Discourse and Division: How Political Language Shapes Public Opinion on Immigration

The full foreword this article discusses can be read here.

A year on from the race riots of 2024, UK streets continue to be plagued by racially motivated violence at an increasingly alarming rate. Just last week, a NHS nurse was assaulted in a park in Halifax, six cars were burnt and smashed outside of houses with Filipino tenants, and families coming out of a Mosque in Portsmouth were threatened with a knife. At the same time, we are seeing thousands of England flags being hung on motorway bridges and lampposts in what has been termed ‘Operation Raise The Colours’, while anti-immigration and far-right groups have been organising ‘demonstrations’ up and down the country. Many of those working within politics, policy, and civil society at least partially attribute this startling trajectory of anti-immigration sentiment to inflammatory and demonising rhetoric on the part of politicians.

All language, intentionally or inadvertently, reflects the ideological position of those who have created it. This is particularly relevant when it comes to political language, as linguist Ruth Wodak explains, ‘political language and discourse serve to convince hearers/viewers/readers of a specific ideological position, of actions that are to be implemented or of a programme which needs to be endorsed’. The power of this political language to incite or excuse racial conflict can be seen in the recent protests outside of hotels housing asylum seekers. Nazek Ramadan, Director of Migrant Voice, has said that ‘Ministers saying that they “understand the frustrations” of those outside hotels only emboldens those who seek to spread hate and division, and leaves migrant communities in fear for their safety’.

For this reason, it is important to look closely at the language politicians use and how it may inform public opinion around immigration and race. A prominent example of this is Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s foreword to the new policy announced in May 2025 titled ‘Restoring Control over the Immigration System’.

The Use of Collectivisation

An important technique to examine in political language is the use of collectivisation. Collectivisation is when individuals are referred to and constructed as one unanimous group. Throughout the ‘Restoring Control over the Immigration System’ foreword, Starmer makes broad references to two groups of ‘people’: ‘the British public’ and ‘immigrants’.

“British people” are collectivised through two main linguistic techniques. First, there is the obvious use of the adjective “British” itself. The foreword uses blanket terms like “British people” and “British businesses”, homogenising individuals under a shared national label. Second, is the use of plural pronouns. Starmer makes reference to “our country”, “our economy”, “our language”, collapsing any distinction between citizens and government, state and society. This also collapses any distinctions between the many different communities living in Britain. They become one and the same in Starmer’s “British” collective.

But why is this collectivisation significant? Well… this “British” collective is cited as the impetus for the new policy. Starmer claims that the government is “no longer ignor[ing] the millions of people”, enacting this legislation because “it is what the people want”. This collectivisation allows the government to imply a consensus on immigration with no room for dissent. There is no reference to the many individuals who do not agree with the new immigration policy. Instead, this document sets up a system by which to be pro-immigration is to find yourself exiled from your fellow Brits, or simply not British enough to understand. This ‘consensus’ also allows the government to distance themselves from any personal accountability. Politicians cannot possibly be seen to be acting on their own agendas and opinions, they are instead merely acting in the interests and desires of the apparently united democracy they represent. Coincidentally (or not), it is this same vaguely defined British collective that many hate groups claim they are acting on behalf of.

The portrayal of the immigrant collective is somewhat more sinister. This document is careful to talk about immigrants in a very indirect sense, referring to processes rather than people, migration rather than migrants. We can see this in the way that immigrants are collectivised through functionalisation. Functionalisation is when people are represented in terms of what they do (their function), instead of who they are. Starmer euphemises immigrants as “visa applications” and describes them as “import[ed] workers” and “cheap labour” that Britain must be “weaned off”. Not only does this reduce people to their role within the labour market, but it dehumanises them and discourages empathy and connection. Immigrants become commodities to be exploited and discarded when deemed no longer of use. By presenting immigration through an exclusively economic framework, it is depicted as a neutral policy problem, instead of a matter that involves real people’s lives, and ignores any and all social or cultural value.

Only once are immigrants actually referred to as ‘people’, when Starmer states that “if people want to come to Britain to start a new life, they must contribute, learn our language and integrate”. Even here, their legitimacy is tied to their function, as it is made clear that immigrants will only be accepted if they can perform the required tasks. This sentence also glosses over the many different reasons that people move to England, lumping them together as those simply starting a “new life”. Whether you are a refugee fleeing a war zone or an international student starting at university, you are the same in the eyes of the government. This broad collectivisation erases cultural, generational, and historical differences, making it harder to empathise with individual experiences.

