Children and women included in Reform plan to immediately deport 90,000 asylum seekers

Reform UK has proposed closing Britain’s asylum system to new claims and immediately deporting 90,000 asylum seekers. It would also impose a five-year ban on granting asylum. The plan matters because it would remove protection for people fleeing war and persecution and sharply change Britain’s current approach.

Children and women would not receive a blanket exemption. Nigel Farage argued that allowing Palestinian or Afghan women and children could open the door to husbands, partners and other young men. The plan would return failed applicants to their home countries or safe third countries.

The Home Office said Farage was mistaken about family reunion rights under the reopened UK Resettlement Scheme. About a quarter of arrivals under that scheme will be Afghan women and girls and Palestinians who fled Gaza. Reform would also review asylum granted since 2024 and abolish most legal resettlement routes.

Reform UK’s immediate plan names 90,000 asylum seekers for deportation. That is the clearest short-term figure in the proposal. It refers to people already within the asylum system, rather than everyone the party says it might eventually remove.

The longer-term ambition is far larger. Zia Yusuf, described as Reform’s would-be home secretary, said the party planned to deport “north of 1 million people.” Comparing the figures, one million is more than eleven times 90,000, even before counting anything above one million.

The article does not provide a detailed breakdown of the million-plus figure. It says Reform would review people granted asylum since 2024 and remove permission to remain for people from countries later deemed safe. The party also proposes abolishing most legal resettlement routes, leaving only Ukrainian arrangements.

An asylum seeker is a person who has requested protection from another country because returning home may be dangerous, but whose application is still being considered. The label describes a pending process, not a final decision. People may seek asylum because of persecution, war or threats to their safety.

A refugee is someone whose need for international protection has been officially recognised, usually after authorities assess the claim. A regular immigrant generally moves through ordinary routes for work, study, family or other reasons, rather than asking for protection from persecution. These categories can sometimes overlap in everyday discussion, but their legal meanings differ.

The article focuses on people seeking asylum in Britain and on Reform’s proposal to reject new claims automatically. It also discusses people already granted asylum since 2024. The article does not explain individual application procedures, so these distinctions use established general definitions of asylum and refugee status.

Reform UK proposes returning failed asylum applicants to their home countries or to a safe third country. A third country would be an alternative destination considered safe when return to the person’s homeland is not available. The proposal is part of a wider plan to reject new claims automatically.

The party says it would pressure countries that refuse returns. Its proposed tools include tariffs, visa bans and airspace restrictions. Zia Yusuf also referred to “third-country options” for “edge cases,” while saying Reform would not send people to be killed or tortured.

The article does not identify which countries might accept rejected applicants or explain how these arrangements would operate. It says refugee charities called the proposals unworkable. The Refugee Council warned that people would still arrive but could be driven underground if Britain closed its asylum system instead of processing claims through an orderly system.

Closing the asylum system would not necessarily stop people from reaching Britain. The Refugee Council said desperate people would still arrive on the country’s shores. Without a legal way to make claims, they could be pushed outside the formal system rather than assessed through recognised procedures.

The charity said this would “cause chaos” and drive people underground. That means people might avoid authorities instead of registering their claims. Reform’s wider document proposes embedding immigration enforcement throughout the state, including checks during food safety, housing and licensing inspections, and using utility data or neighbour complaints to identify targets.

The immediate implication is a less orderly system, according to the Refugee Council. People seeking protection could remain hidden while enforcement expanded into everyday services. The article does not say exactly what would happen to each person, but it presents underground living and increased enforcement as likely consequences of closing the claims process.

International refugee protection generally bars refoulement, the forced return of a person to a place where they face persecution or serious harm. The principle exists because protection would be meaningless if a country could accept someone’s claim and then send that person straight back into danger. It safeguards life, liberty and human dignity.

For example, someone fleeing persecution may not be safe simply because officials can identify their nationality. Returning them could expose them to imprisonment, violence or death. International protection therefore requires authorities to consider the danger before removal. This principle is broader than helping people cross a border; it limits what governments may do after they arrive.

The article reflects this issue through Zia Yusuf’s claim that Reform would not send people to be killed or tortured, while proposing “third-country options” for edge cases. The article does not explain the legal rules in detail. This explanation uses established international refugee-protection principles.

The Second World War created a major humanitarian crisis as people fled war, persecution and mass violence across Europe. Its aftermath helped shape modern international refugee protection and Britain’s practice of offering safety to people escaping danger. The central lesson was that vulnerable people need somewhere secure when their own country cannot protect them.

Britain’s tradition developed through postwar efforts to resettle and protect displaced people. Resettlement gives selected people a safer route rather than requiring them to reach a country and claim protection after arrival. The article links this tradition to the horrors of the Second World War, though it does not list specific schemes created then.

Jon Featonby of the Refugee Council said Reform’s proposals would abandon that tradition. The article also reports plans to abolish legal resettlement routes, except those for Ukrainians. This could mark a major shift from postwar protection toward exclusion and enforcement. The historical context explains why charities reacted so strongly.