immigrants, requiring that qualifications earned in their country of origin meet UK standards. This measure ensures that individuals entering the UK can effectively communicate and integrate into our society, reducing the strain on public services and ensuring that new arrivals contribute positively. All forms and documentation would be available only in English (or other national languages), ensuring that only those genuinely committed to integrating into our society can navigate the system.

Citizenship to Be Earned, Not Granted as Commodity

New citizenship should not be treated as a commodity to be freely given but should be earned through a rigorous and meaningful process. Ending the practice of jus soli, which grants citizenship based on place of birth, is essential to address this issue. Previous governments have made a significant error by issuing passports to individuals who are not citizens in any substantive sense. Citizenship must reflect a genuine commitment to and integration into the nation. By implementing stricter criteria for citizenship, we ensure that it is a privilege earned through demonstrated contributions and adherence to national values rather than an automatic entitlement. This approach will enhance the integrity of our citizenship process and reinforce the value of becoming a citizen.

This would require comprehensive reform of the British Nationality Act 1981.

Establish a Right Of Return

A Right of Return policy would provide a secure, unrestricted pathway for individuals with ancestral ties to the UK, particularly those who have lived abroad for generations, often in former colonies. This legislation would affirm the principle of jus sanguinis (right of blood), aligning with natural law while recognising enduring cultural and historical connections. This policy ensures that individuals facing threats, persecution, or instability abroad have the opportunity to return to their ancestral homeland, fostering unity and honouring shared heritage.

3. Remigration!

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,⁽²⁾ imposed particularly across Europe and the UK, was initiated without public consent and is far from normal.

Click on the headings below to expand each section

Deportation of Foreign National Offenders (FNOs)

Number: approx 22,500⁽³⁾

We advocate for the immediate deportation of all foreign national offenders currently in prison, out on parole, or previously convicted of serious crimes. These individuals have violated our laws and should no longer be allowed to remain in the UK. While there are existing powers under the current system, only a small fraction of these offenders are deported, largely due to chronic mismanagement within the criminal justice system. Claims based on family connections or concerns over the conditions in their home country’s justice system should not prevent their deportation.

Under the current framework, foreign nationals sentenced to more than six months can be transferred under the Council of Europe Convention on the Transfer of Sentenced Persons (1983). Although consent from the detainee is typically required, as forced transfers may impact their reintegration, the Strasbourg Protocol (1997) allows for deportation without consent if the sentence includes expulsion. To leverage this, we propose that sentences over six months should automatically trigger expulsion, with sentencing guidelines updated accordingly. The justice minister must ensure that judges do not issue sentences below this threshold to avoid deportation.

A common critique is the question of whether their country of origin will accept them and adequately punish them; we firmly believe they can be suitably incentivised to do so. Countries that refuse to take back their criminals will face penalties, including cuts to foreign aid, trade tariffs, taxes on remittances, flight bans, bans on imports, and, in extreme cases, the severing of diplomatic ties. The dumping of criminal migrants by a foreign nation will be regarded as a hostile act, and we will respond accordingly. This firm stance ensures that foreign criminals are returned to their countries of origin and that our national security and our people are protected.

Deprivation of Citizenship and Deportation for Criminals of Foreign Origin

Number: currently unknown⁽⁴⁾

The power to remove British citizenship, known as deprivation of citizenship, has historically been reserved for individuals who obtained citizenship through fraud or those who pose significant threats, such as terrorists, extremists, and organised criminals. Individuals subject to deprivation of citizenship have the right to appeal.

This power has been part of British law for over a century, beginning with the 1914 British Nationality and Status of Aliens Act and is enshrined in the British Nationality Act 1981. It is currently used sparingly and applies in two primary cases:

a) Deprivation of Citizenship for Public Good: Reserved for individuals whose conduct threatens the UK, such as acts involving terrorism, espionage, glorification of terrorism, war crimes, or serious organised crime. This measure complies with the UN Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness and is applied only in cases of severe harm to the nation, with the Home Secretary personally deciding each case.

b) Deprivation of Citizenship for Fraud: For individuals who obtained their citizenship through fraudulent means and were never legitimately entitled to it, we propose expanding current powers.

