Immigration and electoral politics
Immigration has become one of the most dominant issues in British politics — and as illegal crossings and net migration surge, some politicians argue that the UK must leave the European Convention on Human Rights to take back control. But is Strasbourg really the problem?
During the cost of living crisis, right-wing parties have intensified their focus on immigration — with Sunak promising to ‘stop the boats’ and Farage pledging a freeze on ‘non-essential migration’. Even Labour PM Keir Starmer has been critical of immigration, declaring in a since regretted speech that the UK risked becoming an ‘Island of Strangers’.
This message has clearly resonated with the electorate. Sunak’s failure to curb immigration and channel crossings helped propel Reform UK to unprecedented levels of success – securing 14.3% of the vote and 5 MPs in last year’s general election and 677 councillors in May’s local elections. This marked a plain expression of frustration with the two main parties and their immigration policy. Sunak failed to stop the boats, and Starmer’s pledge to ‘smash the gangs’ failed to enthuse voters whose top issue was immigration.
It’s no secret that immigration into the UK is increasing dramatically.
In January, the ONS projected a 4.9 million population increase by 2032, driven almost entirely by net migration — equivalent to more than four times the population of Birmingham. So far in 2025, illegal boat crossings are on track to be at their highest recorded level since 2019.
Against the backdrop of increasing channel crossings, a projected influx of people into the country over the next 7 years, and an electorate that has shown at the ballot box it is unhappy with the numbers, where does the ECHR come into play?
The role of the ECHR
The aftermath of the second world war saw a growing consensus across Europe for stronger human rights protection. The atrocities committed by the Nazis and the growth of Stalinism in central and Eastern Europe convinced European leaders that a pan-European enforceable agreement was needed to ensure that in the future, people’s human rights would be protected. As a result, the European Convention on Human Rights was drafted in 1950, entering into force in 1953.
Though the ECHR is a cornerstone of European human rights law, it has increasingly come under fire in the UK and across Europe. Signatories must follow rulings from the European Court of Human Rights, even when they conflict with domestic courts. Critics argue this significantly undermines national sovereignty. Furthermore, the application of the convention has increasingly prevented the deportation of illegal immigrants and migrants who commit criminal offences. In May, a Pakistani drug dealer successfully appealed against deportation under Article 8 of the ECHR – the right to a ‘private and family life’, and back in February, a tribunal halted an Albanian criminal’s deportation, assessing it would be ‘unduly harsh’ for his son to return to Albania owing to food sensitivities – with chicken nuggets cited in the court transcript as a key concern.
The European Convention therefore has been attacked by the UK’s political right, including Nigel Farage and Robert Jenrick, and argued to be hindering the UK’s ability to deport illegal immigrants and foreign offenders. Both have previously committed to exiting the treaty if they became Prime Minister.
Yet, the actual impact of the ECHR on deportations may be overstated. Since 1980, the European Court has halted just 13 deportations, and only 29 UK cases heard at Strasbourg have concerned deportation or extradition. Many of the rights it upholds are mirrored in other international treaties — like the 1951 Refugee Convention or the UN Convention Against Torture. This means that even if the UK withdrew from the ECHR, legal obstacles would remain in place to challenge deportations.
Shadow Home Secretary Chris Philp has advocated for disapplying the ECHR from immigration cases, but alone this would not achieve the desired impact unless the UK also withdrew from treaties like the Refugee Convention. For example, the Supreme Court’s ruling against Sunak’s Rwanda plan in 2023 was based not just on provisions in the ECHR, but also on multiple UN conventions (like the Convention Against Torture) and domestic legislation such as the Nationality, Immigration, and Asylum Act 2002.
While the ECHR and other international treaties form the legal foundation for human rights protections, they are enforced by judges. It is the UK courts that interpret and apply these treaties in practice. And most often, it is their interpretation, rather than the existence, of these treaties that creates controversial outcomes.
Reform vs. withdrawal: A way forward
The solution to this could be enhanced clarity over the meaning of the provisions of the ECHR. In May, 9 European leaders signed an open letter advocating for an ‘openminded conversation about the interpretation of the European Convention on Human Rights’. Given the supremacy of the European Court in Strasbourg, if they were to interpret the ECHR in a manner that more easily facilitated deportations and removals of illegal immigrants and foreign offenders, UK judges would have to follow.
The open letter signals a broader European demand for reform. This offers the UK a chance to lead multilateral discussions to clarify the interpretation of the ECHR, or to explore alternative agreements to address the continent’s migration challenges. In doing this, the government could pursue a more effective immigration policy without resorting to withdrawal from international legal frameworks, risking rights protection and isolation on the world stage.
There is an inherent value in having an independent body dedicated to protecting fundamental human rights. Governments change, and the democratic backsliding seen in Hungary and Poland emphasises that domestic governments cannot always be trusted to uphold citizens’ rights, especially when it comes to marginalised groups. Thus, it is important to have a body that holds governments accountable for rights violations.
In an age of rising populism and democratic fragility, retaining an independent rights framework like the ECHR — while modernising its interpretation to reflect present-day realities — offers a pragmatic path forward for a more secure and effective immigration system.
