Are we adding to the noise? The case for talking less about migration

I have dedicated my working life to advancing migrant and racial justice.

The more I learnt from my critical discourse analysis of Tory immigration policy between 2016 and 2023, the more unsettled I became about my own approach and contribution to discourse around migration and refugees.

My research revealed that the UK government’s use of the Border Spectacle obfuscated government responsibility, was being used to distract from domestic failures and criminalised migrants, instrumentalising them as an existential threat to the UK, thus making them ‘manageable’ for the government’s agenda.

My concern as I’ve reflected on this more, is the prospect that, by writing and sharing my thoughts on migration, I might be contributing to, rather than helping to deconstruct, the Border Spectacle (consciously sensational communication about irregular migration / immigration centred in the creation of folk devils and moral panics).

And so, I am increasingly convinced that one of the best ways to advance migrant justice in 2026 and beyond is to actually talk about migration less.

The shift in what persuades people

Rights-based arguments have become less persuasive and cut through less. Meanwhile, "what's in it for me?" arguments have become more persuasive and cut through more. Something I think the UK refugee & migrant sector have been painfully slow to realise.

This has been exacerbated by the post-truth era a la Trump, Brexit, Boris and the decline of the global, internationally recognised, rules/rights-based order.

Because, in the absence of absolute, universalising truths, people (especially powerful people) are able to make any claim that they choose in pursuit of their goals, unencumbered by the need to back this up with facts. 

And so, in the absence of a recognition of universal truths, not least those that would inconveniently require us to sacrifice anything for our common humanity, we see a growing deprioritisation and rejection of international humanitarian law and the decline of those bodies which exist to champion it (i.e. UNHCR).

In light of this, we need to find new ways to advocate for our shared responsibility to one another.

The problem with "what's in it for me?"

A risk with the "what's in it for me?" framing specifically for refugees & migrants is how the increasingly dominant narrative around people's value is based upon their ability to contribute, pay tax, and fill undesirable, low-paid jobs to keep our country and economy turning.

I worked with resettling Syrian refugee families for some years and most, if not all of these families had at least one family member with serious health issues or disability which significantly affected their employability and therefore their prospects of 'contributing to society'.

This narrative is set to increase all the more with the new policies being introduced around 'earned settlement'.

Whilst it’s good for everyone in the UK to use their skills, talents and time to contribute to the good of the country, people’s ability to do this isn’t uniform.

And yet, someone’s ability to contribute does not determine their worth.

Furthermore, a person’s contribution to our country does not make them any more or less worthy of protection.

I believe that human beings have inherent value, not just utilitarian value.

There will come a day, sooner or later, for all of us, when we will no longer be able to contribute to society in a way that is widely recognised as valuable. When this day comes, I hope that there will still be people around me who believe in, and uphold, my right to life.

photo credit: Mikhail Nilov

Are we adding to the noise?

Strategic communication and narrative framing best practice teaches us not to restate the negative frame of the arguments we are working to counter at the risk of reinforcing them.

I understand this and completely agree that the most effective way to combat mis/dis/malinformation is to sidestep it and just state the true, positive narrative.

BUT, I would go further than that, and ask: are we simply 'adding to the noise' on migration?

Rather than just ‘saying something positive about migration’, I think we need to question whether constantly and loudly talking about migration and the inalienable rights of those who migrate is contributing to or detracting from our ultimate goals in the refugee & migrant sector.

Irregular migration research has found that, even when portrayed sympathetically, portrayals of migrants reinforce the Border Spectacle by over-emphasising border-crossing (and its inherent threat). And so, communication intended to be positive can counter-intuitively essentialise certain aspects of migration, strengthening the border spectacle whilst failing to fully explore the underlying causes. This overemphasis leads to the naturalisation and essentialisation of migration as movement through physical terrain.  Distressing and iconic images of crowded boats, deaths at the border, and military terminology conjure the spectacle of the border, reinforcing the border regime’s structure and practices.  Such polyvalent images evoke many contrasting feelings including sympathy but often leave an overriding sense of threat.

Given that the Border Spectacle has been a deliberate tactic of most of the major political parties in recent years, (and look where that’s got us) do we maybe need to try something different?

What actually works: trust, place, and the local

More in Common's segmentation research reveals that trusted messengers largely exist on the local level, and that place-based communication still works.

I also observed this from 2022 to 2023 when leading a national charitable programme with 9 partners made up of local authorities and charities: a growing exasperation and distrust in national figures, especially central government and politicians (in the wake of flailing around and betrayal over COVID rules and 14 years of Tory hostility towards the communities most in need).

This is reinforced by the excellent discussion paper from Dr Sacha Hilhorst and IPPR - ‘Places to come together: Rebuilding local solidarities against the far right’.

Building on this, there is a growing recognition across the UK of the need for 'The Commons' and third spaces, with some excellent initiatives profiled by brilliant podcast 'Screw This...Let's Try Something Else'.

A different way forward

So, let’s continue to advance migrant and racial justice, with an understanding of the weakened impact of rights-based arguments. We urgently need to challenge the ‘contribution-based protection’ narrative, using effective, evidence-based framing and trusted messengers.

I’m concerned that talking more about migration (even sympathetically) might actually be making things worse, and I haven’t fully reconciled this yet.

My belief in the inherent value and equality of all human beings is partly what has driven me to co-found a place-based charitable organisation focused on improving life for all people in the county we call home.

It is not a ‘refugee & migrant organisation’ but one which will hopefully help us all to recognise our common humanity and strengthen our social bonds as we work together to improve our local area.

Let’s make the UK a place of safety and welcome (possibly by talking about migration a little less).