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 the Military Can Use ‘Lethal Force’ on Small Boats
Reform UK has triggered a major political controversy after senior party figures outlined how a future government would use Britain’s armed forces to stop migrant boats crossing the English Channel. The debate intensified after Robert Jenrick suggested that Royal Marines deployed to intercept the vessels could use “lethal force” if necessary, prompting criticism from political opponents and forcing Nigel Farage to clarify what his party would actually permit.
The dispute has put one of Reform’s most prominent immigration proposals under intense scrutiny. Farage has promised to deploy the Royal Navy to intercept small boats and return people attempting to cross the Channel to France. But the question of what happens when an interception becomes dangerous has exposed a difficult issue: how can a government enforce its borders without putting lives at unnecessary risk or ordering military personnel to act unlawfully?
Farage subsequently rejected the suggestion that his party intended to authorise routine lethal force against migrants. He said Jenrick’s remarks had been misconstrued, arguing that British service personnel would have the right to respond if they came under fire.
That clarification has not ended the controversy. Instead, it has raised further questions about the rules of engagement, the practicalities of returning boats to France and the legal limits on using armed forces in a civilian border operation.
What Reform actually said
The immediate controversy followed comments by Jenrick, Reform’s Treasury spokesperson, who said a future Reform government would deploy the Royal Marines to the Channel and allow them to use lethal force if necessary.
Jenrick also stressed that this was not the desired outcome. He said the intention would be to intercept the boats, handle the people on board in a “sensible and reasonable” manner and return them directly to France.
His remarks nevertheless prompted an immediate backlash because they appeared to introduce the possibility of deadly force into an operation involving vessels that may carry families, children and people seeking asylum.
Farage later sought to narrow the meaning of the statement. Speaking publicly, he argued that Jenrick was referring to the right of British military personnel to defend themselves if they were fired upon. He insisted that Reform’s policy was to intercept boats and return their occupants, not to open fire on migrants as a routine enforcement measure.
The distinction is fundamental. The use of proportionate force in response to an imminent threat to life is not the same as authorising soldiers to shoot people simply because they are attempting to enter Britain without permission.
However, the exchange has left the party facing questions about whether it has developed sufficiently detailed rules for the situations its proposed operation could encounter.
What would the rules on lethal force actually mean?
The phrase “lethal force” has become the most controversial part of the debate, but it does not establish a complete set of operational rules.
In British law, force that could cause death may be lawful in exceptional circumstances, such as genuine self-defence or the defence of another person from an imminent threat to life. The force used must be necessary and proportionate to the circumstances as they are reasonably understood.
That is very different from using deadly force to enforce immigration rules.
The Joint Committee on Human Rights has previously stressed that maritime enforcement operations must protect life and minimise the risk of people dying at sea. Intercepting an overcrowded inflatable boat creates particular dangers: sudden movements, rough water, panic and the possibility of capsizing can turn an already hazardous crossing into a rescue emergency.
A military operation would therefore need clear instructions on when vessels can be approached, how people should be transferred, what happens if a boat refuses to cooperate and how service personnel should respond to threats.
It would also need to distinguish between people-smuggling organisers who may pose a genuine threat and passengers who may have little control over the journey.
Reform’s public comments have not established a detailed, publicly available set of rules covering every one of those situations. Farage’s clarification about self-defence narrows his position, but it does not resolve every operational or legal question.
The government responds
The proposal has drawn condemnation from Labour politicians.
Defence Minister Luke Pollard described the suggestion as illegal and incompatible with British military values. He argued that service personnel cannot be expected to obey unlawful orders and that British forces should not be instructed to shoot unarmed civilians.
Prime Minister Andy Burnham also criticised Jenrick’s intervention, using parliamentary exchanges to challenge Reform’s approach to immigration.
The government has defended its own cooperation with France as a means of reducing dangerous Channel crossings and disrupting the networks responsible for arranging them. Burnham has argued that smugglers change their tactics when enforcement becomes more effective, requiring the authorities to adapt rather than rely on a single response.
Reform, meanwhile, says existing measures have failed to prevent unauthorised arrivals and that a more determined approach is needed.
The disagreement is therefore not simply about whether the military should be involved. It is also about what the armed forces could realistically achieve, which legal powers would be required and whether France would cooperate with a policy of returning boats.
Could the military simply turn boats around?
Reform’s Operation Fortress plan proposes using the Royal Navy to intercept small boats and return their occupants to France or Belgium.
The party has argued that the operation would be supported by surveillance and coordination between military and civilian authorities. Its stated aim is to prevent unauthorised vessels from reaching British shores.
However, maritime operations are more complicated than a political announcement might suggest.
Small inflatable boats may be overcrowded, poorly maintained and difficult to control. Any interception would have to account for weather, sea conditions, the condition of passengers and the possibility that the vessel is already in distress.