By establishing two distinct collectivised groups, Starmer also creates an us vs. them narrative. This document implies that you cannot be both British and an immigrant and encourages readers to identify with ‘British’ people and values. Immigrants are subsequently othered.

A clear example of the dangers of othering and homogenising ethnic or religious groups can be seen in the treatment of Muslims following the events of 9/11. After the attacks, many Western media outlets collectivised Muslims and associated them with threat and extremism. The consequence of this was a rise in Islamophobia, racial profiling and a disproportionate targeting of Muslim communities, of which we are still feeling the effects of today. To prevent the perpetuation of racist stereotypes, it is imperative that we challenge blanket representations of diverse communities when we see them, both in politics and media discourse.

The Use of Metaphor

Another important technique to look at when examining political discourse is the use of metaphor, as politicians “use metaphorical language in policy and debates to steer the public towards a certain viewpoint”. This forward uses two reoccurring metaphorical ideas: the “wound” and the “experiment”.

Twice in this document, Starmer refers to the effects of immigration as a “wound”, stating that “arguably worse is the wound this failure has opened when it comes to trust in politics”. With this metaphor, immigration is depicted as being beyond a political or policy ‘failure’ but as something capable of inflicting pain and trauma on the national body. This falls into a wider theme of hyperbolic language and metaphorical violence or bodily harm, both in this statement and in wider discourse. “Inward migration” did not ‘increase’ or ‘rise’… it “exploded”. “Our country” has not been ‘changed’ or ‘developed’… it has been “damaged”. This violent imagery allows the government to cast themselves in the role of healer or protector, whilst simultaneously justifying any drastic immigration policy measures they may take. This ‘wounding’ metaphor also succeeds in making the nation appear vulnerable, presenting the British public as victims and immigrants as dangerous perpetrators. It is important to note that this framing is being echoed by the far-right groups co-opting violence against women and girls to push fearmongering against migrants. They, too, are attempting to cast themselves as ‘protectors’, while inciting racial tension and violence.

Another recurring metaphor is that of the “experiment”. Starmer refers to Britain as “a one-nation experiment in open borders”. He later states that this document is to “assure the British people that the experiment is over. And that this Government will return migration policy to common sense”. Where ‘experiment’ and ‘experimentation’ often has connotations of progress and innovation, in this document, when accompanied by words like “perverse” and “distorted”, it takes on a distinctly negative inference. In this context, the immigration ‘experiment’ is explicitly posed as being against ‘common sense’. Instead, it is dystopian, an unnatural and imposed social and economic manipulation. In this framing of immigration as experimentation, Britain is presented as some sort of hideous Frankenstein’s monster of ethnicities and the British public involuntary test subjects… rats in a political lab. As well as allowing the government to pose as deliverers of fairness and common sense, this once again victimises the British public while dehumanising and demonising migrants.

Final Thoughts

Now, am I saying that with this particular document Starmer is directly instructing certain members of the British public to incite racial tension and violence? No, of course not. But am I saying that this document may have influenced public opinion around immigration and recent policy changes? Of course! That is what it has been designed to do!

When reading or listening to political discourse, it is important to pay close attention to language and tone and how different groups or individuals are represented. Ultimately, the danger lies not in the language of politicians alone, but in the cumulative impact of repeated rhetoric in the political sphere and how it manifests in the media. As most people encounter politics not at its source but through headlines and select quotes in the media, this repeated rhetoric is often amplified and sensationalised. This can reinforce and escalate certain biases or narratives and, in doing so, further shape public opinion and responses.

Although at a glance, this foreword seems to be neutral in its depiction of immigration, when looked at more closely, it certainly fits into the wider body of political and media discourse that demonises and scapegoats immigrants for dissatisfaction with public services and governmental policy. This scapegoating has escalated into the current climate around race and immigration that we are seeing on the UK streets today. In such a time, media literacy becomes a vital skill. We must question: what is the ideological position we are being steered towards? What are the explicit and implicit messages? Who benefits and who is being disadvantaged? And do we agree?