Strengthening Immigration Policies in the UK
Legal and Policy Justifications
For Reference of: Great British Political Action Committee
Date: March 2025
Disclaimer:
I am aware that this is a common policy proposal on the Policy Forum, I am just adding my input to the ever-growing list of choices.
This Policy Proposal is a policy discussion document intended to explore potential reforms to the United Kingdom’s immigration and deportation system. It is not an official government policy, legislative proposal, or legal document. The contents are based on analysis of current immigration challenges, international policy comparisons, and legal considerations. The recommendations presented herein are for discussion and debate and do not represent the views of any government department, political party, or legal institution. While legal arguments are referenced, this document does not constitute legal advice. Any policy changes based on the proposals outlined would require full legislative scrutiny, compliance with domestic and international law, and potential judicial review.
Furthermore, any reference to specific countries, legal frameworks, or historical precedents is for illustrative purposes only. Immigration law is complex and subject to evolving judicial interpretations, bilateral agreements, and international conventions, all of which would need to be carefully considered before implementing any significant reforms. Readers are encouraged to engage critically with the material, consult legal and policy experts, and consider the broader implications of any immigration policy changes.
Executive Summary
This policy proposal presents a comprehensive framework for stricter immigration and deportation policies in the United Kingdom, drawing on recent reforms implemented in the United States. These measures are designed to reinforce national sovereignty, enhance border security, and expedite the removal of illegal immigrants, thereby restoring public confidence in the UK’s immigration system. The framework also includes provisions for the deportation of individuals who fail to uphold British values and measures to prevent the exploitation of migrants in the informal economy. Recognising potential legal and political challenges, this proposal provides robust justifications and counterarguments to anticipated opposition, ensuring that these reforms remain legally sound and politically viable.
Key measures include strengthening the UK’s points-based skilled migration system by tightening job offer requirements and increasing the salary threshold, ensuring that only those with higher earning potential contribute to the domestic labour market. Additionally, the UK must enhance its deportation processes by drawing from international precedents such as the expedited removal procedures in the United States and the EU’s Dublin III Regulation. Further reforms will focus on limiting public benefits for illegal immigrants, enforcing local government cooperation with deportation efforts, and expanding biometric tracking to prevent overstays. In cases where legal challenges arise, the UK must be prepared to assert its sovereignty, potentially re-evaluating its relationship with the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) if necessary. By implementing these measures, the government can establish an immigration system that prioritises national security, economic stability, and public confidence.
Introduction: The Case for Stronger Immigration Enforcement
Illegal immigration remains a persistent challenge in the UK, contributing to public service strain, security concerns, and diminishing public trust in government institutions. Existing laws are often undermined by lengthy legal appeals, human rights claims, and judicial interventions that hinder deportation efforts. A more decisive and legally sound approach is necessary to ensure the swift removal of those who enter or remain in the UK unlawfully. While opposition from human rights groups, legal advocacy organisations, and political opponents is expected, these reforms align with international norms and UK law. Additionally, the UK must establish clear measures for the deportation of individuals who exhibit a disregard for British values, including those who engage in activities that threaten national security or public order, as seen in similar policies in the United States such as the deportation of Rasha Alawieh over her links to Hezbollah.
Strengthening Deportation Measures
Expedited removal procedures are essential, allowing for the swift deportation of individuals who fail initial asylum screenings or have no legal basis to remain in the UK, such as visa-overstayers or those who enter illegally. Critics may argue that such measures violate the right to a fair trial under Article 6 of the ECHR. However, international law does not mandate unlimited legal challenges for immigration cases. The UK should follow the example of the United States, where expedited removal has been successfully implemented within the boundaries of legal fairness.
Additionally, the EU’s Dublin III Regulation already permits fast-track deportations, demonstrating the legal viability of such policies within European legal traditions. Other European nations, such as Italy and France, have continued to enforce immigration measures despite ECHR judgments, highlighting the precedent for prioritising national sovereignty over external legal constraints.