At present, citizenship is revoked very selectively, with an average of 19 people stripped of their citizenship each year for the public good and 17 for fraud.(⁵)

We propose broadening the scope of these powers to encompass a wider range of serious criminal offences, from theft to murder. By amending existing legislation, we will ensure that citizenship can be revoked for anyone involved in criminal activities that harm our people, not just in the most extreme cases. It is unacceptable that a survivor of a serious crime, such as rape, could encounter their attacker on the street a few years later—such offenders should be deported. This expanded policy will strengthen national security, ensuring those who harm our people face appropriate consequences. Processes shall be fair, transparent and wholly in line with natural justice.

Removal of Illegal Immigrants

Number: approx 745,000 to 1.2 million

a) The Scale of the Problem

Recent research from Oxford University’s COMPAS Centre estimates that around 745,000 illegal migrants reside in the UK—roughly one in every 100 people. This figure surpasses France’s 300,000 and Germany’s upper estimate of 700,000, making the UK one of the largest hosts of illegal migrants in Europe.⁽⁶⁾

However, this figure likely underestimates the issue. Considering much of this data is extrapolated from detected cases, the true count may be even greater, as countless others remain undetected, and by definition, we cannot know how many are actually going undetected. A 2020 report by Pew Research suggested that the actual number could be as high as 1.2 million.⁽⁷⁾

Compared to continental countries, the UK’s island geography should provide a strong advantage in border control, yet these staggering figures highlight the results of weak governance, ineffective laws, and inadequate border control. Reports of political interference and deliberate leniency further exacerbate the situation, as whistleblowers have revealed instances where illegal immigrants were knowingly permitted entry.

The Home Office does not publish data on the number of illegal migrants in the UK except for those crossing the channel by small boat. Most of those are, however, not included in Oxford research because they seek asylum on arrival. These small boat arrivals are only a fraction of the overall problem.

The 745,000 illegal migrants—equivalent to the population of Leeds—add to the >224,000 asylum seekers already stuck in the system, who are awaiting a decision on their claim, appealing a rejection, or have exhausted or not yet exercised their appeal rights.

Unofficial Home Office estimates from five years ago suggest that between 150,000 and 250,000 foreign nationals enter the UK illegally each year and disappear into the black economy.(⁸) This is evident in the rise of barber shops, candy stores, and car washes (which are used for money laundering), as well as disused retail spaces now being used for illegal activities like cannabis cultivation.

b) Detection and Removal Strategies

Addressing illegal immigration effectively requires a complete overhaul of the current border infrastructure and a renewed commitment to enforcing existing immigration laws. One of the central challenges is the lack of political will to gather and process accurate data on arrivals and departures, compounded by an inadequate system of enforcement. A major obstacle is the limited accountability for those who facilitate illegal immigration—whether employers, institutions, or individuals—which has significantly undermined the effectiveness of existing measures.

In particular, visa abuses in the study and care sectors highlight systemic issues within higher education and the care industry. However, detection efforts are hindered by under-resourced local authorities. For instance, the number of Environmental Health Officers has dropped from 15,000 in the 1990s to just 3,300 today, reducing councils’ capacity to monitor overcrowded housing, illegal labour, and organised crime often associated with illegal immigration.

A reformed local government structure should empower authorities to collect intelligence on businesses frequently associated with illegal immigration. Employers found to employ illegal workers would face fines of up to £100,000 per employee, with additional criminal penalties for systematic offences.

Beyond employer monitoring, local authorities should strengthen vigilance over overcrowded Houses of Multiple Occupation (HMOs), coordinating efforts with environmental health officers and the police. However, sustainable enforcement would require a more sophisticated border infrastructure and reliable data collection by the Home Office and the Office for National Statistics (ONS), which is currently hindered by political biases within the civil service. These institutions must be reformed.

