For too long, the actions, policies and language of mainstream politicians and media in the UK have contributed to the normalisation of racist, anti-migrant and Islamophobic discourses. Given this, the eruption of far-right violence over recent weeks should be seen as a wake-up call for the need to change the narrative on migration right across the political spectrum, writes Peter Kane.

Over the last few weeks, the far-right have mobilised across the UK to violently intimidate local communities and spread racial hatred, with arson attacks on hotels housing asylum seekers, petrol bombs thrown at mosques and nazi salutes waved.

These actions have been roundly condemned by the government, but in a very particular way: through the use of carefully selected language such as “far-right thuggery”, conjuring up a familiar image of racism – a small mob of fringe extremists who have seized an opportunity to cause chaos and destruction. Contained within terms like these is a singular focus on the mindless violence of these riots, avoiding any meaningful reckoning with the political, ideological, and cultural context which has produced it. Indeed, the solutions put forward by the government focus on disincentivising criminal behaviour by promising harsher sentences and increased policing – an approach which does little to reassure overpoliced communities of colour, and is only capable of resolving the immediate “disorder”, leaving the roots of the issue unchallenged.

Crucially, the present situation has not emerged from a vacuum but is the result of a sustained campaign of anti-migrant rhetoric, Islamophobia, and racist misinformation from across the political spectrum. Through decades of increasingly restrictive immigration legislation targeting non-white populations, some are made to feel that it is their national duty to protect the country’s borders. As Nadine El-Enany argues, in Britain, “once the enactment of racial terror is initiated by the state it is a task assumed by citizens”.

Challenging the framings underpinning debates about immigration

Rather than random acts of “thuggery”, then, the violence we have witnessed should be framed as a structural crisis which requires serious self-reflection surrounding the deeply rooted racism that underlies our political systems.

Perhaps the most immediate example of this is the new Labour government’s decision to scrap the Tories’ proposed scheme to deport people seeking asylum to Rwanda. This move has been widely celebrated by human rights campaigners, who have repeatedly raised concerns about the East African country’s human rights record and the risk of asylum seekers being sent back to countries where they would be in danger.

But while it is a relief for many to know that no flights will take off to Rwanda, the Labour Party have demonstrated that they are just as committed to ramping up deportations and putting extra resources into border policing. They have chosen to make little reference to the inhumane nature of the Rwanda scheme, instead focussing their criticism on it being a costly and chaotic gimmick. Funding for the Rwanda scheme has been redirected into a new “returns and enforcement programme” with 1,000 new officers deployed for the detainment and deportation of migrants. This has come with a renewed surge of immigration raids, with Yvette Cooper singling out nail bars and car washes as key targets in an escalation of raids across the country.

Crucially, in this and other examples, the Labour Party has chosen to reproduce a moral distinction between the “legal”, “genuine” refugee (that is, “good” immigration) and the “illegal”, “dangerous” economic migrant (“bad” immigration). These arguments are wilfully blind to the fact that under current legislation there are almost no ways for those fleeing persecution to enter the country through legal means. Only limited numbers have been permitted entry in the last few years through highly selective resettlement programmes for those fleeing Afghanistan, Syria and Ukraine. Anyone else arriving in the UK who needs to make an application for asylum has no option other than travelling by boat across the channel. Hence the current situation, where the vast majority of those arriving on British shores are highly vulnerable and in genuine need of protection, with The Refugee Council estimating that 73% of people crossing the Channel last year would be recognised as refugees if their claims were processed.

“Stop the boats” became the political mantra of a dying Conservative party, who tried to create a spectacle out of people seeking safety in a last-ditch attempt to drum up support. Rather than challenging them on their campaign of misinformation, this slogan continues to be parroted word for word by the Labour Party. If we genuinely want to stop the exploitation, abuse and loss of life caused by these treacherous journeys, we desperately need to provide safe and legal routes for those who wish to claim asylum in the UK.

What’s more, the dichotomy between the “good” and “bad” migrant perpetuates racist ideas that harm everyone in society, regardless of whether one has recently arrived in the UK or has lived here for generations. The most damning example of how this regime has destroyed people’s lives in recent history is the Windrush scandal, whereby people who had been living in the UK legally for decades started to be treated as “illegal immigrants”. From 2013, people of the Windrush generation began to receive letters claiming that they had no right to be in the UK, and before long many UK citizens started to lose their jobs, homes, benefits and access to the NHS. Some were placed in immigration detention, deported, or refused the right to return from abroad.

The fact that the victims of this scandal were Black Britons is no coincidence. In 2022, a leaked Government report concluded that the origins of the “deep-rooted racism of the Windrush scandal” lie in the fact that “during the period 1950-1981, every single piece of immigration or citizenship legislation was designed at least in part to reduce the number of people with black or brown skin who were permitted to live and work in the UK”. No wonder, then, that in a recent report, Migrant Rights Network argue that “the UK immigration system is racist by design” and immigration policies “often rely on racist assumptions and White supremacist ideas”. Looking forward, it is crucial that we recognise the historical role of white supremacy in guiding citizenship legislation and rethink our understanding of migration controls as rational and natural.

Coming full circle: from immigration rhetoric to racial violence on the streets

Luke De Noronha argues that “racist street violence and immigration controls are both forms of bordering which feed off one another”. The far-right mobs setting fire to hotels housing asylum seekers are emboldened by a political climate where “small boats” are consistently framed as the greatest threat to our society. As long as that basic narrative remains in play (including via government endorsement), these groups will not be scared off by stern public speeches or the threat of jail sentences. This is because the root of the issue lies in a political system which continues to confer humanity and value to some lives at the expense of others.

Racism is woven into our society and those at the top continue to benefit from it – whether directly or not, and whether consciously or not – even as they try to distance themselves from the violence on the streets. For too long, the actions, policies and language of mainstream politicians and media have allowed racism to become an accepted feature of British society.

We need public voices who will be bold enough to reset the terms of the debate, and refuse to pander to anti-migrant, Islamophobic or racist narratives. The strength and resilience of our communities has been demonstrated by the thousands who came out to protect their neighbours in towns and cities across the country, from Brighton and Birmingham to Liverpool and London. Mobilisations like these reflect the transformative power of collective action and community care to demand a new kind of society, even as we are failed by mainstream institutions. It is time for a new narrative on migration that genuinely reflects this spirit of openness, solidarity, and conviviality.