Return to Sender: How to Do it
In this article we're looking at which categories of citizen can be deported; how to deport them; and some frequently heard objections. Alistair McConnachie is currently writing "Vol 2 of A Big Book for the Union" which is about border control. Vol 1 can be purchased here.
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN "DEPORTATION" and "REMIGRATION" (and "EXPULSION")
Firstly, let's get our language correct.
"Deportation" refers to removing people from our country because they have broken our laws.
It involves immigrants whose status in this country is illegal or who have committed an illegal act.
It is a process which requires an intervention from the authorities. It is often an involuntary process in the sense that the person is forced to leave the country, although some such people may choose to voluntarily "self-deport" rather than face coercion from the authorities.
"Deportation" should be distinguished from "Remigration" or "Repatriation" which is a policy programme which encourages immigrants, whose presence is legal, to voluntarily leave the country.
"Deportation" should also be distinguished from "Expulsion" – which is the involuntary removal, often under duress, of legal immigrants who have not broken any laws. This really only happens, at scale, under times of extreme civil turmoil, such as revolution or conflict, or international war.
It is important not to get these terms mixed up, in order that perfectly legal and civilised policies such as the deportation of illegal immigrants, or programmes intended to encourage voluntary remigration of legal immigrants, do not get confused with, or misrepresented as, something severe.
This article will deal with deportation, rather than remigration.
The virtue and necessity of deportation is not even up for debate. Deportation of people whose presence in the country is illegal is one of the very least policies we should expect from a normal, functioning, serious, sovereign State!
CATEGORIES of CITIZENSHIP
Let's consider the citizenship status of various categories of immigrants in order to find out who can be deported.
The first category of citizenship is:
1. Former Legal Immigrants who have become British Citizens only (with no other "nationality")
After a period of legal stay in the UK, many legal immigrants choose to become, solely "British citizens" with no other nationality.
Acquiring British Citizenship in the UK is ridiculously easy. If you are here legally for 5 years – either on a work or family visa, or if you have been given "Refugee Leave to Remain", then you can apply for "Indefinite Leave to Remain" after 5 years. You will almost certainly get it, and then, a year later you can apply to become a British Citizen.
If, at that stage, the immigrant chooses to renounce his or her previous citizenship, then they will become solely a British Citizen. They can also elect to become a "Dual Citizen" (if their previous country allows it), whereby they retain their previous citizenship while also acquiring an additional British Citizenship.
Once they become solely a British Citizen, then it is not possible, under current law, to legally deport such people, even if they have committed a terrible crime, because:
a) They are no longer citizens of the country one might want to "deport" them back to. So why should that country even want them?
b) To deport them, they would have to be stripped of their British Citizenship. This would render them "stateless", which is against international convention.
This is another reason why we should not be giving out British Citizenship like confetti. That is, if an immigrant has sole British Citizenship, it can prevent us deporting them if they go bad! We really need to End Britain's Confetti Citizenship, as we've explained here.
2. Legal Immigrants who have become Dual Citizens
As above, some immigrants can also be "Dual Citizens", meaning they have become British Citizens, but they have retained their previous nationality, and therefore they are legally still citizens of a foreign country.
In this case, it should be straightforward to strip a person of his British Citizenship and deport him to his home country, since he is still a "national" of that previous country. His previous country should be bound to accept him as one of their own.
3. Legal or Illegal Immigrants who are Foreign Citizens (aka Foreign Nationals):
Immigrants can simply remain citizens of their previous country for however long they want. In those cases, there should also be no problem in deporting them back to their country of legal nationality, and ensuring that they are not ever allowed to return to the UK.
THE FOLLOWING CATEGORIES of IMMIGRANT SHOULD be INVOLUNTARILY DEPORTED
Given those categories of citizens, it is – or should be – legally possible to deport those Foreign Citizens, and Dual Nationals, resident in the UK in the following cases:
1. Inadmissible Claim Asylum Seekers
These are people who have had their claim to asylum immediately considered "inadmissible". When we leave the UN Refugee Convention, this shall include all the "fresh off the boat" Channel Crossers.
When we leave the Convention then we will have the right to automatically deport them.
