Charities lobbying for open borders: why they are pushing to relax immigration rules

When you see a collection tin or an online donation button, it’s natural to assume your money will go straight to people in need: the homeless, children in crisis, or families fleeing war. But recent developments show the line between charitable relief and political campaigning is blurrier than many donors realize.

Beyond fundraising appeals, major nonprofits now operate like large organizations intertwined with government funding and public policy debates. That mix has stirred controversy after charities weighed in on immigration rules, prompting questions about how taxpayer dollars and private donations are being used.

How taxpayer funding and charities have become entangled

Over the past decade, many large nonprofits have expanded beyond service delivery and into public advocacy. They deliver social services under government contracts, but they also lobby policymakers and shape public debates. For some groups, financial dependence on the state has become a structural reality.

• Government grants and contracts are a major revenue stream. For some organizations, those funds represent hundreds of millions of pounds each year.
• That financial link gives charities influence at Whitehall or Westminster but also raises questions about public accountability.
• Donors may not expect their contributions to be pooled with taxpayer-funded programs that are then used for political campaigning.

What happened in the recent immigration consultation and why it matters

The government recently proposed changes to the path for care workers to obtain indefinite leave to remain. The idea was to lengthen the minimum time foreign nationals must work in the care sector before qualifying for permanent settlement.

After a high-profile response from activists, politicians and interest groups, home secretary Shabana Mahmood backed away from the proposal, citing political pressure and responses to the official consultation process. That retreat was costly on a fiscal level and revealing on a political one.

Who shaped the debate

Thousands of submissions to the consultation came from people and organizations deeply invested in migration policy. In addition to many individuals, hundreds of charities either filed formal responses or lobbied MPs directly.

• About 560 charities engaged with the government process either by responding formally or by petitioning parliamentarians.
• Roughly two-thirds of those charities argued for removing conditional pathways to settlement—effectively supporting broad permanent rights for migrants, including some who arrive illegally.

Which charities spoke up and how much public money they receive

Several of the organizations that took part in the consultation also receive significant sums from central and local government. That overlap has become a focal point for critics who say public funds are being used to advance partisan or sweeping policy positions.

• Thirty-eight charities that engaged with the consultation collectively secured about £1 billion in government contracts or grants in the last financial year.
• Praxis, an organization that supports migrants and refugees, received nearly £1 million in public funding and organized lobbying efforts that brought hundreds of people to Parliament.
• Mencap and Barnardo’s—both major UK charities—reported large sums from government contracts: Mencap more than £200 million and Barnardo’s around £192 million in the most recent year cited.

Why donors and taxpayers are raising objections

Many people donate because they want to help direct services: shelters, health care, childcare, or emergency relief. When those same organizations use donor money—or combined public and private budgets—to mount political campaigns, donors feel misled.

There’s a clear distinction between delivering aid and lobbying for broad policy changes. Legal frameworks generally require charities to operate within their charitable purposes and restrict political activity funded by public grants. Critics argue that, in practice, this line is too often crossed.

• Donors may assume their gift helps pay for frontline assistance rather than advocacy or lobbying.
• Taxpayers who oppose large-scale migration sometimes see their money funding groups whose positions run counter to public sentiment.
• Consultation processes that include large numbers of affected individuals—such as migrants—can skew the representation of overall public opinion.

The incentives that shape behavior in the charity sector

Two principal winners appear in the current setup: senior charity executives and political actors who can cite nonprofit support to justify policy choices.

• Highly paid CEOs and senior managers in the largest charities often earn six-figure salaries, providing them with stability and visibility to champion broader social agendas.
• Politicians can point to endorsements from respected nonprofits to bolster controversial decisions, reducing direct accountability to voters.

Those dynamics create a cycle in which large charities, flush with public contracts and prominent platforms, can push policy positions that exceed the expectations of average donors and taxpayers.

Calls for clearer rules and stronger accountability

Critics and some policy makers are urging reforms to ensure a stricter separation between charitable service delivery and political campaigning—especially when public money is involved. Suggested steps include:

1. More transparent reporting of how government grants are spent, particularly distinguishing service delivery from advocacy.
2. Clearer boundaries in the law about what constitutes permitted policy engagement for charities that receive public funds.
3. Improved disclosure for donors so they know whether their contributions may support lobbying activity.
4. Robust safeguards in public consultations to ensure a balanced representation of views.

About the author and related work

Joanna Williams is a columnist at spiked and the author of The Breaking of the Education Contract: Why We Need to Keep Politics Out of Schools. She writes about education, public policy, and the growing intersection of government funding and non-governmental organizations. You can follow her commentary on Substack and through her published work.

You might also like:

• NGO influence corrupts UK politics and distorts policymaking
• MacKenzie Scott donates $7.1 billion to nonprofits in 2025, more to come
• Reform election victory: will the establishment accept it?
• Veterinary care access expands after historic gift, reaching millions of Americans and pets
• Qatar not considered a friend by some countries amid diplomatic tensions

Robert Johnson

Robert Johnson is a dedicated columnist focusing on political and social debates. With twelve years in editorial writing, he provides nuanced, well‑argued perspectives. His commentaries invite you to form your own views and engage in critical issues.