Zia Yusuf and Nigel Farage stand next to a replica dinghy (Image: Victoria Jones/Shutterstock)
Nigel Farage has warned that Labour is letting terrorists, serious criminals and dangerous sex offenders into the country as he vowed to shut the asylum system. Standing in front of a replica mega dinghy at a press conference in Kent, the Reform UK leader warned that Britain is facing its biggest security emergency linked to an asylum crisis in history.
And he said his party would deport “north of one million people” if it wins the next election. Mr Farage’s home affairs spokesman, Zia Yusuf, told the Daily Express that “evil” people are among the thousands crossing the Channel on small boats. Reform vowed to close the asylum system for five years and order food safety investigators, environmental health teams and trading standards to help immigration officials snare illegal migrants living in the UK. They would carry out “basic” immigration checks, it is understood.
In an alarming assessment of the small boats crisis, Mr Farage said in Kent: “What is happening is a national security emergency. We are letting terrorists come into the country.
“We are letting serious criminals come into the country. We’re letting dangerous sex offenders into the country. And our primary purpose is to stop that from happening. We have got to be very, very careful about not letting any more of our enemies into the country.”
Mr Farage declared he wanted Britain to return to being a “normal country”. He said: “Nothing radical or crazy. We want to get back to being a normal country, a country that puts national security at the top of the agenda, a country that does everything it can to protect its own citizens, and a country that detains and deports people that come illegally, as virtually every other country in the world does, and indeed, as we used to do.”
Reform would review the status of anyone who has been granted asylum since 2024, with those coming from countries deemed safe by the home secretary losing their permission to remain in the UK. All legal resettlement routes would also be abolished, except for those set up for Ukrainians in the wake of the full-scale Russian invasion in 2022.
And the asylum system will be closed to all new applicants for five years. Those with outstanding claims will be automatically rejected.
Reform’s Zia Yusuf warned Britain will disappear without mass deportations. He confirmed a Nigel Farage government could remove more than one million people.
“If we fail to do that, if we fail to uphold the law, if we fail to say that Britain’s borders mean something … in very short order, we will not have a country at all,” said Mr Yusuf.
And Reform’s home affairs spokesman insisted he will not send anyone to their death or to face torture. He told the Daily Express: “The first thing we’ve got to acknowledge is the enormous amount of fraud that goes on inside the system, right? So, a lot of the people claiming that their life would be in danger, their lives would not be in danger.
“The vast majority of people will end up going back to their countries of origin. As I said, there will be some edge cases.
“As home secretary, I’m not going to send people back to be tortured or killed. But those are going to be very, very few people. For those people, we’re going to work with third countries to resettle them.”
Mr Yusuf admitted opponents and sections of the media will try to spin Reform’s plan. But he told the Daily Express: “The asylum system, clearly, has been a large-scale scam perpetrated against the British people. We have to take that seriously.
“The system was built for a post-World War 2 world. It’s totally unfit for purpose today – not just the scale of the fraud, but the sheer number of people now in this country who shouldn’t be.
Zia Yusuf speaks to the Daily Express (Image: Jonathan Buckmaster)
Get the latest politics news – straight from our team in Westminster and more
Invalid email
You agree you are 18 or over. We use your sign-up to provide content in ways you’ve consented to and to improve our understanding of you. This may include adverts from us and third parties based on our knowledge of you. You can unsubscribe at any time. More Info.
“We’ve already got north of a million people illegally in this country who we are going to need to deport. We don’t want to make that problem even worse.
“We’re just being really honest with the British people about what our plan is. And I do think there is a moral obligation to be candid and clear and frank with the British people about what our plan is, so that if we’re successful and we win a mandate from the British people, we have the moral high ground.
“If you haven’t been honest with the British people about what your plan is, you won’t have that mandate, you won’t have the moral high ground to do some things that, absolutely, will be challenging to do, and you’re going to need to take the public with you.”
