Migrants rush to a dingy on the French coast in the hope of a new life in the UK (Image: Getty Images)
Kent’s Reform UK-led council will this week announce an “illegal immigration emergency” in the first declaration of its kind. Councillors will demand the Labour UK Government “stops the boats immediately” and provides “full funding” to cover the costs of people arriving in the country illegally.
They will also press for “resilience structures and emergency planning” to get the necessary support to “deal with this crisis”.
Get the latest politics news – straight from our team in Westminster and more
Invalid email
You agree you are 18 or over. We use your sign-up to provide content in ways you’ve consented to and to improve our understanding of you. This may include adverts from us and third parties based on our knowledge of you. You can unsubscribe at any time. More Info.
Council leader Linden Kemkaran said: “Illegal small boat crossings are not a distant problem for Kent. Our residents see the consequences every single day. Declaring an illegal migrant emergency recognises the reality on the ground and sends a clear message that enough is enough. Local communities here in Kent cannot be expected to shoulder the burden of a crisis created by years of failure in Westminster.”
A motion will go before councillors on Thursday which states that Kent is at the “forefront of this invasion”. It alleges residents and taxpayers in the county have suffered financial costs as well as “consequences” affecting crime, culture and community cohesion.
Official figures show more than 68,000 people have come to the UK via small boats since Labour took power in July 2024, with over 3,400 arriving so far this year.
The motion going before councillors states this “represents a failure of the state under both national Labour and Conservative administrations” and lists Reform’s plans to halt illegal migration. These include “detaining and deporting all those who arrive in the UK via small boats” as well as leaving the European Convention on Human Rights. It states the party plans to “pick up illegal migrants out of boats and return them to France”, create a new Department for Immigration, introduce “rapid offshore asylum processes” and “deport all foreign criminals”.
The declaration is intended to focus “attention on Kent’s specific needs in this crisis, and put pressure on the ineffective Labour government to take meaningful action”.
Linden Kemkaran, leader of Kent County Council (Image: PA)
A Home Office spokesperson defended Labour’s record, saying: “This Government inherited a broken immigration system, and since coming into office we have stopped over 40,000 crossing attempts and removed or deported almost 60,000 people. The Home Secretary recently laid down new measures to revoke accommodation and support payments for many asylum seekers, alongside a raft of tough new measures to make the UK a less attractive place for illegal migrants. We will not stop until migration is under control once again.”
UK County to Declare ‘Illegal Immigration Emergency’ – the First of Its Kind
Kent has become the centre of a major political row over immigration after its Reform UK-led county council moved to declare an “illegal immigration emergency”, in what was presented as the first declaration of its kind by a UK county.
The move placed immigration at the heart of local government politics and highlighted the increasingly direct confrontation between Reform UK and the Labour government over small-boat crossings, asylum policy and the financial pressures faced by local authorities.
The proposal was put forward by Reform councillors at Kent County Council, led by council leader Linden Kemkaran. Reform argued that Kent, because of its geographical position on the English Channel, experiences consequences from small-boat arrivals more directly than many other parts of the country.
The party said the declaration was intended to put pressure on Westminster to take further action and provide additional financial support to Kent.
However, the proposal quickly became controversial, with opposition councillors questioning both the language used in the motion and the timing of the debate.
Why Kent is at the centre of the debate
Kent occupies a unique geographical position in Britain’s migration debate.
The county is one of the closest parts of England to continental Europe, with the English Channel separating it from the French coast. Dover and surrounding areas have consequently become closely associated with small-boat crossings.
Reform’s motion argued that the county was bearing significant financial and social pressures connected with irregular migration.
The party called for the Government to stop small-boat crossings and provide what it described as full funding for the costs incurred by Kent.
It also called for greater resilience and emergency planning so that the county could respond to the consequences of arrivals.
For Reform councillors, the declaration was therefore not simply symbolic. They argued that it should be used to demand additional resources and greater intervention from the national government.
Council leader Linden Kemkaran said small-boat crossings were not an issue distant from Kent’s residents and argued that local communities should not be expected to carry the burden of a national problem.
What Reform’s motion proposed
The motion contained a series of demands reflecting Reform UK’s wider immigration policies.
Among the measures referenced were the detention and deportation of people arriving in Britain by small boat, changes to asylum procedures and stronger action against foreign nationals convicted of crimes.
The motion also referred to Reform’s proposal to leave the European Convention on Human Rights and establish new arrangements for processing asylum claims.
These are national policy questions that cannot be implemented by a county council alone.
That distinction is important.
Kent County Council does not control Britain’s borders, asylum system or immigration law. Those responsibilities belong primarily to central government.
The council can, however, use political motions to express its position, lobby ministers and highlight the pressures it says are being experienced locally.
The Kent declaration therefore represented a political demand for action from Westminster rather than a new immigration law created by the county itself.
The Government’s response
The Labour Government defended its record on immigration.
A Home Office spokesperson said the Government had inherited what it described as a broken immigration system and pointed to measures taken since Labour came to office.
According to the Home Office statement reported at the time, more than 40,000 crossing attempts had been stopped and almost 60,000 people had been removed or deported.
The Government also pointed to new measures concerning asylum support and accommodation, arguing that the objective was to reduce incentives for people to make dangerous journeys across the Channel.
The disagreement therefore reflects two very different approaches.
