1. 1
Dissertation submitted to the London Metropolitan University for the degree of Master of Arts
International Security Studies
London Metropolitan University
Faculty of Social Sciences and Humanities
Securitisation of Immigration in the
United Kingdom
Discourse analysis of the political spectrum and media in the UK
Submitted by:
Marek CIMPL
18/01/2015
Dr. Shahin Malik

2. 2
Contents
Abstract ................................................................................................................................................... 3
Acknowledgements................................................................................................................................. 3
1) Introduction..................................................................................................................................... 4
1.1. The Copenhagen School .......................................................................................................... 5
1.2. Approach and methodology.................................................................................................... 7
1.3. Sources and authors.............................................................................................................. 11
1.4 The scope............................................................................................................................... 14
1.4. Structure................................................................................................................................ 16
2. Securitisation within the UK political spectrum............................................................................ 18
2.1. Conservative Party................................................................................................................. 19
2.2. Labour Party .......................................................................................................................... 24
2.3. Liberal Democrats.................................................................................................................. 26
2.4. United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP)......................................................................... 27
2.5. British National Party ............................................................................................................ 29
3. Securitising media and public elite................................................................................................ 31
3.1. The Media.............................................................................................................................. 31
3.2. Research groups .................................................................................................................... 35
3.2.1. MigrationWatch UK........................................................................................................... 35
3.2.2. Better of Out group ........................................................................................................... 36
4. Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................... 36
4.1. Main findings......................................................................................................................... 37
4.2. Public opinion on immigration .............................................................................................. 38
4.3. The political response............................................................................................................ 39
5 SOURCES:....................................................................................................................................... 41
5.1 Bibliography........................................................................................................................... 41
5.1 Online and other resources.................................................................................................... 42

3. 3
Abstract
The present work analyses the political discourse in the UK and examines the extent up to which it
can be claimed that immigration is being securitised in the UK. The discourse analysis is using the
securitisation theory as developed by Copenhagen School. Using the Copenhagen School concept of
securitisation, this thesis analyses the political sphere with regards to securitising immigration and
reveals which political and public actors attempt to securitise the immigration to the public. All main
political parties are examined and their approach to immigration. Role of the media is also reviewed
as facilitators of the process. In line with the Copenhagen School theory, securitising speech acts are
analysed in light of different security sectors. The work focuses on the securitisation acts mostly
within the year 2014 and includes public opinion polls about immigration with an obvious link to the
examined securitisation of immigration.
Key words: securitisation, immigration, Copenhagen School, UK, discourse analysis, security
Acknowledgements
This thesis was carried out in a short amount of space and time due to unforeseen circumstances. I
would like to therefore express my gratitude to Doctor Shahin Malik for his useful comments and
guidance during this process in a very short and busy period of time. Without his support I would
have never succeeded in writing this dissertation. I would also like to extend my appreciation to the
remaining staff of Faculty as well as my fellow students whom I have learnt a great deal during these
postgraduate studies at London Metropolitan University.

4. 4
1) Introduction
In January 2014, the influential British newspaper, The Guardian, published an article
comparing the increase of the number of headlines in the British newspapers with the rates
of immigration [Guardian, 2014]. The result was a much higher increase in the media
coverage than the actual rate of immigration, in some cases mounting up to a 300%
difference. Only a few months later, the Economist, in conjunction with Ipsos MORI – a
research company - issued an index, which indicated that Race Relations and Immigration
has become the most important issue facing Britain. Immigration became the top concern
for the first time since 2008. Economy, Unemployment, Poverty or Healthcare all scored
below immigration clearly setting the ranking of the current issues [Ipsos/Mori, 2014]. This
suggests that immigration is a topic of the highest importance amongst the British public
forum and that there is a disconnection between media coverage and actual immigration.
The hypothesis outlined below aims to discover the process of creating immigration (both
legal and illegal) security issue through a securitisation theory introduced by the
Copenhagen school.
Recently in the UK, immigration and border control have become a widely debated
topic in the public forum for a number of reasons. The main reason however being, that
people generally fear the changing demographics that immigration brings from a perspective
of future composition of the population. Many people, who come to the UK, settle here and
start a family and new life as UK residents which can create anxiety amongst the original
residents, especially when these new immigrants bring new culture and habits with them.
This phenomenon is highlighted in many European countries where the birth rate of the
immigrants is higher than that of the residents, the UK being one of them. According to a
paper published by MigrationWatch UK, 84% of the population growth between years 2001 -
2012 can be attributed to foreign-born mothers [MigrationWatch UK, 2014) which
effectively means that the native UK population is growing a lot slower than the population
of residents born abroad. That can be perceived as a major threat to the collective identity
of the British people and indeed some parties in the UK, as well as in other European

