Migration and community resilience

Migration has been an issue of growing political salience over the last few years, including and up to the most recent election in July 2024. Although it has not been a top three issue for most people in the UK (these spots are reserved for cost of living, health and the economy), the number of people to whom it is important has grown over the last five years, almost doubling from 13% to 25%. 

Just before Brexit, immigration salience was also at an all-time high. Polling by YouGov in December 2016 showed that immigration was the second most important issue facing respondents at 45%, after Britain leaving the EU with 60%. Health (34%) and the economy (33%) were also high priorities. This previous peak demonstrates that concerns about immigration are not new, and nor is anti-migrant hatred. 

The issues driving the public discourse on immigration can vary. It can reflect racial and religious hatred or suspicion, economic competition, political disenfranchisement or even personal or local insecurity. When politicians, the media and the organised far right manipulate and exacerbate these grievances in order to serve racist and divisive agendas, there are lasting impacts on communities.

A hostile state of play

Two main political forces have an impact on attitudes to migration, the reality of policy and rhetoric. However, the relationship between these forces and the public is a downward spiral of chicken-and-egg:

Whether concerns about migration are rational (driven by an understanding of the mechanisms) or emotional (driven by a sense of fear or threat), they are real and exploitable. The majority of the British public do not have a thorough understanding of how the UK or international immigration and asylum systems actually work, which leaves space for emotionally-charged and ideologically-driven rhetoric around migration to shape attitudes. 

There was a feeling that Labour was out of touch with the British public on migration during the 2010 general election, and this might have cost them at the polls. The Conservative party has since sought to be tough on migration, constantly raising the bar for hostile politics. 

Negative beliefs about immigration appeared to decrease following the Brexit referendum in 2016, but they have risen again in recent years. This is partially due to political and media instigation, but also due to the conspicuity and strikingness of small boat crossings. Despite being only a fraction of overall immigration, Channel crossings have become totemic representations of the insecurity of Britain: the border, the culture and the (white British) women and children who live there.

Successive Conservative governments have consistently ramped up their Hostile Environment rhetoric and policy in the last few years, most noticeably with reframing certain types of people and journeys as ‘illegal’. Debates around the right to work or study, as well as EU migration, are relegated to the background, perhaps because they are less emotive, less scrutinised and ultimately less useful at the ballot box.

Bad immigration policy exacerbates community tensions around migration by prolonging or emphasising points of friction. The asylum system in particular can be exploited through cost of living and scarcity narratives because of the complex way in which it runs, and the ease of creating disinformation and emotive narratives around it. 

2023 saw this rhetoric take hold in conversations around temporary accommodation for people seeking asylum. Rumours began to spread about people seeking asylum receiving special treatment, often comparing this to long waiting lists for council housing for people born in Britain, or lack of support for homeless veterans. 

Rather than view all of these groups as vulnerable and in need of dignity and compassion, many were quick to create a hierarchy of deservedness; people seeking asylum were not just seen as competitors for resources, but as less deserving than British people. 

The Conservative Party has stoked up hatred whilst destroying any semblance of an effective asylum decision process. People seeking asylum are left out of communities and stigmatised before they even have a chance at life in the UK. Measures such as offshore processing in Rwanda, the use of the Bibby Stockholm barge and ex-RAF sites as accommodation are not only performatively cruel, they are expensive and unworkable, exacerbating the problems experienced in communities. These policy failings have directly fed into far-right rhetoric and boosted its impact on communities. 

When asked to choose their top words to describe the Conservative Government’s approach to migration in a poll of almost 25,000 people in January 2023, “ineffective” (32%) was the top choice but “not strong enough” (25%) and “unrealistic” (22%) were in second and third place, reflecting a split of opinion.

 The British public clearly feels strongly about immigration, and it contributes to feelings of economic scarcity, loss of control and suspicion that threatens social connectedness. For this reason, the way the Government handles – or fails to handle – immigration affects community resilience. 

The new Labour government is unlikely to keep up the hostility of rhetoric of the Conservative party, and this is undoubtedly a positive thing. However, the question remains about how to solve key policy issues, which include, but are not limited to the backlog of undecided cases and accommodation for those awaiting decisions, no recourse to public funds and homelessness, health and social care recruitment and postgraduate visas. 

Far-right anti-migrant activity

Immigration has always been a key issue through which the far right stoke divisions and it is currently their predominant issue of focus. Despite far-right arguments being brought into the mainstream by political rhetoric on immigration, many have been against both Conservative and Labour government approaches, saying that the former does not go far enough and the latter is too soft. Some welcomed the election results, as they feel that a Labour government will expedite social collapse and allow for a hardline undercurrent to gain strength. 