There is also the question of jurisdiction. British forces cannot assume that they may enter French territorial waters or disembark people on French soil without the necessary legal authority and international cooperation. The details of any agreement with France would be central to whether the proposed returns could work in practice.
Previous efforts to develop maritime pushback arrangements have faced concerns about safety, feasibility and the potential legal consequences for personnel involved. Reform says its proposed system would be different, but that difference would need to be demonstrated through a credible operational plan.
Simply declaring that every boat will be returned does not answer what happens when the people aboard refuse to cooperate, the weather becomes dangerous or the French authorities decline to accept them.
The danger of escalating a humanitarian crisis
Supporters of tougher enforcement argue that dangerous crossings must be stopped because they expose migrants to exploitation by criminal smuggling networks. They also point out that preventing departures could reduce the risk of people drowning in the Channel.
Those concerns should not be dismissed. Smugglers can profit from desperation, place passengers in unsafe vessels and abandon people when a journey goes wrong.
But the use of military force introduces risks of its own. Any operation that causes a boat to capsize or leaves passengers stranded at sea could produce a humanitarian disaster. The authorities would have to be prepared to rescue people immediately, including children and vulnerable passengers.
The challenge is to prevent dangerous crossings without creating an enforcement system that increases the danger to those involved.
A robust border policy can include surveillance, intelligence-led action against criminal networks, lawful interception, safe rescue procedures and cooperation with neighbouring countries. The question is how Reform would combine those measures and what it would do when enforcement encounters resistance.
The party’s supporters want to see a decisive end to small-boat arrivals. Its critics want assurances that the pursuit of that objective will not override legal obligations or basic protections for human life.
Those demands are not resolved by the phrase “force will be met with force”. They require clear rules, practical safeguards and accountability for decisions made at sea.
What happens if soldiers receive an unlawful order?
One of the strongest objections raised by government ministers concerns the responsibilities of military personnel.
Armed forces operate under a legal framework. A political instruction does not automatically make an action lawful, and service personnel are not entitled to treat every order as justification for conduct that breaches the law.
Any plan involving lethal force would therefore need to be carefully defined and consistent with the applicable rules governing self-defence, the protection of life and maritime operations.
This is particularly important because the consequences of a mistaken decision at sea can be irreversible. A commander must be able to distinguish between a genuine threat to life and a situation involving non-compliance, confusion or fear.
Reform has not said that migrants should routinely be shot for attempting to reach Britain. Farage has explicitly rejected that interpretation of Jenrick’s remarks. Nevertheless, the party must explain how its proposed rules would be communicated to personnel and how disputed decisions would be reviewed.
A credible policy would need to give military commanders clear guidance rather than leave them to interpret political soundbites during dangerous encounters.
A defining test for Reform’s immigration policy
The controversy comes as Reform is presenting immigration as one of the central issues it would address in government. Its wider proposals include suspending asylum claims for an extended period, rejecting pending applications under its proposed system and expanding removals.
These proposals have generated separate arguments about legal obligations, administrative capacity and the treatment of people who may face persecution if returned to their home countries.
The debate over lethal force adds another dimension. It tests whether the party can translate its promise of tougher enforcement into a policy that is both operationally credible and legally workable.
For Farage, the immediate task is to demonstrate that Reform’s approach would be more than a forceful political message. He needs to explain how interceptions would work, what arrangements would be reached with France and how the operation would protect people at sea.
For his opponents, the challenge is to explain how the government can reduce dangerous crossings and disrupt smuggling networks while maintaining public confidence in the effectiveness of existing measures.
Voters are entitled to scrutinise both approaches. Strong rhetoric does not prove that a policy will succeed, just as criticism of a proposal does not eliminate the need for practical alternatives.
The rules must be clearer than the rhetoric
The latest row has exposed a gap between Reform’s political promise and the difficult decisions that would confront military personnel in the Channel.
Jenrick’s remarks suggested that lethal force could be available if necessary. Farage subsequently said the reference was to self-defence if British troops were fired upon, rather than a policy of routinely using deadly force against migrants.
That distinction is essential, but the wider questions remain: what precisely would trigger an intervention, how would the safety of passengers be protected, and what legal and diplomatic arrangements would make returns possible?
Until those questions are answered, the public cannot fully assess the proposal.
Britain faces a genuine challenge in preventing dangerous crossings and tackling the criminal networks that facilitate them. The government has a responsibility to address that challenge effectively. Any alternative offered by Reform should be judged by the same standards: whether it can work, whether it complies with the law and whether it reduces risks rather than creating new ones.
The most consequential question is not whether a politician is prepared to use the phrase “lethal force”. It is whether the government could establish a lawful, workable system in which military personnel understand their responsibilities and the protection of human life remains paramount.
That is the standard against which Reform’s Channel policy will ultimately have to be judged.