Reform argues that the Government needs to take substantially stronger action to stop small-boat arrivals and that Kent should receive greater financial assistance.
The Government says it is already taking action while dealing with a migration system it inherited from previous administrations.
The competing claims demonstrate why immigration remains one of the most contentious subjects in British politics.
The political controversy inside County Hall
The immigration declaration did not pass without confrontation at Kent County Council.
Opposition parties later walked out of the council chamber during the debate, with Liberal Democrat leader Antony Hook describing the motion as a political exercise containing what he regarded as prejudicial assumptions.
The Conservatives had also raised concerns about the timing because a council by-election in Cliftonville was approaching.
The issue became complicated by the rules governing political activity during an election period.
Kent’s monitoring officer sought advice about whether the motion should be postponed. Democratic services officials initially advised that it should be removed from the agenda until after the April 9 by-election because of the sensitivity of the timing.
Reform challenged that position and obtained independent legal advice. The debate was eventually allowed to proceed, with restrictions intended to prevent direct references to the by-election.
That decision did little to calm tensions.
More than 30 opposition councillors left the chamber rather than participate in the debate. Reform councillors remained and passed the motion, with reports recording the vote as 45 to nil after the opposition walkout.
Why the timing mattered
The dispute illustrates how immigration policy and electoral politics can overlap.
A council debate on immigration might ordinarily be regarded as a matter of local political policy. But when an election is taking place at the same time, political parties can face questions about whether council resources, procedures or publicity are being used in ways that could influence voters.
Opposition councillors argued that the timing made the debate inappropriate.
Reform rejected that interpretation and maintained that immigration was an issue directly affecting Kent residents and therefore deserved to be debated.
The disagreement became part of the wider political story surrounding the declaration.
It also demonstrated how contentious local government can become when national political issues are brought directly into council chambers.
A public-health controversy
The immigration debate was made even more sensitive by its timing alongside a meningitis outbreak in the Canterbury area.
Opposition councillors criticised references in the Reform motion to infectious diseases and migrants.
According to reporting by Byline Times, the motion suggested that some infectious diseases could potentially have been carried by migrants, but critics said no evidence had been presented to support that suggestion.
This became one of the sharpest points of disagreement.
For Reform, the wider argument was that migration could create additional pressures for local services and that the council should be willing to discuss those pressures.
Opponents argued that linking migrants with the outbreak risked making an unsupported connection between two separate issues.
The dispute demonstrates the importance of distinguishing between political claims and established evidence, particularly when public health is involved.
The wider small-boat problem
The Kent debate cannot be separated from the continuing issue of small-boat crossings.
The English Channel has become one of the most visible symbols of Britain’s immigration challenge. Successive governments have promised to reduce crossings, while people continue to attempt dangerous journeys from northern France.
The issue has generated disagreements over border enforcement, asylum processing, international cooperation, deportations and Britain’s relationship with European countries.
Reform has made stopping small boats one of its central political priorities.
The party’s position includes significantly tougher measures than those currently pursued by the Government.
The Government, meanwhile, has emphasised enforcement, removals, cooperation with international partners and changes to the asylum system.
Kent’s declaration therefore places a national political dispute into a local-government setting.
What the declaration can and cannot do
Despite the dramatic language surrounding the announcement, a county council declaration does not itself change national immigration law.
Kent cannot independently close the English Channel, determine who is entitled to asylum or deport people from the United Kingdom.
Those powers remain with central government and the relevant national agencies.
What the declaration can do is establish the official political position of the council, provide a basis for lobbying ministers and draw attention to the resources and services that local councillors say are affected by migration.
In that respect, the significance of the move is political rather than legislative.
A test for Reform’s approach to local government
The episode also provides an early example of how Reform UK is using local-government power.
The party has increasingly moved from campaigning against established parties to governing councils where it holds majorities.
That creates a different set of responsibilities.
As an opposition party, Reform could concentrate on criticising national policy. In control of a county council, its representatives must also deal with budgets, public services, infrastructure, social care, roads and other practical responsibilities.
The immigration declaration demonstrates the extent to which Reform intends to use its local-government positions to challenge Westminster on national political issues.
Whether voters view that approach positively or negatively will vary between communities and political parties.
What happens next?
The Kent declaration is unlikely to settle Britain’s immigration debate.
Instead, it adds another layer to an argument that is already taking place in Parliament, at Westminster, in local councils and among voters.
For Reform UK, Kent provides an important example of its determination to make illegal immigration a central issue in local government.
For opponents, the episode raises questions about political language, evidence, council procedure and the appropriate role of local authorities in national immigration policy.
The practical impact will depend on what follows the declaration.
If the council uses it to press for additional funding, emergency planning or changes in the way national agencies work with Kent, the declaration could become part of a longer campaign for greater local support.
If it remains primarily a political statement, its principal significance will be the debate it has generated.
Either way, Kent has demonstrated how Britain’s immigration dispute is increasingly reaching beyond Westminster.
The declaration has brought national questions about borders, asylum and deportation directly into county politics. It has also exposed disagreements between Reform and its political opponents over how those issues should be discussed and what evidence should underpin claims about their consequences.
For now, the “illegal immigration emergency” remains a political declaration rather than a change in immigration law.
But its emergence in Kent marks another significant stage in the growing role of immigration in Britain’s local political landscape.