Given the significant numbers of undocumented migrants, a dedicated removals department, separate from the Home Office, should be established to manage deportations efficiently.

Leaving the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)

We are not against people having basic rights, nor are we opposed to cooperating with other nations, but sadly, the ECHR has become a tool for international bodies and activist lawyers to undermine the sovereignty of nation-states. By prioritising the rights of convicted criminals over a nation’s right to control its borders, the ECHR jeopardises the safety of our citizens.

The convention has strayed from its original purpose due to a series of subversive moves by the very court meant to uphold it. In 1978, the court declared it a “living document,” which allows judges to effectively create new laws as they see fit. As a result, terrorists, rapists, and murderers have been allowed to remain free on our streets because they supposedly have a “right to family life.” Why should the rights of criminals take precedence over the right of ordinary people to live in peace and safety?

Reforming the ECHR is nearly impossible, as it would require unanimous agreement from all 46 member states. Therefore, leaving the ECHR is necessary to protect the nation and restore sovereignty. The UK had established basic rights long before the ECHR existed, as seen in historical documents such as the Magna Carta, Habeas Corpus, and the Bill of Rights. We are more than capable, as a nation, of introducing a new Bill of Rights that restores the rights our forefathers fought for while also preserving any useful modern protections.

The Homeland Party is dedicated to restoring the rights of our people to live in peace, without fear of the state. This is a topic we will expand on in the future.

Expanding the Existing Return Program and Introducing Remigration Centres

Number: tens of millions would be eligible

The UK’s current voluntary return programme⁽⁹⁾ provides assistance to eligible individuals wishing to return to their home country by explaining return options, providing help with travel documentation, such as passports and covering travel costs if needed. Eligibility includes those who:

• are in the UK illegally,
• have been refused asylum or withdrew their application,
• overstayed their visa,
• entered without a visa,
• have limited leave but choose not to remain,
• or are dependents of eligible individuals.

Financial support of up to £3,000 is currently available for young people, families, and those who are sleeping rough or those returning to a “developing country.”⁽¹⁰⁾

The Homeland Party’s proposed expansion would broaden eligibility to include:

• anyone wishing to surrender their UK citizenship,
• individuals with permission to stay, such as student or work visa holders,
• holders of a Frontier Worker permit,
• individuals with settled or pre-settled EU settlement status.

Increasing financial support is an option, but ongoing reassessment is necessary to ensure value for money. Migrants generally represent an annual economic burden, so one-off payments for voluntary remigration may prove more cost-effective. For example, Sweden offers 10,000 kr per adult and 5,000 kr per child, capped at 40,000 kr per family. Such payments would come with terms, ensuring that adults who accept payment to return would forfeit the right to re-enter the UK.

Returning talented and skilled migrants to their countries of origin can provide significant benefits to those nations. To support this, potential programs could be established in partnership with UK universities, focusing on academic and professional development tailored to the needs of emigration countries. Such initiatives would help develop the skilled elites necessary for their growth and stability.

To improve accessibility, remigration centres will be established in towns and cities with high densities of eligible individuals, determined by demographic data. Offering one-on-one consultations for individuals and families would make the process more user-friendly and approachable.

Re-Establishing Equality Before the Law

a) principles

Equality before the law means that everyone should be treated equally, regardless of their characteristics, whether changeable or not. Over the past 30 years, this fundamental principle has been deliberately eroded in favour of a political idea called “social justice,” which undermines the justice system on which this country was built. We firmly believe that minority status should not grant individuals privileges under the law that exceed those afforded to the wider population.