And housing officers, food safety investigators, environmental health teams and trading standards will help immigration officials by checking whether foreign nationals living in the UK are here legally.
Outlining the proposals, Mr Yusuf told this newspaper: “If you go through life in Britain, there’s already a lot of regulatory inspections that happen. We will point every organ of state at ensuring that people who break the law in this country are caught and held to account. And immigration law will be no exception.
“So, when trading standards are visiting a premise, they will check whether the workers have the right to work there, for example. We will do that on something called a strict liability basis. And what that means is the prosecutor does not need to prove intent.”
Asked if employees may be concerned about the huge expansion of their roles, Reform’s home affairs spokesman said: “I’m not too concerned about the quote ‘comfort level’ of government employees who are asked to uphold the law. There are some great people who work at the Home Office – I know some of them. There are also some people who are, frankly, far-Left, open-borders activists literally working inside the Home Office.
“If they don’t like it, they still need to do that job. And if they don’t do the job of ensuring these people are marked for deportation and we ensure that they’re removed from our country, they will be fired for gross misconduct, and they won’t receive any notice pay.
“It’s actually morally far worse because these people are paid from the taxes from nurses, from teachers, from people who go to work every day and work hard. So I think it’s actually morally repugnant for civil servants to say, ‘we’re not going to do that thing’.”
And Reform’s home affairs spokesman slammed the Home Office’s accommodation providers for effectively fuelling a housing crisis by bidding against families who need the homes.
Nigel Farage warned of a national security emergency (Image: Victoria Jones/Shutterstock)
He said: “There’s a 29-year-old teaching assistant who’s trying to move out of her parents’ home, her childhood home, at the age of 29. She’s struggling to do that. Every time she tries to bid on a flat that comes up near her child’s school, she gets outbid. And it’s suddenly off the market again.
“What she didn’t realise was that her own government, via a government contractor, was outbidding her on terms that she could never compete with.
“It’s insane. With her own tax money. And that’s when we talk about betrayal, a colossal betrayal. That’s what it is. And then we wonder why, as I said, we have such a high proportion – a third of young adults aged 19-30, still living at home with their parents. And this is one of the key reasons why.”
Reform has vowed to deploy the Royal Navy in the Channel to intercept every small boat crossing. Royal Marines will also be authorised to use lethal force and take migrants back to France. But former paratrooper Major Andrew Fox warned that some elite troops will refuse to open fire.
Mr Yusuf dismissed this and outlined the party’s position. He said: “Our armed forces will be authorised to use lethal force where necessary to protect innocent life, where, for example, if a people smuggler is armed. We know agents operating at the behest of the Iranian regime are using the English Channel and using boats like this to come to our country.
“In that scenario, our position is our armed forces will be authorised, if necessary, to protect innocent life. It would be foolish, and you would put our own boys in harm’s way, if you did not take into account the evil of some of the people coming across – again, not everybody.
“But fundamentally, it is a humanitarian mission. We’ll be ready for anything.”
Reform Just Revealed Its Rules on When Military Can Use ‘Lethal Force’ on Small Boats
The dispute has placed one of Reform UK’s most controversial immigration proposals under intense scrutiny, raising questions about the limits of military power, the safety of people crossing the English Channel and the practicalities of enforcing Britain’s borders.
For Nigel Farage, the challenge is to demonstrate that his party can deliver on its promise to stop unauthorised crossings without creating a dangerous confrontation at sea. For his critics, the episode highlights the risks of turning a complicated humanitarian and legal problem into a political contest over who can sound toughest on immigration.
What Are Reform’s Actual Rules?
Reform UK’s official proposal, known as Operation Fortress, envisages deploying the Royal Navy to intercept migrant boats in the Channel. The party says those on board would be secured, provided with essential assistance and returned safely to France or Belgium under escort. It presents the operation as a way to stop unauthorised arrivals while reducing the danger of repeated crossings. <Cite refs={[“turn251988search1″,”turn251988search14”]}/>
However, the distinction between this published plan and the recent statements about lethal force is crucial.