Far-right anti-migrant activity in communities has included holding demonstrations outside accommodation housing people seeking asylum, leafleting local areas sharing messages that directly invoke scarcity narratives, and organising community-based activities such as litter picks and walks to attract members. Some activists refer to themselves as “migrant hunters”, going to accommodation or support services for people seeking asylum and filming them in a way they claim is journalistic, but intended to “expose” the truth of the system. They harass or intimidate people, filming without their consent. Some of these accounts have thousands of subscribers.

Image: https://www.patrioticalternative.org.uk/leaflets_and_resources 

Using slogans like “enough is enough” and “we were never asked”, the far right have capitalised on frustrations with migration and turned disillusioned communities onto wider racism, Islamophobia and xenophobia. The post-organisational nature of online far-right activity means that there is no longer one main group exerting this influence, but rather a network of individuals who share and repost content across localised groups. Sometimes these are perceived as groups with “local concerns”, either to fret about potential migration or to surveil people in the local area. 

In 2023, over a hundred anti-migrant demonstrations took place across the UK. Whilst some were locally-led, other demonstrations were organised and attended by far-right groups such as Patriotic Alternative, Britain First and Homeland. Demonstrations were advertised through an online ecosystem of large groups on social media platforms such as Facebook, WhatsApp and Telegram. 

As well as sharing information about events and camp-out protests, the groups are full of anti-migrant, racist and Islamophobic content, including rumours about alleged crimes committed by people seeking asylums in communities. Much of this is disinformation. 

Who is welcome in the UK?

When asked which groups of people should be allowed to live and work in the UK, people place an emphasis on skill and benefit for the country: health and social care workers (84%) and high-skilled professionals (86%) had the highest acceptance rates. 

Interestingly, rates of acceptance for people fleeing war, conflict or persecution (70%) were in line with seasonal workers who come for a fixed time period (73%) and people who are wealthy enough not to need benefits (72%). This is higher than acceptance for low-skilled workers (41%), which adds nuance to the perception that people value those who come to the UK with something to contribute over those seeking sanctuary. Most interestingly, public support for asylum seekers and refugees clearly depends on framing, as acceptance for people who cross the Channel in small boats, many of whom seek asylum upon arrival in the UK and are therefore also fleeing conflict and persecution, was only 19%.

Framing migration

The above shows that an important part of tackling the exploitation of the topic of migration by the far right will be reframing the conversation in a more accurate, compassionate and realistic way. People agree with helping people seeking asylum when the issue is framed straightforwardly and without sensationalist terminology. 

The question arises of who should assist with framing this conversation. When it comes to who people trust when speaking about asylum seekers and refugees, people were twice as likely to trust their friends and family (62%) over media outlets including the BBC (33%) and GB News (23%). Interestingly, when it comes to political parties, trust was low all round: 21% for Conservatives, 31% for Labour and 28% for Reform. This suggests that campaigning efforts around changing the conversation on migration need to include interpersonal and community narratives as well as politics and the media. 

Attitudes to immigration policy

In terms of policy solutions for immigration, the public is split. Around half are responsive to policy ideas which centre compassion: 51% of people said they would support opening up more safe and legal ways for people to claim asylum so they do not have to make dangerous journeys across the Channel. That said, 53% also support ignoring or withdrawing from international laws or conventions so that the UK has more control of its borders. The policy with the most support (59%) is practical and non-emotive: committing to reducing the time it takes for asylum applications to be processed. 

In a poll of 9,311 people conducted in January 2023, we asked people which migration policies they would support. 58% said that Britain should be taking fewer asylum seekers – even if they are fleeing war, persecution and conflict, however 59% agreed that the UK government should be doing more to provide safe and legal routes for those fleeing war, persecution and conflict. 

People appear to be concerned about the scale and feasibility of having asylum seekers, but broadly support the idea of helping people in need. Migration is inevitable and even needed within the UK context, and communicating this is a complex but necessary challenge. For example, 55% agree that Britain’s refugee policy should be guided by having a set limit on the number of people who come to the UK each year. In many ways, people’s lack of understanding and perspective around large numbers and scale is an unavoidable cognitive quirk, but when it is so easily manipulated by the far right it is worth attempting to find counter-narratives which can address this. 

How migration is linked to community resilience

Community resilience is crucial for sustainable and thriving communities, as it allows for the adaptation and growth of a community during and after periods of hardship. Here, we look at how migration affects the three main characteristics of resilience.

Social connectedness

Mis- and disinformation about the legal system, organisations in the sector and people seeking asylum are plentiful on social media, politics, the media, and also in communities. Inflammatory rhetoric about migration threatens to undermine existing social connections and prevent new ones from forming. We have seen this most recently with the riots of August 2024.

