Taliban ‘ready and willing’ to back Farage’s mass deportation plan

(KABUL) The Taliban said it is prepared to accept deported Afghans from the United Kingdom under a plan advanced by Nigel Farage and Reform UK, marking a striking turn in the migration debate as Britain faces record backlogs and political pressure over small-boat crossings.

On August 27, 2025, a senior Taliban official in Kabul said the group would receive Afghans “with dignity” and would welcome aid, though not direct cash transfers, if a mass-removal program moves ahead as part of Farage’s Operation Restoring Justice. The proposal targets up to 600,000 people who entered the UK illegally over five years.

Kabul’s response and Reform UK’s funding pledge

The statement from Kabul followed Reform UK’s pledge to set aside £2 billion for return agreements with governments such as those in Afghanistan, Iran, and Eritrea. Zia Yusuf, a senior Reform UK figure, described those payments as “very significant” for countries with fragile economies.

Taliban officials suggested Farage’s approach could be “easier” to work with than earlier UK efforts, while stressing that any reception of returnees must protect basic respect and avoid cash going directly to the regime.

Key elements of Operation Restoring Justice

Farage’s plan, unveiled as a centrepiece of his party’s immigration platform, would overhaul UK law to speed removals and limit court challenges. Major proposals include:

1. Detain all people who arrive illegally upon entry, including small-boat arrivals.
2. Deny them the chance to claim asylum and place them into automatic removal without a right of appeal.
3. Expand detention capacity and create a new deportation command.
4. Give the Home Secretary broad powers to carry out removals at scale.
5. Offer up to £2 billion in incentives to partner states to secure cooperation.

The party argues that these measures—summed up as a clear rule: arrive illegally, you will be detained and removed—will deter crossings.

Proposed legal changes and international obligations

Reform UK’s legal changes are sweeping. The party proposes to:

• Leave the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
• Repeal the Human Rights Act.
• Suspend for five years the UK’s obligations under:
  • the 1951 Refugee Convention,
  • the UN Convention Against Torture,
  • the Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings.

Senior Reform UK figures argue only a “clean break” from these frameworks can deliver removals on the timeline they demand.

Government reaction and aid context

Downing Street, under Prime Minister Keir Starmer, did not rule out return agreements with countries including Afghanistan. A government spokesperson said, “We’re not going to take anything off the table in terms of striking returns agreements with countries around the world.”

At the same time, the government criticized calls to quit the ECHR, warning that leaving a key human rights treaty could weaken the UK’s ability to negotiate international deals and damage its credibility with partners. The UK currently directs about £151 million in annual aid to Afghanistan, routed through the UN and the Red Cross rather than the Taliban.

Supporters’ case vs critics’ concerns

Supporters:
– Frame the plan as necessary to deal with what Farage calls a “national emergency.”
– Blame “human rights lawyers and activist judges” for blocking removals and argue a bold reset will deter dangerous crossings.
– Say bilateral deals and monitoring can manage risk.

Critics:
– Include the Green Party and multiple rights groups who call the proposals dangerous, unworkable, and likely illegal.
– Warn that deporting people to states accused of torture, extrajudicial killings, or persecution risks grave harm—particularly to minorities, dissidents, and women who fled forced marriage or abuse.
– Argue credible independent monitoring in countries like Afghanistan would be extremely hard.

Forced returns could expose people to abuse or worse, according to human rights advocates pointing to reports of beatings and detentions under Taliban rule.

Practical stakes for migrants in the UK

Under the Reform UK blueprint, anyone who arrived illegally would face:

• Immediate detention.
• Automatic deportation.
• No access to asylum procedures or legal appeals.

Currently, people can still ask for protection by making a claim through the Home Office; guidance is available on the official page to Claim asylum in the UK. Reform UK’s policy would remove that route for those it deems to have entered unlawfully, cutting off protections that have existed for decades.

Implications for Afghanistan and reception conditions

For Afghanistan, the plan offers:

• Potential financial incentives and political recognition via formal return arrangements.
• Assistance likely routed through international bodies rather than direct regime payments.

Kabul’s acceptance would likely hinge on the scale and nature of assistance, including reception support for returnees. The Taliban insists on respectful returns and rejects direct payments to the regime—an important caveat that highlights the sensitivity of funding channels.

Nevertheless, Afghans who left after 2021 fear reprisals. Families often describe fear of punishment; women and girls face tight limits on public life. Rights groups stress any mass returns must be judged against on-the-ground realities, not diplomatic assurances.

Operational and legal challenges

Implementing Operation Restoring Justice would require:

• A general election win for Reform UK.
• Rapid, coordinated legislation to change the legal landscape.
• Major operational build-out: expanding detention estates, organizing charter flights, creating a deportation command.
• Security planning to prevent absconding and manage protests.
• Systems for health care, age assessments, safeguarding, and handling vulnerable people, including families and unaccompanied children.

Key questions include:

• Where would thousands of detainees be held?
• How fast can removal flights be arranged?
• What protections would exist for trafficking survivors, torture victims, or children wrongly assessed as adults?

Lawyers warn that the UK cannot contract out its responsibilities under torture and trafficking norms—even for five years—without major international consequences.

Money, monitoring, and ethical concerns

Reform UK’s £2 billion fund aims to encourage governments to accept returns. However:

• The UK already sends aid to Afghanistan through the UN and Red Cross, not the Taliban.
• Moving to payments tied to forced returns—even if channelled indirectly—raises ethical and legal debates.
• The Taliban’s refusal of direct payments underscores the sensitivity of finance and sovereignty issues in Kabul.

Critics stress that credible independent monitoring inside Afghanistan would be extremely difficult, raising the risk of wrongful returns.

Political consequences and next steps

• Reform UK grew from the Brexit Party and emphasizes strict border enforcement; Farage has repeatedly linked small-boat crossings to weak control.
• Previous UK attempts at offshore relocation faced court challenges and logistical obstacles; judges raised safety concerns and governments disputed responsibility.
• According to analysis by VisaVerge.com, efforts to bypass long-standing protections are likely to trigger heavy litigation and intense diplomatic pushback, even if they pass Parliament.

If Reform UK wins and presses ahead, Parliament would face some of the most far-reaching immigration changes in modern British history. If Labour remains in power, officials are likely to seek narrower return agreements while holding to the ECHR, betting that cooperation works better when Britain keeps its treaty commitments.

For now, Kabul’s message adds urgency to London’s choices: the Taliban says it will take people back without pocketing direct payments and insists on respect for returnees. Nigel Farage says only his plan can deliver removals at scale. Between those positions sits a long legal road, a web of diplomacy, and thousands of lives that could be changed by a single removal notice.