By Ben Kerrigan-
In a controversial speech delivered on Sunday, Zia Yusuf outlined sweeping immigration proposals that would fundamentally reshape the United Kingdom’s border and residency regime, including the creation of an agency modelled on the United States’ Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and abolishing the current system of indefinite leave to remain (ILR).
The address part policy announcement, part warning sets out a hardline platform that Reform UK says would restore “control” over the immigration system but which opponents argue will dismantle settled rights and spark legal and moral controversy.
AD: Capeesh Restaurant
Yusuf’s proposals come as his party continues to position immigration and law and order at the forefront of its political platform, painting the shift as necessary to address what it describes as a national security crisis.
“We must act decisively to secure our borders and uphold the rule of law,” Yusuf said in Dover, asserting that the UK should adopt tools similar to those used by ICE in the United States, a controversial body widely criticised by human rights groups.
The speech, which also addressed policing powers and integration policy, lays out a broad agenda that touches on immigration enforcement, visa policy, human rights commitments, and policing practices in England and Wales.
AD: Oysterian Sea Food Restaurant And Bar
While Reform UK seeks to implement its policies ahead of upcoming elections, critics from other parties and civil society have condemned the plans as divisive and against
Britain’s existing legal traditional families”, which is “fundamentally un-British”, after unveiling a swathe of new proposals to tackle immigration, including mass deportations and ramped-up surveillance.
ICE Style Enforcement Agency and End To ILR
At the centre of Yusuf’s speech was the detailed outline of a new “UK Deportation Command” a national agency said to be modelled on the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the unit responsible for detention and removal of undocumented migrants in the United States.
Yusuf portrayed this as a dramatic scaling-up of capacity far beyond that of the current Border Force and Home Office immigration enforcement teams.
The creation of such an enforcement apparatus represents a significant departure from current UK practice. The United Kingdom does not have an equivalent to ICE and has traditionally relied on more limited and constitutionally constrained immigration enforcement powers.
Critics argue that this shift would bring British immigration enforcement closer to the U.S. model, where ICE has drawn persistent criticism over detention conditions, family separation, and prioritisation of removals over other processes.
Perhaps the most dramatic aspect of the Reform proposal was the intention to abolish indefinite leave to remain the longstanding route by which non-British citizens can secure permanent residency in the UK after meeting eligibility requirements including residence duration, character tests, and language proficiency.
Yusuf’s plan would replace ILR with a renewable five-year work visa, tied to high income thresholds and stricter criteria for dependants and family reunification. Under these proposals, many long-standing residents could see their settled status revoked and their migration status reassessed under more stringent terms.
Official party spokespeople said this overhaul aims to end what they describe as the “automatic right” to settle permanently and would apply even to current ILR holders unless they meet new requirements. Such a move, if enacted, would be one of the most far-reaching changes to the UK immigration system in decades, raising questions about legal security, integration and human rights protections.
Alongside these flagship policies, Yusuf also outlined other measures including expanded use of stop and search powers for policing, “visa freezes” on states that refuse to take back nationals with no legal right to stay, and the re-allocation of counter-extremism funding to focus on Islamist extremism.
Political Backclash And Legal Quandaries
Opposition to the Reform proposals was swift and robust. Labour figures and immigrant rights organisations accused Reform UK of launching a “direct attack on settled families,” arguing that stripping individuals of a secure immigration status would violate fundamental fairness and contravene established legal principles.
Labour spokespeople said the policy would be “fundamentally un-British”, undermining the values of tolerance and stability many British families prize.
The idea of creating a British equivalent to ICE an agency synonymous in the United States with aggressive detention and deportation practices has particularly alarmed civil liberties groups.
Human rights lawyers and campaigners warned that an enforcement body of this ilk, operating with expanded detention capacity, could strain judicial oversight and put vulnerable migrants at risk of wrongful detention or rushed removal without adequate legal recourse.
Critics also pointed to concerns that expanded stop and search powers combined with assurances of detention capacity could disproportionately impact racialised communities.
Questions also arise about how such sweeping immigration enforcement would interact with existing international obligations. The UK is currently bound by the European Convention on Human Rights and other treaties that protect against unlawful detention and uphold family life, rights that have frequently been cited in asylum and immigration appeals. Some senior legal voices have suggested that parts of Reform UK’s agenda could face judicial challenges if enacted.
The party’s broader platform on social policy including opposition to mosque conversions and a re-focus of the Prevent counter-terrorism programme adds fuel to the debate, with critics framing Yusuf’s proposals as part of a wider “culture war” rather than a narrowly targeted immigration strategy.
Reform defenders counter that many European countries already restrict certain practices and that public support exists for more assertive immigration control particularly on the political right.
The political ramifications of the speech extend beyond immigration policy. Reform UK has sought to capitalise on public concern over knife crime and community safety, intertwining hardline immigration messaging with calls for tougher law enforcement measures.
Yusuf linked large-scale immigration to social problems such as rising crime rates, a narrative that Labour and the Conservatives dismiss as simplistic and misleading.
The timing of the announcement just weeks before key local elections suggests that Reform UK is pitching these reforms to energise its base and broaden appeal on issues where it believes mainstream parties have been deficient.
Nigel Farage, Reform’s party leader, has positioned these policies as part of a “national security emergency” that requires a radical departure from traditional immigration and law enforcement approaches.
Polling data ahead of the speech showed mixed public sentiment on the broader theme of immigration: while many voters express dissatisfaction with current system backlogs and enforcement limits, there is less consensus on extreme measures that would revoke established residency rights or expand detention capacities.
Some moderate conservatives and liberal voters have signalled support for smoother legal pathways and better enforcement of existing laws, but balk at the idea of mass deportations and the abolition of settled status.
Others, particularly within immigrant communities, have reacted with fear and anger. Families with mixed-status members or those on long pathways to settlement have voiced concerns that a shift to renewable visas would create perpetual insecurity and undermine community cohesion. Advocacy groups have already announced plans to challenge parts of the agenda through legal avenues and public campaigns.
With Reform UK, the gamble is clear: stake its identity as the party of uncompromising immigration reform and hope that voters reward its boldness. For opponents, the stakes are equally high: a potential re-definition of what it means to be a settled resident in the UK, and a test of how far political rhetoric can reshape long-standing legal and social norms.
What comes next may depend not just on the political calculus of upcoming elections, but on legal contests and public discourse that question whether the United Kingdom should mirror the enforcement model of ICE, or reaffirm its own traditions of rights, permanence and structured pathways to belonging.
AD: Heritage And Restaurant Lounge Bar