No, it's not based on those assumptions.
1) There is no need for UKIP to be racist, or indeed for anyone to take a view as to whether getting tough on immigration is the best decision for the country. Social workers aren't being asked that question, they're being asked what is in the best interest of these particular children who come from a very clear EU background with a very clear identity that is associated with their background. I don't think anyone (other than in this thread) has accused UKIP of being racist?
2) See above. There is nothing to suggest that this decision had anything to do with racism or indeed anyone being accused of racism.
To answer both of the above - in the article it says, and I quote - "The children - who are "not indigenous white British" - were removed by social workers who accused the unnamed couple of belonging to a "racist party"." -clearly the issue of racism (or the perception of racism) has had some impact on the decision, because they felt that the foster parents in question were not the best ones for the job because of what they assumed to be their views based on their political allegiance.
This too, is based on the assumption (false in my opinion) that UKIP is a racist party, which if you look at the manifesto, seems doubtful. While aspects of policy could broadly be perceived as racist (such as the desire to halt the promotion of multiculturalism in favour of the promotion of a single British culture) - these are then offset by the clarification that UKIP welcomes people of all races and religions into that culture of mutual tolerance and democratic values - it hardly smacks of racial superiority, or cultural superiority does it? I think it boils down to what we define as "Racism" which I personally think is an irrational fear or hatred of other races/cultures, and the belief that your own is superior to all others - but I understand it can be quite a nebulous term... Immigration too, on the UKIP manifesto, seems to be more, in my view, about much tighter border control than race - they're not stopping people from coming to Britain, living and working in Britain and so on, they just would like them to conform to British values whilst they are here - to "play ball" so to speak, with the culture we have here, rather than spread bring their own... it falls into that "nebulous" category of racism I think, with my own personal view being that it falls (just) on the side of not being racist. If you compare UKIP's immigration policy to that of say, the BNP, you can see the difference - the BNP for instance, want to send immigrants back, UKIP would allow them to stay, but on British terms.3) This one, I partially generally agree with. You might think that it is absolutely possible for someone to be a member UKIP, but not necessarily agree with every one of their manifesto policies, or not to pass those views on to their foster children, and it's completely unfair to assume that as a member of UKIP you necessarily have particular views on multiculturalism or the importance to those children of their background. That said, it is the children who come first. The question is not what is fair to the foster parents, it's not about giving them a chance or worrying about them, they are paid to do a job. The role of the local authority is to protect the best interests of the children and if there is concern that those children have a particular background and a particular part of their identity that is important to them and will help them in future with coming to terms with where they've come from and who they are, issues that children in the care system often struggle with, then it is absolutely right that those interests be considered and the children put in the best possible place.
Clearly any statement that says "we moved these children purely on the grounds that the emergency foster carers were members of UKIP" would be silly.. but that's not my understanding. Personally you can't help wondering why anyone felt the need to mention UKIP party membership at all.. but making a decision on the grounds of the parents particular individual views and the particular circumstances of the children would surely be entirely justified.
You can't ask little children, some of whom may be so young they are unable to speak, who may be 2 or 3 or 4, to decide whether they should stay with this set of emergency foster parents or be moved to a different and unknown set of longer term foster parents. Social workers, who know the foster carers, who have spoken to the children, who have considered all the evidence they have in front of them, are responsible for making a difficult decision about what is the best place for them. Are they sure it's not with their birth family? Are we sure it's not with these emergency foster parents? Might they be on their way to adoption.. or is there a chance of them returning to their birth family? These are hard decisions that should not, and I am confident are not, taken lightly. This kind of reporting, and reactionary criticism on the basis of a complete lack of information about the case is completely unhelpful and completely misses the fact that these children need protecting and their interests should come first.
But equally then, if they are little children, how can it be said that they have any affinity, or knowledge of their home culture or nationality? Unless we assume we are just born with ideas, rather than develop them over time. What is the problem, if these kids already have no affiliation with wherever they come from, with leaving them with people who might instil in them British values/culture instead, or who might be honest with them about their heritage in the long term, and tell them where they come from? All the council are doing, as far as I can see, is still making assumptions about what is best for the children. IF it were the case that the kids were of an age where they could understand, be a part of, and want to live in their own culture, against the wishes of the foster parents, then I could perhaps understand the position of the council, but in this case, where the children are too young (if you are correct on their ages) to even understand the concepts, let alone subscribe to any of them, I just think the move is an unnecessary one, and one that is also slanderous to the foster parents involved. Oh, and not sure who negged you but not me!
And I care very little about negs - so no problemedit: I note that according to the article someone in the social care department might have accused them of "belonging to a racist party". Clearly that was a silly thing to say, but I'm really not sure that was the issue here.
I think it was personally - the children were not of white British origin, the councillors considered UKIP to be a racist party, and ergo, the parents to be racist (both of which are false I think), and thus they felt, (in ignorance I believe) that this was the best course of action.