5. 5
countries, have started to depict immigration as a threat, not just to traditional national
identity, but also to the state as a sovereign unit.
Immigration is therefore considered to be a growing problem which needs to be
solved on the political platform at a national or even regional level, such as the European
Union. Whether it is the so-called “Trojan Horses” in Birmingham schools or UKIP’s recently
increased polling (largely based on immigration policy), immigration has come to play a
primary role in the current political discourse in the UK. It is on the other hand a very
sensitive topic in political circles as the free movement of people is one of the founding
principles of European Union, as recently confirmed by José Manuel Barroso in an interview
on BBC programme [BBC News, 2014], and given that the multiculturalist, anti-xenophobic
and anti-racist policies have been part of the UK polity for the past decades.
1.1. The Copenhagen School
The Copenhagen school along with the concept of ‘Securitisation’ entered the
academic debate in the early days of post-cold war period along with other critical theories
such as post-positivism, feminism and others. The Copenhagen school contests the
dominance of neorealism in international relations with a new approach to studying and
understanding security. The notion of security has not yet been successfully defined in the
academic circles, as pointed out by Barry Buzan [Buzan, 1991, 35-36], but security was for
the majority of time during the cold war focused on the materialist perspective, either
military or economic. Whereas neorealists view the military as the main source of security or
insecurity and neoliberals stress the influence of economic power on international relations
and peace generation, the Copenhagen school identified multiple sectors within the security
agenda, including societal and economic sectors. These sectors are all interconnected and
interlinked and form a more comprehensive security framework. The idea of securitisation
attempts to bridge the gap between the constructivist agenda and the traditional realist
theory in international relations and synthesizes elements from both sides into a modern
cohesive theory. It applies the social construction of identity and interests-formation from
the constructivist theory which it then merges with the relatively stable, albeit still socially
constructed, structure of national and international relations. The result is then a

6. 6
combination of a radically constructivist and subjectivist nature of security embedded in a
more objectively observed international structure.
Although the Copenhagen school shares some theoretical base with critical theory,
especially in the social construction of security, it is important to understand that the two
are very different in the way they view threats [Buzan, Waever, de Wilde, 1998, 203-204].
When critical theories challenge the traditional realist view of security, they point out the
importance of other security threats such as environmental threats, sociological and political
instability. Hence by stressing different kinds of threats critical theorists still emphasize the
existence of actual threats. They become objective in the form that they try to describe what
security actually is and what the real security issues are. This is the same approach as
international relations (IR) traditionalists defend. The Copenhagen school applies a
constructivist approach with the securitisation theory and it attempts to “understand the
dynamics of security and thereby manoeuvre them” [Buzan et al, 1998, 35].
Securitisation is a process where a threat (or an issue) is made a security matter of
the highest concern and regard. In a classic definition, securitisation is ‘the discursive
process through which an intersubjective understanding is constructed within a political
community to treat something as an existential threat to a valued referent object and to
enable a call for urgent and exceptional measures to deal with the threat’ (Buzan, Waever,
2003, 491). Simply put, during securitisation, an issue is elevated to the public forum as a
security threat which, if not dealt with by implementation of exceptional measures, would
have had serious or fatal consequences to the referent object. The securitisation is
facilitated by a ‘speech act’ which is performed by the securitising actor. Speech act is not a
one-way process but it is rather a combination of delivering the securitising speech act and
recognizing the act by the referent object. [Buzan et al, 1998, 33].
The referent object in these terms needs to be an object whose survival is perceived
as ultimately vital. The referent object in the traditional understanding of security is state
and its sovereignty and implicitly nations and its identity. However in the Copenhagen school
theory, the spectrum of referent objects is much wider. Essentially, any individual or a small
group could establish themselves as a referent object whose existence needs to be
protected but a larger groups or nations will have a better chance of becoming a referent
object. From an economic security perspective, national banks might legitimately claim the