Another key reform involves revoking temporary immigration protections for migrants from countries that are no longer in crisis. Opponents may argue that withdrawing such protections is inhumane. However, these protections were never intended to be indefinite. The revocation of Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for over 500,000 migrants in the U.S. highlights the legal precedent for terminating temporary protections once conditions improve. The UK should adopt a similar approach by setting clear expiration dates for temporary immigration statuses and preventing their misuse as a path to permanent residency.
Economic Considerations and the Points-Based System
A crucial aspect of immigration policy is ensuring that the UK’s points-based system effectively serves national economic interests. There is growing concern that the current system requires further tightening to prevent abuse and ensure that only those who make a significant contribution to the economy are granted entry. To address this, the following policy adjustments are proposed:
-
Enhancing Job Offer Requirements: Prospective migrants must secure a genuine, long-term job offer — such as a permanent or fixed-term contract of at least 12 months — supported by robust evidence that the vacancy was advertised locally for a minimum of 28 days. This measure ensures that businesses first seek qualified domestic workers before looking to recruit from abroad, thereby confirming the existence of a genuine skills shortage.
-
Raising the Salary Threshold: The current annual wage threshold should be increased by 10%, from £38,700 to £42,570. This ensures that only those with higher earning potential — who can contribute significantly to the domestic labour market — qualify under the skilled category. Raising the threshold will also help deter low-skilled migration and promote economic self-sufficiency among migrants.
These refinements to the points-based system will reinforce the UK’s commitment to attracting high-skilled workers while preventing labour market distortions and reducing reliance on immigration as a means to fill low-wage positions.
Enhancing Border Security and Immigration Enforcement
To prevent illegal migration and overstaying, the UK must enhance border security through biometric tracking, pre-entry screening, and cooperation with airlines and foreign governments. Critics may argue that expanded biometric data collection infringes on privacy rights. However, biometric tracking is already a standard practice in many countries, including the EU’s Entry-Exit System (EES), which records biometric data for all non-EU travellers. Implementing similar measures in the UK would ensure that visa overstays are systematically tracked and addressed.
Another urgent reform is the restriction of public benefits for illegal immigrants. Opponents may claim that limiting access to services violates human rights obligations. However, the UK already enforces the “No Recourse to Public Funds” (NRPF) policy, which has been upheld by domestic courts. Expanding these restrictions will reinforce the principle that public resources should be reserved for legal residents and citizens. Similar policies have been successfully implemented in France and Denmark, demonstrating their effectiveness and legal defensibility.
Addressing Legal and Judicial Challenges
The UK’s adherence to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) has repeatedly been used to block deportations. Article 8 of the ECHR — the right to private and family life — has been invoked to prevent the removal of individuals with weak or unfounded immigration claims. To address this issue, Parliament should pass legislation limiting the scope of Article 8 in immigration cases, ensuring that national security and public interest take precedence over individual claims.
If significant legal obstacles persist, the UK must consider leaving the ECHR or seeking derogations in specific cases. The Illegal Migration Act 2023 has already established legal precedents for defying certain ECHR rulings, demonstrating that the UK has the authority to prioritise domestic law over European court decisions.
Addressing Counterarguments and Rebuttals
-
Human Rights Concerns: Critics argue that stricter deportation measures violate human rights protections. However, the UK has a right to enforce immigration laws in line with international norms. Other democratic nations, such as the U.S. and France, implement similar policies without breaching human rights obligations.
-
Economic Impact: Businesses claim that reducing immigration will harm the economy. However, this policy primarily targets illegal migration while ensuring that skilled workers can still enter through legal routes. The UK’s points-based system remains intact, with only minor adjustments to ensure it serves national interests.
-
Legal Challenges: Opponents suggest that these reforms will face legal hurdles. However, many of these measures are already in place in other countries and have withstood legal scrutiny. If necessary, the UK can legislate to limit judicial interference or reassess its ECHR membership.
-
International Relations: Some argue that these policies could damage the UK’s relationship with the EU or UN. However, other nations have enacted similar reforms without severe diplomatic consequences. The UK should prioritise national interests while maintaining diplomatic engagement.
