Immigration has no doubt become one of the leading issues in contemporary politics. In the UK, party policy places immigration as a central pillar of importance. The Greens wish to implement a fairer and humane system (Green Party, 2025), much in stark contrast to Reform’s pledge to rid entirely of Indefinite Leave to Remain. Just recently, Mahmood announced changes to refugee status, asserting that refugee status should be ‘earned and not automatic’ (Mahmood, GOV UK 2026). Meanwhile, across the Atlantic, methods to tackle immigration into the USA have exposed aggressive realities of anti-immigrant agendas as ICE raids grant the US government an authoritarian edge.
Much involved with the efforts to reduce migration, however, is the media’s pivotal role in constructing public attitudes towards the issue. Whilst it is true that immigration reached a historical highpoint in 2022/2023 (Migration Observatory 2025) harmful and damaging narratives against immigrants have pervaded media discourse. Not only does this ignore the vital role migration plays in providing a functioning society, it also paves an easy path for the exploitation of misinformation by populist parties.
In addressing the immigration debate, harmful rhetoric must be disbanded. So, first, do migrants really leave such a threat to the UK’s society?
The answer is no. It is true that migration peaked in 2022/2023 as mentioned prior, but it has been on a slow downwards trend since. This is not due to the supposed epidemic of ‘small boats’ which seems to take a toll in the media but instead due to increases in international students and non-EU migrants on work visas. In reality, small boats take up a smaller proportion of total migration into the UK.
As for crime rates, they have been decreasing since the 1990s, despite increases in immigration over time. Often, refugees and asylum seekers are painted as security threats, sexual predators or a risk to culture. Events such as the Southport stabbing, where a black man murdered three girls, ignited a spiral of violent anti-immigration protests, despite the perpetrator being of British descent. These events led to a turmoil of harm against vulnerable communities and were based on racist and generalized assumptions about people of colour, rather than concern for the general well-being of the nation. Government statistics also do not account for specific statistics on crime rates of each ethnicity, which is easily exploited to place immigrant minorities in opposition to the general public.
Side-lining this are issues of systemic racism that is present in statistics which may be cited to provide proof of danger from specific ethnic groups, taking arrests for example. Overrepresentation of non-white ethnic groups in court is a consistent issue, not just directly relating to immigration but highlighting a pattern of systemic prejudice. Arrest rates are higher for non-white ethnicities as of 2022-2023 (Met Police, 2025). Yet, this does not equivocate to convictions, nor does it address the systemic racism often involved in policing crime where racist assumptions overtake practicality in dealing with crime. Minority groups face the brunt of unequal treatment in legal sectors, allowing them vulnerability in far-reaching narratives.
Furthermore, in an age of economic insecurity where the cost of living remains high, people turn to scapegoat the migrant community, perceiving that immigrants create a lack of jobs, supposedly taking them away from British-born citizens. Not only do both voluntary and involuntary migrants fulfill vital skills gaps, such as providing 21% of the NHS workforce, they are also not the cause of precarious economic conditions: austerity, political and market volatility, and inflation have led a difficult economic climate which should not be the burden of those who truly benefit society.
What follows from these conclusions is whilst there are levels of increasing migration (historically speaking), harmful rhetoric must be reconstructed as well as attempts to reduce migration in the national interest for the benefit of a progressive society. So, what should the government do?
There are considerable expenses that increased migration and population increase proposes, such as strain on the welfare state and housing. Whilst the current UK government has attempted to tighten border controls, implemented stricter visa eligibility as well as reducing the time for protection, it is important that they steer away from creating an environment of hostility as this does not completely work in the interest of the wider population, perhaps contributing towards increasing apathy towards the party instead. A recent YouGov poll found the Greens higher than Labour, slightly behind Reform by 2 percentage points.
Perhaps a combination of public sector investment particularly in deprived areas, tolerance, and humane border controls would capture the votes of those aligned with the Green party, who are certainly making successes (take their success in Gorton and Denton by-election, for example), as well as alleviating the stress on public services and infrastructure to capture votes of individuals who feel neglected by the government – a key contribution to the turn towards far-right populism.