Currently, numerous exceptions and protections exist within the law that allow certain foreign cultural practices to be lawful, offering privileges beyond what is granted to the general population. These exceptions should be repealed to ensure that the law applies equally to everyone, without favouritism based on religion or ethnic background.

b) civil matters

The Equality Act introduced many valuable provisions, such as protections and reasonable adjustments for the disabled. However, it also introduced a harmful concept known as “positive action” (or affirmative action), which permits preferential treatment of an ethnic group over another in areas such as employment, in order to promote “diversity.” This practice is not true equality; rather, it is state-backed discrimination against the indigenous population.

Another harmful concept is “indirect discrimination”, which permits individuals to claim discrimination even when an organisation’s policies are neutral and uniformly applied. For instance, a business may have a policy prohibiting face coverings for security or customer service purposes. However, if someone argues that wearing a face covering is part of their “protected characteristic,” they could allege discrimination despite the policy not being designed to target them. This creates a situation where the practices of protected groups dictate how the rest of society functions.

We propose dismantling the concepts of “social justice,” “positive action,” and “indirect discrimination” to empower businesses, organisations, schools, and state bodies to operate freely without fear of legal repercussions. Furthermore, we advocate for the complete banning of divisive “Equality, Diversity, and Inclusion” policies and training within state institutions.

Religious tolerance in this country was hard won after centuries of conflict, yet in recent times, we are witnessing a consistent bias in favour of particular religious groups. While we believe that everyone should have the right to freely hold their religious beliefs and worship in their preferred way, we must draw the line when practices begin to affect the lives of others or when there is a demand that others accept or conform to specific religious expectations.

A prime example is the practice of ritual non-stun slaughter. The UK upholds some of the strictest animal welfare and food standards globally, yet certain religious groups are granted exemptions to carry out these practices, to the extent that some supermarket products are now commonly sourced from such methods. We believe that religious grounds should not justify special exemptions, as this undermines the principle of equality before the law. In 2014, Denmark banned these practices for similar reasons, and we should follow suit, including a ban on imports, to ensure fairness and uphold our high standards.

We believe that true equality can only be achieved by eliminating all similar practices and ensuring that all people are treated fairly and equally under the law.

c) criminal matters

In criminal law, the concept of “protected characteristics” should be discarded. Criminals should be punished according to the severity of the harm they have inflicted rather than based on whether the state has deemed the victim to belong to a special group. A substantial increase in sentencing should not be justified merely because the victim possesses a “protected characteristic,” or because the authorities have subjectively determined the motive, or the victim claims that a particular word was used during the crime.

This unequal application of justice has created a system where some groups receive more protection than others, effectively granting them privileges. As a result, certain individuals have been emboldened to act without fear of repercussion, knowing they may not be challenged. This imbalance has fostered a cultural issue that undermines both fairness and the integrity of the rule of law. Addressing and correcting this is crucial for restoring equality in the justice system.

d) policing

Beyond the law itself, there is a troubling inconsistency in how it is applied by the police. Certain groups are often shown undue deference, with authorities “allowing communities to police themselves,” which effectively amounts to an abdication of their duty to enforce the law equally across society. Even more concerning is the tendency to turn a blind eye to some of the most heinous crimes. We do not need to elaborate extensively on this point, as the public’s awareness of cases like those in Rotherham is already well-established.

A concerted effort is needed to police these high-crime areas effectively. Law enforcement and related services should be empowered to consistently and vigorously pursue criminal elements of foreign origin until these individuals are removed from the country. By reducing criminal activity in these areas, overall safety will improve, benefiting all communities.

Tolerance is often shown towards demonstrations that escalate into riots, causing damage to everything from shops to monuments, as long as the perpetrators are of foreign origin. This blatant two-tier policing must end. Furthermore, events like the Notting Hill Carnival, which frequently see high levels of crime—often with the police themselves as victims—are destructive and do not represent our national heritage. Such events should have their planning applications denied, as they serve no purpose other than to encourage disorder and undermine public safety.

Only through a fair and consistent application of the law can trust in the justice system be restored and the safety of all citizens ensured.