Conclusion: A Balanced, Legally Defensible Approach
The UK must take decisive action to strengthen its immigration enforcement and deportation policies while ensuring legal compliance. Although opposition will arise from human rights organisations, legal advocacy groups, and international bodies, these reforms are justified and necessary. By enhancing border security, restricting benefits for illegal immigrants, streamlining deportations, and ensuring law enforcement cooperation, the UK can establish a more effective immigration system that prioritises national sovereignty and public safety.
Where legal challenges arise, the UK must be prepared to assert its authority, including limiting judicial interference and reassessing its relationship with the ECHR if necessary. By taking these steps, the government can restore public confidence, uphold the rule of law, and ensure that immigration policies serve the interests of the British people rather than external legal constraints.
Bibliography
Access to European Union law (2013). EUR-Lex - 02013R0604-20130629 - EN - EUR-Lex. [online] eur-lex.europa.eu. Available at: EUR-Lex - 02013R0604-20130629 - EN - EUR-Lex [Accessed 25 Mar. 2025]. Dublin III Regulation.
Bendixen, M.C. (2023). Denmark: New Social Support Rules for Some Migrants. [online] European Website on Integration. Available at: Denmark: New social support rules for some migrants | European Website on Integration [Accessed 25 Mar. 2025].
Boitiaux, C. (2019). France : What Financial Support Can Migrants Receive? [online] InfoMigrants. Available at: https://www.infomigrants.net/en/post/15436/france--what-financial-support-can-migrants-receive [Accessed 25 Mar. 2025].
Brioschi, F. (2017). Italy, A Not-So-Closed Case: ECtHR Judgments Pile up Awaiting Execution. [online] Liberties.eu. Available at: Italy, a Not-So-Closed Case: ECtHR Judgments Pile Up Awaiting Execution | liberties.eu [Accessed 25 Mar. 2025].
Development Office (2024). EU Entry/Exit System. [online] GOV.UK. Available at: EU Entry/Exit System - GOV.UK [Accessed 25 Mar. 2025].
European Court of Human Rights (1950). European Convention on Human Rights. [online] European Court of Human Rights. Available at: https://www.echr.coe.int/documents/d/echr/Convention_ENG [Accessed 25 Mar. 2025].
GOV.UK (2024). Skilled Worker Visa. [online] GOV.UK. Available at: Skilled Worker visa: Your job - GOV.UK [Accessed 25 Mar. 2025].
Hayes, C. (2025). Trump Revoking Protections for 530,000 Cubans, Haitians and Other Migrants. BBC News. [online] 21 Mar. Available at: Trump revoking protections for 530,000 Cubans, Haitians and other migrants - BBC News [Accessed 25 Mar. 2025].
Home Office (2023). Illegal Migration Act 2023. [online] GOV.UK. Available at: Illegal Migration Act 2023 - GOV.UK [Accessed 25 Mar. 2025].
Metych, M. (2025). Sanctuary City | Definition, Immigration Policy, Trump Administration, & Controversy. [online] Encyclopedia Britannica. Available at: Sanctuary city | Definition, Immigration Policy, Trump Administration, & Controversy | Britannica [Accessed 25 Mar. 2025].
Parnaby, L. (2025). Trump Deports Brown Doctor Rasha Alawieh over Links to Hezbollah and Slain Leader. [online] Mail Online. Available at: Trump deports Brown doctor Rasha Alawieh over links to Hezbollah and slain leader | Daily Mail Online [Accessed 25 Mar. 2025].
Tomlinson, C. (2023). France Could Bypass Human Rights Court on Deportations. [online] europeanconservative.com. Available at: France Could Bypass Human Rights Court on Deportations ━ The European Conservative [Accessed 25 Mar. 2025].
UK Visas and Immigration (2016). Public Funds. [online] GOV.UK. Available at: Public funds - GOV.UK [Accessed 25 Mar. 2025].