Online anti-migrant rhetoric focuses on the dangers of Muslim migrant men, arguing that they have an innate desire to inflict violence on women and children. Across communities, hostility towards ethnic minority members of the community has increased. Panic and prejudice makes people start rumours about the wrongdoing which play on real anxieties around safety and wellbeing. 

With issues like child sexual exploitation and violence against women and children still fraught, there is high risk of the far right using these narratives to induce mass panic and create division. We saw this in February 2023 with unrest outside the Suites Hotel in Knowsley, or in March 2024 when the horrific acid attack of a mother and daughter by refugee Abdul Ezedi was used by the far right to spread hatred. 

Additionally, people seeking asylum are not able to be embedded in the community through work and often lack the money or confidence to get involved in local life. This means that most people who hold anti-asylum views will have never meaningfully interacted with them. This lack of interaction contributes to the ability of rumours to spread.

Resource availability and mobility

Over £300 million has been spent on the fruitless Rwanda programme and in the year to March the government spent £3.1 billion on hotel accommodation for asylum seekers, equivalent to more than £8 million a day. This spending has used not only Home Office budget, but also diverted foreign aid, with £4.3 billion going towards asylum seekers and refugees in the UK. The Home Office has consistently failed to budget realistically for the asylum system, resulting in overspending that took from reserves intended for emergency or unexpected spending.

People seeking asylum do not have a say in where they are housed, they are directed by the Home Office. To keep costs down, dispersal accommodation and hotels used are in towns and areas where the cheapest accommodation is available. In many cases, these are areas where there is already low resource availability and low resilience more generally. There is then a higher risk of cohesion issues spilling over, as people are more susceptible to believing divisive narratives of scarcity and competition. 

It is undeniable that communities are struggling to access basic resources – dentists, GPs, food banks, social housing and community services are all struggling to meet rising demands with changes in costs and funding. In many ways, the economic arguments people make in opposition to people seeking asylum reflect a desperation in their own lives. 

However, rather than pointing a finger at the money wasted by the Government on ineffective migration policies and programmes and broader inadequate local funding, many scapegoat their frustration towards those viewed as receiving the benefits of this spending at the expense of spending on the wider community. 

There is an urgent need for the Government to review asylum processes and finances. However, there is also an urgent need to reframe conversations around resource availability, away from depictions of competition for finite resources and towards one that is solidarity-based.

Agency and empowerment

A lack of agency in asylum policy is most keenly felt by people holding anti-migrant views, as encapsulated in far-right slogans like “we were never asked”. This is often linked to a wider perception of powerlessness about the ways in which people’s local areas are changing, such as the decline of the local high street or loss of local identity through demographic change. This perceived lack of control is powerful but ultimately slightly misplaced: whilst people might have a say in migration policy through voting in an election, it is unrealistic within the current system to expect democratic decisions on individual aspects of how the policy is enacted.

That said, helping people understand who is making decisions can be helpful because it can prevent far-right actors from exploiting discontent and apathy with divisive narratives. Also, releasing information in a timely way can give people a feeling of being involved. In cases of hotels in communities being used to accommodate asylum seekers, this is difficult because of the way the Home Office releases information to different partners. However, meaningful community engagement that does not over-promise and under-deliver can bolster trust in public institutions such as the local authority and police service. 

What is next for migration?

Although tackling anti-migrant rhetoric sounds simpler than overhauling migration policy, both have their challenges. The scrapping of RAF Scampton as a potential accommodation site for people seeking asylum is a positive step, but RAF Wethersfield and Napier Barracks remain operational at the time of writing. The Government has not committed to a target for reducing net migration, mindful that this will be scrutinised. This could be a positive indication of trying to prevent sensationalist speculation around migration. They can start to improve things by reintroducing some much-needed compassion, but a cynical approach to winning over anti-migrant voters means they might not see this as in their best interest.

Tackling those in positions of influence and power who stoke the flames when it comes to migration will be another challenge. We need political courage and leadership by political parties to call out hateful rhetoric. Parties should establish standards for responsible language and clear processes for taking action when MPs do not meet them.

Many changes that organisations working in the migration and refugee sector are already calling for will have knock-on positive effects for communities. Allowing people seeking asylum the right to work will allow them to mix with others and increase perceptions that they contribute to the community. Opening more safe and legal routes through which people can access a life in the UK will give communities a greater sense of control. Community-based welcome schemes in the style of Homes for Ukraine also increase feelings of agency. 

A more radical alternative to actively improving public perceptions of migration might be simply ceasing to give it prominence in the national conversation. Migration is an inevitable part of human life, and whilst governments might try to influence its specifics, they should not be calling this fundamental premise into question. Breaking the vicious cycle of top-down fear-mongering and bottom-up discontent is crucial to weakening the far right.