Reform UK’s shadow home secretary Zia Yusuf has shown how Labour’s new asylum policy exposes the danger that illegal immigration poses to Britain.
Yusuf responded to news that the Home Office is banning asylum seekers from being housed near schools and nurseries. This begs the question - if these people are too dangerous to be allowed near children, why are they being allowed into Britain at all?
Yusuf wrote in a letter to Labour Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood: “A government does not legally mandate buffer zones to separate a specific demographic from children unless it has assessed that demographic to pose a distinct safeguarding risk.”
Yusuf demanded an immediate explanation for the policy, pointing out that it exposes the contradiction at the heart of Labour’s frankly dangerous approach to immigration.
“This policy is effectively a formal admission that these unvetted foreign nationals being housed at the taxpayer’s expense present a risk to British children”, he wrote.
The question is now a simple one. If Labour accepts that these men cannot safely be housed near schools or nurseries, why are they still being allowed to roam freely in the community? Why are they being housed at public expense? And why were they allowed into the country in the first place?
Yusuf said the government is trying to hold “two mutually exclusive positions”: that these men are “too dangerous to be housed near a nursery”, but apparently safe enough to “walk right up to that very nursery”.
Yusuf said that Mahmood had “effectively admitted she is willing to sacrifice British children at the altar of her political ideology”. He has called on the Home Office to publish the risk assessments, safeguarding analyses and legal advice behind the decision, as well as the number of individuals and accommodation sites affected. He also asked how many of those subject to the restriction have criminal records, unverified identities or arrived without documentation.
Yusuf was clear about where the responsibility now lies.
“Given she has accepted the risk these men pose to British children and is choosing to let them roam free anyway, every crime they commit, every victim whose lives they change forever is her responsibility.”
A Reform UK government would put a stop to this. Those who enter Britain illegally would not be dispersed into communities or housed at taxpayers’ expense. They would be detained on arrival, held in secure accommodation and swiftly deported. The current system rewards illegal entry and then chastises ordinary people who are worried about people we know nothing about coming into this country. Reform UK would put the safety of British children and communities first by stopping the boats, closing the asylum hotels, and removing those with no right to be here.
Yusuf responded to news that the Home Office is banning asylum seekers from being housed near schools and nurseries. This begs the question - if these people are too dangerous to be allowed near children, why are they being allowed into Britain at all?
Yusuf wrote in a letter to Labour Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood: “A government does not legally mandate buffer zones to separate a specific demographic from children unless it has assessed that demographic to pose a distinct safeguarding risk.”
Yusuf demanded an immediate explanation for the policy, pointing out that it exposes the contradiction at the heart of Labour’s frankly dangerous approach to immigration.
“This policy is effectively a formal admission that these unvetted foreign nationals being housed at the taxpayer’s expense present a risk to British children”, he wrote.
The question is now a simple one. If Labour accepts that these men cannot safely be housed near schools or nurseries, why are they still being allowed to roam freely in the community? Why are they being housed at public expense? And why were they allowed into the country in the first place?
Yusuf said the government is trying to hold “two mutually exclusive positions”: that these men are “too dangerous to be housed near a nursery”, but apparently safe enough to “walk right up to that very nursery”.
Yusuf said that Mahmood had “effectively admitted she is willing to sacrifice British children at the altar of her political ideology”. He has called on the Home Office to publish the risk assessments, safeguarding analyses and legal advice behind the decision, as well as the number of individuals and accommodation sites affected. He also asked how many of those subject to the restriction have criminal records, unverified identities or arrived without documentation.
Yusuf was clear about where the responsibility now lies.
“Given she has accepted the risk these men pose to British children and is choosing to let them roam free anyway, every crime they commit, every victim whose lives they change forever is her responsibility.”
A Reform UK government would put a stop to this. Those who enter Britain illegally would not be dispersed into communities or housed at taxpayers’ expense. They would be detained on arrival, held in secure accommodation and swiftly deported. The current system rewards illegal entry and then chastises ordinary people who are worried about people we know nothing about coming into this country. Reform UK would put the safety of British children and communities first by stopping the boats, closing the asylum hotels, and removing those with no right to be here.
