UK Immigration Language Influences Public Perception
A recent report by the race equality think tank, the Runnymede Trust, reveals a concerning pattern in the language used in UK news reports and parliamentary debates concerning immigration. Researchers found that this “hostile language” is more likely to describe people of colour as immigrants or with less sympathy compared to other groups. This analysis, spanning over 63 million words from 52,990 news articles and 317 House of Commons debates between 2019 and the general election in July 2024, concludes that such discourse has significantly shaped “the increase in reactionary politics and backlash against antiracism, which has emboldened the far right in this country.” The findings suggest a direct link between the rhetoric employed by media and politicians and its impact on public perceptions of race and immigration, contributing to a more divisive social and political landscape.
The Cementing of “Illegality” in Immigration Discourse
The Runnymede Trust’s latest report, “A Hostile Environment: Language, Race, Surveillance, and the Media,” builds upon previous research from 2010 to 2014. The earlier phase found that “illegal” was the most commonly linked word to migrants in parliamentary debates, reinforcing a perception of migration as inherently unlawful. The current report reveals that between 2019 and 2024, “the word ‘illegal’ has become an even stronger word association with the terms ‘migrant’ and ‘immigrant’ in both news and parliamentary debates than it was in the 2010–14 period.” The authors assert that this trend “shows that the defining characteristic of migrants has been cemented as illegality over the past decade.” This persistent and intensifying association of migrants and immigrants with “illegality” in public discourse can dehumanise individuals and justify increasingly restrictive and punitive immigration policies, further entrenching a hostile environment.
Expansion of the Surveillance State Through Immigration Policies
The study claims that since 2014, “hostile environment” immigration policies have actively worked to “expand and normalise the surveillance state.” This expansion has been facilitated through various mechanisms, including new legislation, stringent reporting measures, and extensive data sharing initiatives. These policies, often justified by the need for stricter immigration control, have broadened the scope of state surveillance, impacting not only immigrants but potentially wider segments of the population.
The report suggests that this normalisation of surveillance, driven by immigration rhetoric, contributes to a climate where monitoring and data collection become more pervasive. This aspect of the “hostile environment” policies raises concerns about civil liberties and privacy, as the infrastructure developed to control immigration can have broader societal implications, extending the reach of state oversight into everyday life.
Racial and Ethnic Associations in News Reporting
The research meticulously filtered “words associated with immigrants” in news data by nationality, religion, ethnicity, and geographical location, revealing significant patterns in how different groups are portrayed. The study found that the word “Mexican” was most strongly associated with “immigrant(s),” typically within the context of news reports about the USA. Referring to terms within the UK context, the report noted that “Chinese” and “Indian” were also “very strongly associated with ‘immigrant(s)’,” usually when reporting about immigration in the UK.
The other most commonly used identifiers of identity associated with the word “immigrants” in news were “Asian,” “Irish,” “Haitian,” “Muslim,” “Jewish,” “non-white,” “Venezuelan,” “Cuban,” and “African.” The report concluded that “Overwhelmingly, when the UK news media represents immigrants, the image that is invoked … is of an ethnically minoritized person.” This highlights a disproportionate focus on non-white individuals when discussing immigration, potentially reinforcing stereotypes and contributing to racialized perceptions of who an “immigrant” is in the public imagination.
Parliamentary Language and Humanising Terms
An analysis of Hansard data, which records UK parliamentary debates, provided further insight into the language used by politicians. The top 10 words most strongly associated with migration in these debates were “illegal,” “net,” “committee,” “act,” “bill,” “tackle,” “level,” “reduce,” “system,” and “mass.” These terms often reflect policy objectives related to control, reduction, and legislative action. However, the report also identified a notable contrast in parliamentary language when discussing specific groups.
Parliamentarians were found to be “more likely to use humanising terms when talking about Ukrainians,” employing words such as “guest,” “brave,” “community,” or “diaspora.” This distinction suggests that while general discourse on migration can be depersonalising and focused on control, specific geopolitical contexts can elicit more empathetic and human-centred language. This highlights a potential for politicians to shape narratives with more compassionate terminology, depending on the perceived context and political expediency.
Framing Immigration as an Existential Threat
The report critically claims that “racist discourse from the highest levels of UK society, including politicians and the media, is used to frame immigration as an existential threat to the British way of life.” This framing, according to the researchers, serves to justify increasingly hostile immigration policies. By portraying immigration as an inherent danger to national identity, culture, or security, such discourse can garner public support for stringent measures.
This narrative creates a climate of fear and anxiety, where immigration is not seen as a demographic or economic phenomenon but as an “existential threat.” This powerful framing can legitimise policies that might otherwise be considered extreme, contributing to a cycle where hostile language justifies hostile policies, which in turn reinforces negative public perceptions. The report suggests this cycle has significant implications for social cohesion and the treatment of minority groups within the UK.
“Stop the Boats” Slogan and Racist Violence
One stark example highlighted by the report demonstrating the partnership between parliament and the news media in shaping public perceptions of immigration is the “stop the boats” political slogan. The explicit use of this slogan by rioters in the summer of 2024, observed on banners and in chants, serves as a direct and alarming illustration of how the identified hostile language can embolden sectors of the UK public to engage in racist violence.
The report notes that throughout the 2019-24 period, news articles and political debates disseminating this kind of narrative showed “fairly close alignment with each other,” both reaching their peak in 2023 and declining slightly into 2024, but maintaining “very high levels of usage.” This direct link between political and media rhetoric and real-world acts of violence underscores the profound and dangerous impact of language on societal behaviour, emphasising the responsibility of public figures and media outlets in shaping discourse.
Read More: Is Trump Building a Political Dynasty? Examining the Family’s Future in American Power