Right now, however, under current law, these people are not considered "illegal" in the sense of having committed a criminal offence. This is because their "right to claim asylum" is considered lawful – therefore turning down their lawful claim does not itself turn them into a criminal.
To use an example to illustrate this unusual point: Imagine extending an invite to the world to come into your house and to have the "right" to ask you to stay, on the basis of certain criteria which you require of them! That's what we're basically doing as a result of our membership of the UN Refugee Convention.
Then, when hundreds of people come into your house, and ask to stay, you look at each one in turn and say, "Yes you can stay, not you, not you, you're OK, not you, you can stay, you have to go."
Can you really then criminalise the people you've asked to leave? After all, it was you who kept your door open all this time and invited them in, and gave them the right to ask to stay.
Under our membership of the UN Refugee Convention, that is the situation we are in at present! An inadmissible claim does not render the seeker "illegal".
That is the reason why it is hard to deport these people at present – although they should be deported.
The only way we can criminalise people who come into our home is to keep our door locked at all time, and to make it illegal to try to break it down or sneak in.
After we leave the UN Refugee Convention, we will be free to lock our doors properly. We will be free to consider any person staying on after an "inadmissible claim" judgment, to be illegally present and therefore subject to deportation.
We have emphasised the importance of leaving the UN Refugee Convention in order that we can criminalise the Channel Crossers here "To Stop the Boats, Criminalise the Channel Crossers".
2. Failed Asylum Seeker Illegals
These are asylum seeking immigrants who have gone through the legal process of application, investigation and hearings but they have had their application refused, yet they remain in the country.
Unlike the "Inadmissible Claim Asylum Seekers" these people are now, surely, illegally present! Their apologists may disagree.
But to use the analogy of your home again: If the people you asked to leave your house then went to the courts; and the courts decided that they did not meet the criteria that you had set out for them; and that they had to leave your house; but they insisted that they were not leaving your house; then surely that now renders them criminally present.
3. Clandestine Illegals
These are illegal immigrants who have entered the country in a way which evades border checks and the law of entry, and who have recently been discovered by the authorities. Anybody so discovered has forfeited his or her right to remain. They must have their biometric records taken, they must be deported, and they must not be allowed back in, as per our 4-Step Programme proposal, below.
4. Terms of Visa Breaching Illegals
These are immigrants who gained access to the country through a legal visa but who are now in contravention of the terms of their visa. For example, a Study Visa will enable you to study, but not to work. If you are discovered working then you have illegally breached the terms of your visa, and you need to be deported.
Under our "Pay your own Way, or Leave" rules, immigrants who become dependent upon certain welfare provisions would also be in breach of their visa requirements, and would be required to leave, voluntarily, or involuntarily.
5. Over-Staying Visa Breaching Illegals
These are immigrants whose legal visas have ended, and who have not gone home as required.
6. Criminals who are Dual Citizens or Foreign Nationals
These are people who have been convicted, sentenced, and served "12-months or more". After their sentence, they must be deported. That is actually the law at present!
However, many of these people will make an Article 8 "Family Life" claim under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), to try to prevent themselves being deported. In such cases, they should be encouraged to take their family with them.
A realistic Deportation Conversation, with a little More Action, can centre around the above 6 groups.
The above should be encouraged to voluntarily self-deport, and where that it not possible, then they should be involuntarily deported.
3 ESSENTIAL POLICES to EASE DEPORTATION
Far too many people are allowed to stay, especially foreign criminals.
For example, the front page of The Sunday Post, on 17-11-24, stated "Vile sexual predator abused step-daughter but dodges deportation as it would 'breach his right to a family life'".
The article tells us:
The man, identified only as 'MD', arrived in the UK in 2008 and claimed asylum but was initially rejected. Using publicly-funded legal aid, he went to court to argue he should be allowed to remain. With the legal battle ongoing, he married a British woman and fathered a child, who was born in 2012. In 2014 he was given leave to remain after a judge accepted he now had a settled family life in the UK...
