What should the new government do about immigration?

My research on UK irregular migration policy between 2016-2023 (‘Small Boats and Tall Tales: The Great British Border Spectacle and the illegalisation of irregular migrants’) revealed that intensifying policy activity has been accompanied by increasingly polarising political rhetoric.

Government policy on irregular migration has centred upon preventing migrants crossing the Channel in small boats.  Alongside this, there has been a distinct move towards use of the term ‘illegal migration’.  Utilising the conceptual framework of the Border Spectacle, my research explored the factors enabling the illegalisation of migrants as a viable political strategy.

My Critical Discourse Analysis of government policy documents exposed 3 key narrative trends in the way ministers framed irregular migration:

1. Physical Borders - a fetishised focus on the crossing of geographical borders.

2. Victim/Perpetrator Nexus - migrants are represented simultaneously as victims and perpetrators.

3. Securitisation of Immigration - immigration is presented as a de facto threat.

Physical Borders

The UK government’s rhetorical emphasis on physical borders enables the framing of migrants as ‘illegal’.  Centring geographic borders problematises those crossing them, making migrants symbolic of all threats as state sovereignty is prioritised over individual rights.  Policy documents explicitly problematise those transgressing physical borders which distracts from government’s domestic failures whilst invisibilising the complex global drivers of irregular migration.  Channel crossings are instrumentalised as an easily digestible visual proxy for the threats facing the UK, emphasising external over internal threat.  Culturally powerful imagery of foreign invasion is utilised, posing an imminent, personal danger requiring an urgent response.  Absolute control over physical, geographic borders is portrayed as the Holy Grail necessary to protect the British people from this and all threats to our nation.  In this quest, emphasis on the UK’s physical borders attributes blame for loss of life on nature, obfuscating government responsibility for systemic violence against migrants.  The language of physical borders appeals to high cultural values for total authority and self-determination over British territory.  In doing so, state sovereignty is discreetly elevated over the civic freedoms of both British citizens and migrants.  As such, emphasis on geographic borders distracts from ‘everyday bordering’ which undermines civil liberties (causing disproportionate harm to ethnic minorities).  The Border Spectacle is also extended as international human rights law is portrayed as directly conflicting with domestic laws and interests, threatening, rather than protecting, the UK and its citizens.  

Victim/Perpetrator Nexus

The policy documents’ focus on migrants' simultaneous victimhood and complicity makes it possible for the UK government to pursue the portrayal of ‘illegality’.  The victim/perpetrator nexus asserts that, although vulnerable, migrants are dangerous ‘others’ who must be kept at a distance, limited and controlled.  The policy rhetoric evokes a disorientating mix of compassion and fear towards those who simultaneously cause and are exploited by ‘criminal’ border crossing.  Frequent references to death and danger implicitly provoke the unsettling question, who is most at risk; migrants or British citizens?  This raises doubts about whether migrants require our protection from an external threat, or in fact, bring with them inherent threats that ‘the British people’ need protecting from.  The policy narrative powerfully speaks to British self-identification as ‘a compassionate people’, surreptitiously segueing into culturally relatable themes of abused kindness and worn-out hospitality.  Building on this, the chaos and imposition of irregular migration is framed as ‘unfair’ to ‘the British people’, something we do not ‘deserve’.  Meanwhile, migrants get their just desserts; poverty, exclusion and illegality due to their inherent lack and poor life choices.

Emotive metaphors in the policy rhetoric reduce migrants to an overwhelming, homogenous mass, dehumanising and dehistoricising them whilst invisibilising immigration’s many complex, sociopolitical drivers.  As migrants are depersonalised by oversimplified stereotypes and categorisation, they are rendered faceless and nameless, becoming more politically manageable.  The policy documents’ characterisation of migrants as ‘other’ and fundamentally incomprehensible adds to their identification as UK folk devil.  Furthermore, there is an implied contagious aspect to migrants' deficiency or undesirability which must be tackled to prevent harm to ‘the British people’.  Government discourse continues this racialised, colonial narrative, conveniently asserting that the Tory Party are the only ones willing and able to take the necessary action (enacting ever more restrictive immigration controls).

Securitisation of Immigration

Highly securitised policy narrative supports the UK government’s illegalisation of migrants, portraying them as invaders, weaponised against UK society and requiring our constant vigilance.  Safety and danger are prominent themes of UK government policy on irregular migration.  Key government phrases imply that migrants are ‘dangerous and illegal’ eliciting a moral panic about the ‘invading other’ requiring a firm legislative response.  Policy rhetoric presents immigration (conflated with ethnic minorities and extremism) as a threat to our fractured communities, damaged economy and vulnerable society.  In this context, restrictive immigration controls are presented as necessary to protect UK social cohesion from growing numbers of ethnic minorities, associated racism (‘reasonable concerns’) and far-right extremism which threaten societal stability.  Migration is spoken of in terms of global warfare, complete with concerned international allies and ‘hostile states’ who are weaponising migrants against the UK.  Such incendiary framing is utilised to justify exceptional measures of highly restrictive immigration controls as self-defence against the ‘millions’ of migrants on a malicious trajectory to the UK.  ‘Round the clock’ enforcement activity by our ‘heroic Border Force’ is then trumpeted to reinforce the perception of a ‘never-ending state of emergency’ and the constant threat posed by migrants to the UK.

Policy Recommendations

The UK government’s policy approach to irregular migrants appears to overreach the remit of ‘protecting the country and its citizens’.  Policy framing of irregular migration helps protect the Tory Party’s power by obfuscating responsibility and distracting from domestic failures, making migrants ‘manageable’ through dehumanisation, and creating moral panic which justifies restrictive immigration controls, harming civil liberties.  The instrumentalisation of migration for political gain must cease.

Within this context, there is ample opportunity for the UK government to show bold moral leadership around irregular migration policy.  I propose the following:

1. Take Responsibility

2. Change the Discourse

3. Improve Policymaking

Take Responsibility

Firstly, they could acknowledge governments’ role in perpetuating the systemic violence of illegalisation and explore compassionate policy alternatives in preparation for future immigration trends.

Change the Discourse

Secondly, they should initiate a balanced and humanising public discourse exploring societal attitudes towards immigration and ethnicity, centring our shared humanity.

Improve Policymaking

Lastly, policymaking could be substantially improved by ensuring it is based upon a truly independent, empirical examination of the benefits and costs of immigration to the UK.

The UK government has a responsibility to lead public discourse on immigration in a respectable, informed and even-handed manner.  Courageous moral leadership would enable the UK to formulate superior immigration policy which truly furthers the interests of the UK and its citizens, upholding the dignity of all and our responsibilities in a globalised world.

After all, no human is illegal.