How do narratives around irregular migration shape policymaking across Europe? Drawing on a new study, Bastian Vollmer and Markus Rheindorf identify key themes in the portrayal of irregular migration and propose a set of measures to foster more constructive dialogue around the issue.
Irregular migration continues to shape European politics, media coverage and civil society activism. But how it is framed – whether as a threat, a humanitarian crisis or an economic necessity – varies sharply across countries. These narratives are more than words: they influence how societies respond, what policies are pursued and ultimately who is included or excluded.
The framing of irregular migration is shaped by political ideologies, socio-economic concerns and historical migration patterns. Narratives that shape discourses in various interlinked realms such as media, politics and civil society are becoming increasingly important at the European level. This makes it vital to understand what kind of narratives exist not just in individual countries but across Europe, what messages they articulate and what impact they have.
Words and language matter
As part of the EU-funded I-CLAIM project, we conducted a comparative discourse analysis of how irregular migration is discussed in the media, politics and civil society of six European countries – Finland, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland and the UK – as well as at the institutions of the EU.
We combined large-scale corpus-linguistic analysis of thousands of texts with close qualitative reading of key narratives, examining how language around migration shifted between 2019 and 2023. Our analysis illustrates how migration is increasingly securitised, how economic narratives depict migrants as either contributors or burdens, and how civil society plays a crucial role in counteracting restrictive migration discourses.
What we found
Several key findings stand out. First, there are divergent migration discourses across Europe. Migration narratives vary significantly between countries, reflecting local political climates, media traditions and migration histories. These differences lead to inconsistent policies and a fragmented approach to governance, both at national and EU levels.
Second, media narratives amplify crises and securitisation. Media frequently reinforce crisis narratives and security framings. This not only influences public perception but also creates pressure for restrictive policies, regardless of the actual scale or context of migration.
Third, political language masks restriction as protection. Migration is a highly politicised topic that is frequently instrumentalised to align with electoral concerns and ideological divisions. Politicians often frame restrictive migration measures in humanitarian terms – a strategy we call “strategic doublespeak”.
In Italy, for example, laws criminalising sea rescues are justified as protecting migrants from traffickers. In the UK, detention and deportation policies are presented as safeguarding vulnerable people. These narratives obscure the real human cost of such policies.
Fourth, gendered and racialised migration narratives define who deserves protection. Migration discourse across Europe is deeply influenced by gendered and racialised narratives. Young male migrants – particularly from Africa and the Middle East – are disproportionately depicted as threats, while women and children are cast as “deserving” victims.
This reinforces selective compassion in asylum policy, where vulnerability is judged through gendered and racialised lenses. This results in asylum protections being more readily extended to those seen as vulnerable, while restrictive border controls and deportation measures disproportionately target male migrants.
Fifth, economic narratives are split between those portraying migrants as a “burden” and as a “benefit”. Migrants are portrayed either as vital to national economies or as a drain on public resources. These competing narratives heavily influence policy, especially around labour migration, welfare access and integration.
Finally, we find civil society acts as a counterforce to securitisation. Civil society actors – including NGOs, advocacy groups and humanitarian organisations – play a crucial role in counterbalancing dominant political and media discourses on migration.
Unlike political actors, who often align migration narratives with electoral strategies, or media outlets that may reinforce crisis framings, civil society organisations provide alternative narratives that emphasise human rights, economic contributions and social integration.
From doublespeak to dialogue
Politically charged and misleading migration narratives risk deepening polarisation and undermining policy reforms. The fragmented nature of EU governance only complicates matters, creating gaps between regulation, enforcement and rights obligations.
To move toward a more balanced and evidence-based discourse, we propose the following concrete steps. First, it is vital to expose “strategic doublespeak”. Policymakers must be held accountable when humanitarian language is used to justify exclusionary policies. Fact-checking initiatives, legal analysis and watchdog journalism can play a vital role here.
Second, it is necessary to reform media practices. Journalism training and editorial guidelines should promote the use of accurate, consistent terminology related to migration. Coverage should highlight structural contexts, not just crisis imagery.
Third, we must strengthen civil society’s voice in relation to migration. NGOs and migrant-led organisations need sustained funding, legal protection and opportunities to contribute to policymaking – not just service provision.
Finally, we must promote better public literacy on issues related to migration. Awareness campaigns can help counter misinformation and reduce fear-based responses. Academic research must also be made accessible to the public.
Without meaningful intervention, securitised and divisive narratives will continue to dominate, with real human consequences. Shifting the discourse will require a collective effort from media, politics, academia and civil society.
Note: This article gives the views of the authors, not the position of EUROPP – European Politics and Policy or the London School of Economics. Featured image credit: Jory Mundy / Shutterstock.com
Discussion about this post