The official policy describes an interception and return operation. The public comments by Jenrick and Farage have introduced a separate question: what should happen if military personnel encounter violence while carrying out that mission?
Jenrick suggested that Royal Marines deployed to the Channel should be permitted to use lethal force if necessary. He also argued that people intercepted at sea should be taken back to France, suggesting that a sufficiently determined operation could end the crossings within days.
Farage subsequently sought to clarify the position. He said the comments had been misconstrued and stressed that military personnel would have the right to respond if they were fired upon. He insisted that the objective was to intercept boats and return their occupants, rather than routinely shoot at migrants. <Cite refs={[“turn251988news18″,”turn251988search3”]}/>
That clarification matters. A statement about self-defence is not the same as a policy authorising the use of lethal force against people merely because they are attempting to enter Britain.
As of the latest reporting, the public controversy has not established a general rule permitting troops to shoot at migrants simply for crossing the Channel. Any claim that Reform has formally adopted such a rule would go beyond the evidence available.
Why the Military Question Matters
Military personnel operate under strict legal obligations. Deploying the armed forces to support border enforcement does not automatically give them unlimited authority to use force.
The legality of any particular action would depend on the circumstances, the applicable rules of engagement and the law governing the operation. A genuine threat to the lives of service personnel is fundamentally different from a boat carrying unarmed people who are refusing instructions.
Defence Readiness Minister Luke Pollard strongly condemned Jenrick’s remarks, describing the idea as illegal and incompatible with British military values. He stressed that armed forces personnel must not obey unlawful orders and rejected the idea of shooting unarmed civilians. <Cite refs={[“turn251988news11″,”turn251988news20”]}/>
The disagreement therefore extends beyond party politics. It concerns the responsibilities placed on sailors and marines who could be asked to carry out a highly visible and politically charged mission.
Service personnel would need clear instructions about when they could approach a boat, how they should respond to resistance, how passengers would be protected and what would happen if a vessel became unstable. Those questions cannot be resolved through a campaign slogan.
The government would also have to consider how the operation would work in crowded shipping lanes, where a confrontation could endanger not only the people on a migrant boat but also military crews and other vessels.
The Humanitarian Risks of a Channel Confrontation
The English Channel is one of the busiest maritime areas in the world. Small inflatable boats are often poorly equipped for the conditions, and even an apparently routine interception can become dangerous if passengers panic or the vessel takes on water.
The danger is not theoretical. People have died attempting the crossing, while rescue organisations and maritime authorities have repeatedly had to respond to boats in distress. The UK government would have to ensure that any new interception policy did not increase the risk of drowning or prevent people in immediate danger from receiving assistance. <Cite refs={[“turn251988search14″,”turn251988search4”]}/>
Reform argues that stopping boats before they reach British shores could discourage future crossings and weaken the business model of people-smuggling networks. Its supporters say a firm and predictable response could reduce the incentive to make the journey in the first place.
Critics counter that a military operation could expose vulnerable people to additional risks, particularly if interceptions became confrontational or boats were redirected without adequate safety arrangements.
There is also a wider question about the people-smuggling gangs themselves. Criminal networks may use threats, intimidation and dangerous methods to transport passengers. An effective strategy would need to distinguish between organised criminal activity and the people who find themselves aboard the vessels.
A policy that treats every person on a boat as a potential hostile actor would risk serious injustice. Equally, a strategy that fails to address the criminal organisations arranging crossings may struggle to achieve lasting results.
Could Reform Actually Stop the Boats?
The party’s proposal is ambitious. Reform says the Royal Navy would lead an operation supported by other armed forces and civilian authorities, intercepting unauthorised vessels and returning those on board to France or Belgium.
But the plan faces several practical obstacles.
