Media and political discourse reinforces a rigid ‘legal vs. illegal’ migration divide, formalised in 2023's Illegal Migration Act
An interesting recent report authored by Dr Stefano Piemontese of the University of Birmingham examines how the language used by politicians, journalists, and campaigners shapes the debate around irregular migration in the UK.
The 42-page report, The narrative construction of migrant irregularity in the United Kingdom: Representation and narratives in media, politics, and civil society, can be downloaded here.
It was published by the EU- and UK-funded I-CLAIM project, which aims to investigate the living and working conditions of undocumented migrants in six European countries.
For the report, Dr Piemontese examined a wide range of texts published from 2019 to 2023 during the previous Conservative government. Among the texts analysed were thousands of articles from leading UK newspapers, numerous political materials (such as parliamentary debates, ministerial statements, and party manifestos), and hundreds of reports and press releases issued by civil society organisations.
Overall, the report finds that media and political discourse in the UK reinforces a rigid 'legal vs. illegal' migration divide, shaping public perception and policy. Despite the reality that most irregular migration results from visa overstays or bureaucratic issues, media coverage amplified the narratives of the Conservative government by focusing on small boat crossings and framing migration as a political crisis. This crisis framing dehumanises migrants and justifies strict enforcement measures.
Conservative political rhetoric further entrenched this divide by presenting migration as a moral issue of legality and exploitation rather than explicitly advocating border control and adopting overtly supremacist positions. Meanwhile, civil society organisations struggle to counter these narratives, often defaulting to victim-focused or economic arguments rather than reshaping the conversation. The 2023 Illegal Migration Act solidified this discourse, reinforcing a system where 'legal' and 'skilled' migrants are seen as positive, while 'illegal migrants', particularly young racialised men, are portrayed as threats, sustaining a cycle of exclusion and control.
In addition, the political and media focus on 'numbers' serves as a rhetorical foundation for a prominent narrative that frames illegal migrants as exerting 'unsustainable pressure' on finite public resources. Dr Piemontese says this numerical fixation reinforces a false sense of control, providing benchmarks that fuel anti-immigration rhetoric and policy.
The report explains: "As could be expected, measurability and quantification emerge as key features in how irregularity is narratively constructed. While not always directly referencing migrants, this quantitative framing reflects a perspective that favours measurability in understanding and governing migration-related phenomena. This is especially evident in the numerical characterisation of male migrants in media and politics discourse, the emphasis on Channel crossing statistics, and the use of quantity markers to support 'unsustainable pressure' arguments. This emphasis on numbers is narratively productive, as it creates an illusion of measurability and control in public opinion, especially for a phenomenon long framed as requiring increased regulation. While many paths to irregularity are harder to quantify, border crossings provide a measurable space where anti-immigration rhetoric can materialise through concrete metrics: intercepted boats, arrested smugglers, and deportations become both statistical indicators and symbolic displays of control – benchmarks against which political promises are measured."
Professor Nando Sigona of the University of Birmingham, who coordinated the study, highlighted that discussions on irregular migration in the UK are largely focused on security concerns, often overlooking migrants' rights, their contributions, and their long-term integration.
Sigona commented: "Our report highlights the need to move beyond simplistic and transactional justifications for migration. Rather than treating irregular migration as a 'problem to be solved,' we suggest a shift toward narratives that acknowledge migration as a natural and historical phenomenon—one that requires a human-centred and rights-based approach rather than an exclusive focus on enforcement."
The report's key findings follow below:
• Media Coverage Paradox
Media discourse, including liberal and left-leaning outlets, largely reinforces Conservative Party's narratives on irregular migration. This trend underscores the role of media in amplifying government rhetoric.
• Legality vs. Illegality Dichotomy
Political discourse strategically constructs 'illegal migrants' as a counter-image to 'legal' and 'skilled' migrants. Together with the creation of ministerial roles explicitly focused on countering illegal migration, this framing enables the government to justify restrictive migration policies for all.
• Economic vs. Humanitarian Arguments
Civil society employs a dual narrative strategy, advocating for irregular migrants largely through economic contributions and humanitarian concerns. However, this framing remains limited and reactive rather than transformative, as dominant public narratives limit the space for broader discussions on migrant rights and social inclusion. It also ultimately reinforces a state-centred neoliberal logic of 'deservingness' that privileges certain categories of migrants over others.
• The Role of Quantification
Migration discourse in media and politics heavily relies on quantification, particularly concerning small boat crossings and asylum applications. This numeric framing creates a spectacle of control while overshadowing the complexities of how migrants become irregular (e.g., visa overstays, bureaucratic obstacles).
• Deserving vs. Undesirable Migrants
The discourse surrounding migrant workers contrasts 'desirable' skilled workers with 'undesirable' irregular migrants. This distinction is used to justify policies that restrict rights and limit access to resources for irregular migrants, while simultaneously presenting legal migrants as essential contributors to the economy.