On May 22nd 2025 nine representatives of European countries have co-signed an open letter in which they are arguing that the current interpretation of the European Convention of Human Rights is preventing nation states from being able to autonomously decide how to deal with immigrants who have committed crime. The letter has already attracted criticism for politicizing the work of the European Court of Human Rights and therefore dragging the application of the rule of law (i.e. the judicial power) in the political arena. In his reaction post in this blog, Antoine Buyse appeals to communication scholars to examine how the letter conveys its message by appealing to particular discursive strategies. We therefore decided to respond to the appeal and offer an analysis of the communication strategies adopted by the authors to convey their message.
Reading this letter from a cultural/political/discourse perspective there is a combination of a binary discourse opposing “right” on the side of the signatories to “wrong”, with no mention of specific facts or legal documents to justify these positionings. “We are leaders of societies that safeguard human rights”. Opposed to “They have learned our languages… Others have come and chosen not to integrate, isolating themselves in parallel societies and distancing themselves from our fundamental values of equality, democracy and freedom. In particular, some have not contributed positively to the societies welcoming them and have chosen to commit crimes”.
The form of discourse adopted aims, as it is stated in the last phrases, to enforce a new interpretation of the European Convention of Human Rights. This implies that the European Convention of Human Rights is not interpreted in a “right” way by the European Court of Human Rights that represents the judicial power. This is an interesting statement since the signatories of the letter represent the executive power in their respective countries. In democratic states the judiciary sector is to be independent from the executive power.
The construction of democracy and human rights that is adopted is presented to be embodied de facto by the signatories of the letter and the silent majority of European citizens they claim to represent, whereas immigrants are presented to occupy the opposite position as contestants of these foundational values. Although there are three different categories of immigrants mentioned in the letter, criminality seems to exist only in immigrant communities and to be unknown to European societies.
What is worrying is a binary form of logic throughout the document where generalised entities that are presented as homogeneous, are opposed as versions of “defenders of democracy” on the one side, to the “opponents of democracy” on the other. In this binary logic there are no questions or a need to investigate - there are certainties. However, these certainties are not, at least in this text, associated with specific studies or facts.
Several rhetorical and logical strategies are adopted in the letter to persuade readers of the validity of its claims. We present them in the context of Aristotle’s triad in persuasive communication: Ethos (appeal to credibility and authority); Pathos (appeal to emotions); Logos (appeal to logic) and highlight how all three components are leveraged to frame immigration as an existential threat to sovereign Nation states, and by implication the Human Rights Commissioners’ interpretation of the European Convention of Human Rights as dangerous to national safety and sovereignty and then provide an in depth analysis of a crucial passage illustrating the logical faux pas underpinning the whole communication.
Ethos (Appeal to Credibility and Authority)
Claims to expertise are essential ingredients of persuasive communication. In the letter, authority is established by repeatedly stressing that the signatories are heads of state and government, and leaders of member states (“As leaders”, “We want to use our democratic mandate…”). Credibility is established by emphasising commitment to human rights, democracy, and multilateral institutions (without offering any – even anecdotal – evidence). Authority is also implied by presenting [false] consensus in the appeal to bipartisan unity (we belong to different political families, yet we agree on this) and the claim that their views are representative of the majority (“we believe that we are strongly aligned with the majority of the citizens of Europe in our approach.”).
Pathos (Appeal to Emotion)
The letter appeals primarily to moral outrage (by artificially creating a dichotomy between law abiding citizens and foreign criminals who have “taken advantage of our hospitality” to “commit crimes”) and fear (by suggesting that immigrants pose an existential threat “it risks undermining the very foundation of our societies. It harms the trust between our citizens and it harms the trust in our institutions.”). Finally, it expresses moral indignation: “it is beyond our comprehension”. Such appeals are often used as strategies to disengage morally in the immigration debate.
Logos (Appeal to Logic and Reason)
The logical progression of the argument is as follows: when migration is characterised by lack of integration (which is presented as a choice operated by migrants, rather than a responsibility of the host country), it leads to crime and wider societal harm, hence the need for reform. The ‘right’ way to be an immigrant is actually presented not as integration, but as assimilation (see Berry’s work on acculturation strategies for the distinction): “They have learned our languages, believe in democracy, contribute to our societies and have decided to integrate themselves into our culture.” Consequently, the European Court of Human Rights has overreached its remit by preventing Nation states to freely decide on deportations.
In the letter, freedom and opportunities are presented as rights host nations share with immigrants – by implication, freedom and opportunities are not seen as universal human rights – they belong to states and their citizens who can deny them at their will. However individual nation states are prevented from doing so, as illustrated by examples listed without citing data (Cherry-picking).
Framing – the letter frames the immigration and human rights debate as an issue of crime without presenting sufficient data or evidence. Immigrants are presented as a threat and something extraneous to the sovereign citizenry. This is achieved using the following strategies:
- False balance: the letter presents illegal immigration as a substantial proportion (“irregular migration has contributed significantly to the immigration”), when we know it is a small minority.
- False balance: Immigrants who integrate vs. those who isolate. This is presented as a choice made by immigrants in equal proportions, and no consideration of context.
- Us-vs-them framing is used for Othering the immigrants.
Anticipation of Criticism
The signatories knew the letter would be widely criticised, hence they employed rhetorical strategies to offset this.
- Pre-emptive rebuttal: we will likely be accused of the opposite. This strategy disarms critics and presents the original authors as thoughtful and misunderstood.
- Appeal to an inclusive Social Identity (we, our societies, our citizens) to mask exclusionary implications of proposed policies.
- Primus inter pares: establish authority by highlighting their leadership roles ‘As leaders…’
“we believe that we are strongly aligned with the majority of the citizens of Europe in our approach. We want to use our democratic mandate…”
To illustrate, a particularly rich sentence is the following:
“It is beyond our comprehension how some people can come to our countries and get a share in our freedom and our vast range of opportunities, and, indeed, decide to commit crimes. Although this concerns only a minority of immigrants, it risks undermining the very foundation of our societies. It harms the trust between our citizens and it harms the trust in our institutions.”
- “It is beyond our comprehension”: Moral outrage
- “come to our countries and get a share in our freedom and our vast range of opportunities”: Social identity appeal, Zero-sum fallacy: implies that immigrants ‘take a share’ of a delimited resource (freedom, opportunities)
- “and, indeed, decide to commit crimes”: Attribution bias: attributes criminal behaviour to an active decision made by individual immigrants – ignoring all the situational factors.
- “Although this concerns only a minority of immigrants, it risks undermining the very foundation of our societies.” Hyperbole: this is an exaggeration at best – misrepresentation at worst: how can a minority, who is responsible for a minority of crimes, be responsible for the very foundation of our society?
- “it risks undermining the very foundation of our societies. It harms the trust between our citizens and it harms the trust in our institutions.” Fear appeal: immigrants pose an existential threat.
Overall, our analysis convenes with Antoine Buyse’s own: “the letter clearly makes a divide between useful and unwanted migrants and between domestic democracy and an international court that apparently, in these states' views, binds their hands too much.”. In this piece, we demonstrated how the message construction was achieved from a media psychological viewpoint. The adoption of such language - especially in the context of a polarising issue such as immigration - is problematic. Academic work in the area shows how this type of framing, as well as the rhetorical strategies adopted can lead to major misunderstandings and misinterpretations of the social issue the signatories are trying to address.