In December 2020 he was convicted at Glasgow High Court of assault, sexual penetration and sexual assault on three young girls in his family…
Foreign nationals who commit serious criminal offences are automatically subject to deportation, and in August 2022 the Home Secretary ordered MD to be sent back to his homeland. However the man again used legal aid to appeal the deportation order…
However the judge ruled that sending him back to Africa would breach his rights to a family life under the European Convention on Human Rights... (1)
These paragraphs sum up the 3 problems which we face: the Asylum and Deportation appeals processes; "Human Rights" laws which work to protect the perpetrator; and a system lubricated with massive amounts of Legal Aid funded by the taxpayer!
In the face of this, we propose the following 3 policies:
1. Asylum Appeals, and Deportation Appeals, should be Prohibited
Asylum Appeals occur after being turned down the first time.
An in-country Asylum Appeal is not even required under the UN Refugee Convention, but is a specific (and unnecessary) addition by the UK government. It was introduced into the UK by the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993, and is presently found in the Nationality and Immigration Act 2002, secs 82-84.
A Deportation Appeal (which occurs after receiving an order to leave but believing you have a "right" to stay) is usually made on the basis that the person claims a "right to a family life" under Article 8 of the HRA 1998 and ECHR.
Prohibiting such appeals will require a new law which states: "No appeal to the HRA or the ECHR allowed after a deportation order."
This is likely to require leaving the ECHR, because at present the European Court of Human Rights is likely to say that this is incompatible with membership of the ECHR. (2)
2. Fast-Tracking will help Reduce Article 8 Appeals
If, in the meantime, we do not leave the ECHR, nor abolish the appeals process for these cases, we should, at least, deal with them speedily!
This is because many of the appeals under Article 8's "right to a family life", are happening only because the asylum appeal and deportation system is so slow. It can last years, giving ample time for the person to acquire "a family life" in the UK. If the system were quicker, Article 8 appeals would be fewer!
3. Legal Aid for Immigration-Related cases, including Asylum and Deportation, should be Prohibited
Legal Aid has helped to fund a massive and powerful Invasion Migration legal sector which works to benefit the pro-immigration NGO and "charity" sector, quite literally "at our expense".
The money saved could be used to help deported people make their own countries great again (see below).
Without access to Legal Aid, some people will also self-deport, simply because they can't financially afford the hassle!
A 4-STEP PROGRAMME to REMOVE ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS
This programme applies to the Inadmissible Claim Asylum Seekers; Failed Asylum Seeker Illegals; Clandestine Illegals; and Visa Breaching Illegals as above; none of whom will be British Citizens.
This policy presumes that the Enforcement Agencies are fully resourced, and suitable Prison and Detention facilities are in place.
Step 1. Announce that by a certain date in the future, anyone found in the UK who falls into the illegal categories will be subject to criminal proceedings and sentenced to prison. Those here illegally will be given sufficient notice via all the public communication systems available to government, and strongly encouraged to present themselves to the authorities prior to this date.
Step 2. Those who present themselves to the authorities will have their full biometric details recorded, and they will be provided with paid, or subsidised, transport to the nation of their choice.
At this point, there are 2 alternatives. We could say:
a) You can't ever come back! We have your biometric details, and we can therefore ensure that you will never be allowed back. If you manage to sneak back, and we find you, you will be jailed for 10 years.
OR
b) You may be allowed back in, but you will have to do so legally.
Some people might argue that this is more of an incentive for them to give themselves up in the first place. This is the policy which Donald Trump is promoting. He is allowing illegals to self-deport using an App, and then return, providing they do so legally.
Step 3. Those who do not avail themselves of this opportunity to present themselves to the authorities, by the given date, will be considered to be criminals "on the loose". If found, they will face a minimum 10-year prison sentence. At the conclusion of their sentence they will have their biometric details recorded; they will be deported; and they will be prohibited from returning, as per Step 2a.
They will also be allowed to buy their early release on the basis of a very large fine; their biometric details recorded; their immediate deportation; and prohibition from returning, as per Step 2a.
Naturally, there will be detention alternatives for minors, women with children, pregnant women, and frail and elderly people. However, the above is the general approach. (3)
If the threat of punishment is credible then people will self-deport in large numbers. They don't need to go home, but they can't stay here. And if they insist on staying here then they're going to prison!
Step 4. Punishment for Employers, and Landlords, of Illegals.
