Reframing the Migration Debate: Beyond the Politics of Illegality and Deservingness

Reframing the Migration Debate: Beyond the Politics of Illegality and Deservingness

The UK’s migration debate has long been dominated by a binary narrative of legality versus illegality, a framework reinforced through media coverage, political rhetoric, and civil society discourse.

A new report written by Dr Stefano Piemontese examining how irregularity features in the in British public discourse on migration between 2019-2023 highlights how this dichotomy serves not only to justify restrictive policies but also to constrain possibilities for a more informed and humane discussion on migration governance.

The report from the I-CLAIM research project on irregular migration in Europe underscores the urgency of shifting the debate beyond the transactional justifications of economic contribution and humanitarian need towards a more nuanced understanding of migration as an inherent feature of human mobility and social life rooted in British society and history.

One of the most striking findings of the report is what the report terms the ‘media coverage paradox.’ Despite a media landscape that includes both conservative and centre-left outlets, much of the migration discourse aligns with the narratives of the right-leaning UK government narratives, particularly on the issue of irregular migration.

Media reporting heavily relies on imagery of Channel crossings, which frames migration primarily as a border control issue. This focus not only dehumanizes migrants but also distorts public perception, making irregular migration appear as an external threat rather than a structural issue shaped by policy choices.

As the report notes, "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)."

The political discourse, on the other hand, strategically constructs ‘illegal migrants’ as a counter-image to ‘legal’ and ‘skilled’ migrants. The creation of ministerial and administrative roles explicitly focused on countering illegal migration and the 2023 Illegal Migration Act have enabled the government to justify a broader set of restrictive policies affecting all migrants and often also racialised citizens.

The report shows that this framework operates in both geopolitical and moral domains. Geopolitically, irregular migration is framed as a sovereignty issue requiring strict enforcement measures. Morally, irregular migrants are positioned as undeserving, contrasted against ‘desirable’ legal migrants who contribute to the economy and society.

This rhetorical structure, left unchallenged by media and political narratives, sustains a system where migrants’ rights remain conditional upon their perceived utility or vulnerability. As the report states, "Political discourse strategically constructs ‘illegal migrants’ as a counter-image to ‘legal’ and ‘skilled’ migrants. This framing enables the government to justify restrictive migration policies for all."

Civil society narratives, while offering counterpoints to restrictive policies, remain largely reactive and limited in scope. The report identifies a dual strategy among migrant rights organisations: advocating for irregular migrants through economic contributions or humanitarian concerns.

While these arguments have some success in shifting public opinion, they ultimately reinforce a state-centred neoliberal logic of ‘deservingness’—one that privileges certain categories of migrants over others.

The ‘economic contribution’ argument, for example, has been instrumental in advancing discussions about regularisation initiatives, but it risks creating a hierarchy of deservingness based on productivity rather than rights. Similarly, humanitarian narratives, while essential, often reinforce a victimhood paradigm that limits broader discussions on migrant agency and inclusion.

The report calls for a more transformative approach—one that reframe migration through an ‘unapologetic lens,’ one that recognizes human mobility as a historical and natural phenomenon rather than a crisis to be managed. In practical terms, this would mean shifting advocacy efforts away from transactional justifications and towards arguments that acknowledge migrants as integral members of society. For instance, labour rights discourse could serve as a powerful alternative to migration-centric narratives, focusing on protections for all workers regardless of status rather than reinforcing the distinction between ‘legal’ and ‘illegal’ migrants.

The findings of the I-CLAIM report make it clear that current migration discourse does more than reflect political realities—it actively constructs them. The challenge ahead is to reimagine migration governance in a way that moves beyond punitive frameworks and towards policies that recognize the fundamental rights and contributions of all migrants, regardless of status.

This requires not only a shift in media and political rhetoric but also a strategic recalibration in how civil society engages with the public debate. Only then can we create a more just and sustainable approach to migration—one that is not dictated by fear and exclusion, but by an understanding of mobility as a fundamental aspect of human society.

*Nando Sigona is professor of International Migration and Forced Displacement at the University of Birmingham and Scientific Coordinator for Improving the living and working conditions of irregularised migrant households in Europe (I-CLAIM), a study funded under the Horizon Europe programme.

Photo credit: University of Birmingham