New research from the University of Birmingham shows that the United Kingdom’s discourse on irregular migration is a battleground of numbers, stereotypes, and political manoeuvring.
Titled The Narrative Construction of Migrant Irregularity in the United Kingdom: Representation and Narratives in Media, Politics, and Civil Society, the study dissects how media, politicians, and advocacy groups shape public perceptions and policies around migration.
Drawing on an extensive analysis of 5,987 media articles from major UK newspapers (The Guardian, The Times, The Daily Mail, and The Daily Mirror), 218 political documents including parliamentary debates and party manifestos, and 611 civil society texts such as NGO reports, the research spans 2019 to 2023—a period marked by Brexit fallout and rising anti-migrant sentiment.
The findings paint a stark picture: irregular migration is framed as a crisis through dehumanising statistics and an outsized focus on small boat crossings, despite there being a minority of arrivals.
This narrative, the study argues, sidelines the human realities of migrants’ lives, entrenches deterrence policies like deportations and offshore processing, and skews debate toward security over rights.
As the UK navigates its identity and economic needs, this analysis explores how these narratives take root, why they endure, and their broader implications.
How numbers fuel the migration crisis narrative
Statistics dominate the migration conversation, with media and politicians fixating on numbers to portray an overwhelmed system.
Dr. Stefano Piemontese, the report’s author from the University of Birmingham, explains,
This numerical fixation does not only strip away the human realities of migration, reducing people to mere items in logistics processes of crossings and deportations. It also creates an illusion of measurability and control in public opinion, especially for a phenomenon long framed as requiring increased regulation, providing anti-immigration rhetoric with benchmarks against which political promises can be measured.
The study highlights how this focus dehumanises migrants, particularly men, who are often depicted as faceless masses rather than individuals with stories.
Migrant men are frequently constructed as young, single, and racialised—a stereotype that casts them as potential security threats, while women are portrayed as vulnerable mothers or trafficking victims.
This gendered lens, reinforced across the 5,987 articles analysed, amplifies a sense of threat over empathy.
Small boats overshadow structural realities
The research reveals an overwhelming emphasis on small boat crossings in the English Channel, despite this accounting for only a minority of irregular arrivals.
Most irregular migrants enter or remain in the UK through visa overstays, bureaucratic hurdles, or policy shifts—pathways that receive far less attention.
Professor Nando Sigona, Chair of International Migration and Forced Displacement at the University of Birmingham and coordinator of the I-CLAIM study, notes,
By framing migration primarily as an issue of border enforcement, the debate is skewed toward security concerns rather than addressing migrants’ rights, contributions, and long-term integration.
This disproportionate focus fuels a crisis mentality.
The study’s analysis of political documents and media shows boat arrivals dominating headlines and debates, justifying restrictive measures like the 2023 Illegal Migration Act and stalled Rwanda deportation plans.
The result is a public narrative that ignores structural causes—like lengthy visa processing or restrictive legal pathways—in favour of emergency responses.
Political rhetoric: criminals or victims?
Politicians craft a dual narrative, portraying irregular migrants as both criminals and victims—a framing that serves multiple ends.
The study finds political discourse, across 218 documents, oscillates between these poles.
Irregular migrants are labelled threats, justifying tough policies, while also cast as victims of smuggling networks, allowing governments to claim humanitarian intent.
Piemontese observes,
This dual framing enables governments to position themselves as both tough on migration and humanitarian in their interventions—particularly through deterrence-based policies like deportations and offshore processing.
This rhetoric instrumentalises “illegal migration” to bolster restrictive measures.
The study notes how political narratives separate “illegal” migrants from “legal” or “skilled” ones, using notions of deservingness and desirability.
Conservative rhetoric often pairs deterrence—like visa restrictions—with selective openness to “desirable” workers, shielding skilled migrants from backlash while vilifying others.
This approach undermines asylum rights by conflating refugees with criminals, shifting public focus from compassion to control.
Media mirrors government lines
The media, even liberal outlets, often amplify government rhetoric.
The University of Birmingham study found that across the 5,987 articles from The Guardian, The Times, The Daily Mail, and The Daily Mirror, small boat crossings and enforcement themes overshadowed rights or structural causes.
Left-leaning papers like The Guardian and The Daily Mirror frequently echoed state priorities, while The Daily Mail leaned heavily into security framing, often using dehumanising terms.
The Times offered a mix of crisis reporting and policy critique but still operated within the enforcement narrative.
“Even critical voices get trapped,” Sigona says.
The media doesn’t just report—it reproduces the state’s logic.
This echo chamber shapes public perception. Polls show Brits overestimate irregular migrant numbers and link them to crime, despite evidence to the contrary.
Civil society’s constrained counter-narrative
Civil society groups—represented in 611 texts from NGOs, advocacy bodies, and research organisations—push back, highlighting migrants’ rights and contributions.
Yet, their efforts often respond to government and media framings rather than setting a new agenda.
The study finds economic and humanitarian arguments prevailing, but rarely challenging the underlying “deservingness” framework.
“They’re boxed in,” Piemontese says.
Advocates argue within a state-centric logic—‘migrants are good for us’—instead of questioning why rights depend on utility.
This reactive stance limits their ability to reframe the debate.
Today’s migration narrative has deep roots. The 1971 Immigration Act tied entry to economic value, while the 1999 Asylum and Immigration Act tightened asylum rules.
Brexit amplified this, with the 2020 points-based system favouring “skilled” migrants over others.
Historically, foreign-born workers rebuilt post-war Britain and today sustain sectors like healthcare, yet political expediency casts irregularity as a scapegoat.
Impact and alternatives
The consequences are profound.
Dehumanising narratives erode public compassion, while policies drain resources—Rwanda deportations, for instance, remain costly and unimplemented.
Migrants face limbo, with thousands awaiting asylum decisions in dire conditions.
Sigona calls for change:
“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 that requires a human-centred and rights-based approach.”
This means addressing visa delays and legal pathways, not just bolstering borders.
A nation’s mirror
The Birmingham study reflects the UK grappling with its identity.
Irregular migration, a small fraction of inflows, looms large in the public psyche—a crisis constructed by numbers, boats, and fear.
“It’s a narrative trap,” Piemontese says, “sustained by media and politics.”
As these voices dominate and civil society struggles, the human cost rises—rights curtailed, lives stalled.
Changing this narrative requires seeing migrants as individuals, not threats—a shift the UK has yet to make.
The post Irregular migration in the UK: dehumanising narratives fuel a crisis mindset, finds report appeared first on Invezz
