Reform UK is right to go nuclear on the asylum system

Standing in front of a giant replica of a migrant ‘mega dinghy’ earlier today, Nigel Farage announced what could well be his most radical immigration policy yet. The Reform UK leader pledged that a government run by him would effectively scrap Britain’s asylum system – one of the main pull factors behind the English Channel migrant crisis.

Speaking at a Reform UK press conference, Farage set out his plan to declare a ‘national security emergency’, to impose a ban on all asylum claims for the next parliamentary term and to deport the 90,000 asylum seekers currently having their claims assessed. Legal resettlement schemes, such as the Homes for Ukrainians scheme and the Afghan resettlement scheme, would also be abolished (although settled Ukrainians and Afghans who worked with the British Army would be allowed to stay). Countries that refuse to take back their citizens would face visa bans and other sanctions, Farage said.

Reform’s plan really is the nuclear option, yet given the insanity of Britain’s current approach to asylum, such radicalism is surely what is called for. It is now apparent to anyone who cares to notice that the asylum system is merely a means of facilitating illegal migration. A Home Office whistleblower recently estimated that ‘at best’ no more than one per cent of asylum claims are genuine. ‘There’s almost no aspect of the asylum system that isn’t either a massive fraud or just really dysfunctional’, the official told The Times. Even the pro-migration UN has warned that Britain’s broken asylum system is granting residency to undeserving applicants.

As things stand, small-boat migrants know that the mere act of applying for asylum entitles them to free accommodation, free healthcare and other benefits. And while asylum seekers are technically banned from working while their claims are assessed, this is rarely enforced. Even being denied asylum has few consequences. Only around 9,700 illegal migrants were forcibly returned in the year up to March 2026. Asylum seekers whose claims are rejected are generally left free to roam the streets.

Tens of thousands of unvetted, mostly male migrants arrive illegally in the UK every year. The asylum system demands that they all be treated as vulnerable victims as soon as they put in an application. Meanwhile, not a jot of consideration is given to the potential risk they pose to the public. Although the UK government refuses to publish data on asylum-seeker criminality, there has been a spate of high-profile cases that have made the dangers impossible to deny. Take the two Iranian nationals charged with terror offences over an alleged bomb plot against Manchester’s Jewish community – having arrived on small boats in 2020 and 2023, both sought asylum and one was successful. Or the asylum seeker who entered by small boat in 2024, before murdering hotel worker Rhiannon White a few months later, by repeatedly stabbing her with a screwdriver. Or the seemingly relentless spate of migrant sex attacks, almost all of which have involved asylum seekers.

Yet in the topsy-turvy world of immigration law, committing an especially depraved crime may actually improve your chances of gaining asylum. A flasher from Afghanistan, a paedophile from Zimbabwe and a Nigerian woman who joined a terror group have all been allowed to stay in Britain because their offending might lead them to face hostility in their home countries. Armed with the European Convention on Human Rights and the Refugee Convention, an activist judge can find just about any reason to grant asylum to anyone. Can an asylum system that is so obviously warped, and holds the British public and our safety in such little regard, really be ‘reformed’, rather than abolished?

No doubt the usual suspects will denounce Reform’s proposals as ‘dangerous’ and ‘extreme’. But it is surely the status quo that is dangerous and extreme. It allows anyone to come to Britain, no matter their intentions, and assures them that even the most heinous crimes are unlikely to lead to their removal. Worse, despite the overwhelming public despair over mass illegal migration, nothing ever changes. The key decisions are currently made by an ideologically captured civil service and judiciary. Returning decision-making power to parliament and the UK government over who gets to stay in Britain will be vital to restoring trust in democracy. Uncontrolled borders, after all, are the state failure that makes British citizens feel most powerless.

Whatever flaws may emerge in Reform UK’s plan, doing nothing about the asylum system is the truly ‘dangerous’ and ‘extreme’ option.