Re-Establishing the Primacy of Our Culture

We propose prohibiting state bodies from funding events or schemes that do not align with our national identity and ending the practice of embedding foreign cultures into our historical narrative, which has created a false sense of belonging rooted in politically motivated myths.

Public funding for religious buildings of foreign origin would also be banned, alongside a prohibition on further construction of structures with architectural features not native to this land and the conversion of churches for other religious purposes.

Additionally, we would introduce a ban on foreign funding for external religious movements or organisations to prevent radicalisation and protect against the subversion of the nation-state. This measure would not infringe on basic liberties, as individuals would remain free to worship, organise, and fund their legitimate religious activities domestically or choose to leave the country to practise their beliefs elsewhere.

To support these initiatives, we would amend the Charities Act 2011 and expand the National Security Act 2023 to prevent foreign funding for organisations that conflict with national interests.

Our aim is to redirect all such resources towards celebrating and preserving our national heritage, including organising parades and festivities for patron saints’ days and other cultural traditions, as well as maintaining our own religious, cultural, and historical buildings that reflect and honour our history.

A Ban on Pro-Immigration Propaganda Funded by Public Money

The promotion of immigration, its supposed benefits, and the minimisation of its negative consequences, in terms of both money and human life, have long been featured in media. While such content is acceptable when privately funded, it becomes problematic when it stems from publicly funded media.

We propose a clear rule prohibiting pro-immigration content in publicly funded or subsidised media. This applies to documentaries, reports, TV films, and programmes that use “culture” as a guise for political messaging. Importantly, this measure does not infringe on freedom of expression, which remains unrestricted in private media or public political debate.

This proposal does not entail creating a censorship body; instead, responsibility should rest with each media outlet’s management. Sanctions for breaches would involve cutting subsidies for the following year. For public broadcasters, penalties would include a deduction of 50% of the advertising revenue generated around the programme. If no advertisements are shown, the penalty would equate to the show’s annual production cost, including staff salaries. Investigations into potential violations could be triggered by a petition signed by 10,000 citizens.

We believe these changes are not only right and proper but also fully in line with our nation’s long-standing traditions of fairness and equality before the law. Where migrants come seeking state handouts, leniency from the law, and other privileges, removing these incentives would prompt them to leave. As this is not their homeland, they feel no deep loyalty to it, and after all, they do have their own to return to. Why stay when it is no longer easy to take advantage of the system?

By restoring equal treatment under the law and eliminating these unwarranted benefits, we can create a more just society that upholds the rule of law. It is not only possible but highly probable that millions would choose to leave under such circumstances.

Endnotes

1. The Gov.uk website details 29 types of work visa, including specifics for Indian and Turkish nationals. ↩︎
2. With reference to “Replacement Migration: Is it A Solution to Declining and Ageing Populations?” (2001), United Nations Secretariat, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division. ↩︎
3. A report from the House of Lords Library showed by 31st December 2023, there were 10,423 foreign nationals in prison. This was 12% of the total prison population of 87,489. A Statement in Hansard on 25^th April 2024 references an additional 12,000 such individuals living in the community who should have been removed. ↩︎
4. We have been unable to produce an estimate for this figure due to the failure of the Home Office and the Office for National Statistics to either collect or publish the data we need. We would expect the number to be at least in the tens of thousands but could potentially be in the hundreds of thousands. ↩︎
5. A Home Office policy paper, “Nationality and Borders Bill: Deprivation of citizenship factsheet”, last updated on 13th October 2023, provides a figure from the most recent available dataset covering the period from 2010 to 2018. ↩︎
6. The Telegraph, 7^th October 2024. ↩︎
7. Pew Research Centre Report 13^th November 2019. ↩︎
8. David Palmer and Alasdair Wood, “The politics of fantasy”. Civitas, June 2017.. ↩︎
9. The Gov.uk website details the current ‘voluntary return’ programme. ↩︎
10. With reference to Home Office Guidance “Countries defined as developing by the OECD” 26 April 2021. ↩︎