First, it would require sufficient vessels, personnel and logistical support to sustain operations in the Channel. Warships and patrol vessels already have responsibilities involving national defence, maritime security and other missions. Committing them to regular migrant interceptions would have consequences for budgets, staffing and operational priorities.
Second, returning people to another country is not something Britain can necessarily accomplish by issuing a unilateral instruction. France and Belgium would have to cooperate with the arrangements, and the legal basis for transferring people would need to be established. Reform insists its plan can comply with international maritime law, but that assertion does not remove the need to settle the legal and diplomatic details. <Cite refs={[“turn251988search4″,”turn251988search14”]}/>
Third, the government would need to determine what happens when a person claims asylum, alleges a risk of persecution or requires urgent medical treatment. Intercepting a vessel and returning its passengers are operational steps; establishing that the action is lawful in each relevant circumstance is a separate challenge.
Finally, there is no guarantee that people-smuggling networks would simply abandon their business. They could change routes, alter tactics or attempt crossings in different conditions, creating new demands on border authorities.
Reform’s supporters may argue that these difficulties are reasons to act decisively rather than reasons to abandon the proposal. Nevertheless, voters deserve a detailed explanation of how the plan would work in practice, not simply a promise that it will end crossings within a short period.
Farage Faces Pressure From Two Directions
The controversy creates a difficult balancing act for Farage.
On one side are supporters who expect Reform to deliver a dramatic change in immigration policy. They want a government prepared to use every lawful power available to prevent unauthorised arrivals. For these voters, talk of caution and legal complexity can sound like the same hesitation they associate with previous governments.
On the other side are voters who may support stricter border controls but are uncomfortable with suggestions that soldiers could use lethal force against people in small boats. They may see a distinction between robust enforcement and the militarisation of a humanitarian crisis.
Farage must convince both groups that his party can be tough without being reckless.
Jenrick’s remarks have made that task harder. A policy announcement intended to demonstrate determination has instead triggered questions about whether Reform’s senior figures agree on the limits of military action. Farage’s clarification may reduce some of the confusion, but it also raises the question of why the original message was not clearer.
Opposition politicians will continue to demand details. They will want to know who would authorise the operation, what rules would govern force, how the government would cooperate with France and what safeguards would protect lives at sea.
For Reform, the danger is that the debate becomes focused less on the party’s proposed immigration system and more on the consequences of its rhetoric.
What Happens Next?
The immediate priority for Reform is to provide a clear, consistent account of its policy. That means explaining the difference between using the armed forces to intercept boats and authorising lethal force, while setting out the circumstances in which service personnel could lawfully defend themselves or others.
The government, meanwhile, faces its own challenge. Condemning controversial language may win political points, but it will not by itself resolve the problems associated with dangerous crossings, smuggling networks and the asylum system.
A credible national strategy would need to combine effective enforcement with international cooperation, maritime safety, workable asylum procedures and action against criminal organisers. It would also need to be realistic about the limits of what military deployment can achieve.
The wider immigration debate is likely to remain a major political battleground. Reform has made border control a central part of its appeal, while opponents argue that the party’s proposals risk oversimplifying difficult legal and humanitarian questions.
The question of lethal force has brought those competing arguments into sharp focus.
Ultimately, Britain’s armed forces cannot be expected to operate on the basis of ambiguous political soundbites. They need clear legal authority, carefully defined rules and a mission that can be carried out without placing lives at unnecessary risk.
Reform’s plan to deploy the Navy may remain central to its promise to stop small boats. But whether that proposal can succeed will depend on the detail behind it: the arrangements with France, the resources available, the treatment of people intercepted at sea and the rules governing any use of force.
Farage has attempted to draw a line between self-defence and shooting at migrants as a routine measure. The next test is whether Reform can translate that distinction into a credible, lawful and operationally workable policy.
For voters, that is the issue that matters most. The debate should not be reduced to who can make the most dramatic threat. It should be about whether a government can protect Britain’s borders, uphold the law and prevent avoidable loss of life at the same time.