When illegal immigrants see their employers being criminally prosecuted and jailed and/or heavily fined for employing them; or when they see their landlords jailed and/or heavily fined for renting to them, then it will be understood that the threat of punishment is credible, real, present, and on-going. That's going to be persuasive. That's also going to encourage voluntary self-deportation, as per Step 2!
FREQUENTLY HEARD OBJECTIONS
"But what if countries won't take back their citizens?"
Countries can be persuaded with any number of carrot or stick considerations. This is the entire purpose of diplomacy and statecraft!
Take "foreign aid". Rather than abolishing it, we could repurpose it.
For example, countries could receive aid based on the numbers of its own citizens that it takes back again. That means countries will still be getting paid, but we're also benefiting.
Furthermore, these countries are also receiving thousands of their own citizens back again. Who could object to that? All the pro-immigrationists should be delighted for those countries now enjoying the influx, even if they're not delighted for ours!
Or if we have to play hardball, we could cut their foreign aid. We could prevent remittances from their citizens in the UK being sent back to their home country, or tax such remittances very highly.
We could impose tariffs on their goods and make things economically painful for them, or if we prefer to use the carrot, we could smooth economic relations in certain areas to encourage them to cooperate.
We could impose restrictions or outright bans on visas for students, workers and visitors from such countries.
"But you're breaking up families!"
Pro-immigrationists make a big deal about deportation somehow "breaking up families". Rather, deportation can be about keeping families together, and even re-uniting families.
Think about it!
Firstly, the immigrant will have family members which he left behind, back in the country that he came from. It is his immigration to this country which "broke up" his far-away family in the first place. Deportation is helping him join up with them again.
Secondly, if the immigrant is married – say he's a convicted foreign criminal – then he is free to take as many family members, from this country, with him as he wants or is able. It should naturally be expected, and encouraged, that if he were married, then he'd be taking his wife and children with him!
If he were unmarried, he'd be taking his partner and children with him. There is nothing unusual about that.
Illegal immigrants can't get married in the UK, since "providing proof of valid immigration status is required to give notice of marriage". However, if an illegal immigrant has children in an unmarried relationship – perhaps with someone who is a British citizen – then he should be encouraged to keep his family together and take them with him.
He should not be able to use Article 8 of the ECHR to make a claim to permanent settlement on the basis that he has a "family life" with a British citizen.
For their part, British citizens should also be aware that having a relationship with an illegal immigrant – or even a legal one in normal circumstances – is always a proposition which might end in his departure, or require you living with him in a foreign land!
That is something that just comes, quite literally "with the territory" of having a relationship with a foreigner. You need to go into a relationship like that with your eyes open to the likely consequences for you down the line!
"But it's against the Rule of Law!"
A researcher writing in the Daily Telegraph answered this one:
Crucially, the USA isn't constrained by many of the ECHR-derived human rights laws which are a problem here. Where they are, they've expressed a willingness to depart from them.
Britain can and should follow that lead, by leaving any international law agreements and repealing any laws which prevent the speedy deportation of those with no right to be here.
Anyone who suggests that this is against the rule of law should explain how the rule of law is upheld by the presence of millions of lawbreakers, or our continued failure to uphold parliamentary and legal sovereignty. (4)
REFERENCES
1. Andy Beaven, "Fury as prolific paedophile can't be deported from Scotland – to protect his rights", The Sunday Post, 17-11-24 here.
2. Article 8 of both the HRA 1998 and the ECHR states:
Article 8
Right to respect for private and family life
1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.
Para 2 is a conditional clause which states the exceptions to Para 1:
2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.
That should really be a wide enough conditional clause to enable deportation in virtually all cases of violent criminal activity! However, the European Court has interpreted the conditions in this clause very narrowly, and made it very difficult to deport the subject.
3. This 4-Step Programme is inspired by material we read on the "National Housing Party UK" website.
4. Guy Dampier, "Does Trump Have the Answers to Britain's Immigration Emergency: Our streets would surely be safer and workers would no longer be undercut", Daily Telegraph, online 19 March 2025 here.
For more articles on this subject see our Territorial Sovereignty: Article Index
SUPPORT A FORCE FOR GOOD
If you think our comprehensive and educational research and publications, and our colourful physical activism is worth supporting, then please help us to keep up this good work!
Comments