7. 7
right of survival which might be existential to the population of the state if they were to go
bankrupt and lost all resources of their clients, which is why a number of central banks
introduced support programmes for the banks during the financial crisis of 2008. Ultimately,
the referent object is, as put by Buzan et al, “that to which one can point and say: It has to
survive, therefore it is necessary to…” [Buzan et al, 1998, 36]
Given that securitisation is considered an ongoing process rather than a state of an
issue or an event; there are certain stages through which the issue must develop in order to
be fully securitised. Buzan et al present us with three stages of securitisation [Buzan et al,
1998, 23]. The first stage is a nonpoliticized issue which is not part of a public debate and the
state does not have to be involved in the solution of it. Everyday matters belong to this
section and there is no public perception of the matters as potential security issues. The
second stage is an issue that is politicized, which means that state has an active policy
regarding the issue, it is a topic of a public debate and there are some resources dedicated
to overseeing this issue. Countries can politicize different issues depending on their
vulnerabilities and what they perceive as threats so some can politicize own religion (Iran,
Saudi Arabia) and some on the other hand might encourage freedom of religion (UK,
France). Third and last stage of securitisation is a fully securitized issue which in Buzan’s
work is defined as an issue that is “presented as an existential threat, requiring emergency
measures and justifying actions outside the normal bounds of political procedure” *Buzan,
1998, 24]. Issues can also move from a certain stage to another over time. Environmental
issues, for example, have become very much politicized in the recent years and same can be
said about immigration in certain countries.
1.2. Approach and methodology
The discourse analysis is the obvious research method to be used to uncover
securitisation and reviews securitising actors, their arguments and the causes for the
securitisation of the issue. Securitisation of any issue is part of wider discourse which is set
by politicians, media and academic elite and other respected public figures. The analysis will
not focus on any specific linguistic techniques but it will rather focus on general discourse set
by high prominent politicians and media. The analysis is based on a classical understanding

8. 8
of discourse as introduced by Michel Foucault [Foucault, 1972; Foucault 1981]. Although
Foucault did not explicitly write about media, his understanding of creation of ‘knowledge’ is
applied in this discourse analysis. The analysis also draws from the work of van Dijk [1997b]
who characterise the discourse in a close relation to the public actors such as politicians,
heads of religious bodies and other public agents.
This work will analyse the current discourse in the United Kingdom in terms of
securitising immigration by various parties within the UK political spectrum. What people in
the UK are increasingly witnessing is a process where several actors within the political
environment attempt to elevate the issue of immigration to the security agenda on a
national level. This process called ‘Securitisation’ has been best described by scholars
associated with the Copenhagen school of studies [Buzan et al, 1998, 23-25]. The analysis
will contain the main arguments being put forward for securitising immigration and who
have been the main actors elevating immigration on the security scale over recent years.
These actors are generally public figures or parties who enjoy public legitimacy and a
certain level of trust regarding security issue. These securitising actors according to Buzan,
Waever and de Wilde, are actors, political parties, activist groups or individuals who declare
an issue an existential threat to the referent object (generally society, nation or state but
could be other) [Buzan, Waever, de Wilde, 1998, 36]. In addition to the securitising actors, a
review will be conducted if there are any other actors or parties who influence the decisions
about security or the process of securitisation itself. The opening hypothesis is that the UK is
witnessing increasing pressures from several political and public actors to securitize
immigration and present it to the public as a threat to economic, societal and possibly
political security.
The main analysis should not uncover whether immigration is a direct threat or not to
the British public, but rather to understand the process of securitisation, actors involved in
the process and the impact on the state’s security agenda and policies. An analysis will be
conducted over all security sectors (military, political, societal, environmental and
economic), as described by Barry Buzan [1991] to understand which of those are referred to
in the securitisation process the most and if there is any pattern applied by the securitising
actors. The Copenhagen school unlike classic positivist approaches is not primarily

9. 9
concerned about whether a threat is being an ‘actual’ or a ‘falsely’ securitised threat, but
rather focuses on the process and construction of the threat.
To provide an example, British Prime Minister David Cameron has recently
announced a proposal for cutting access to benefits for unemployed people from other EU
member states by limiting the amount of national insurance numbers granted to immigrants
and imposing immigration quotas on so-called economic migrants. On 25th
March 2013 at
the University Campus Suffolk in Ipswich, David Cameron said:
“Yes, of course it [immigration] needs to be approached in a sensitive and a rational
manner, but I’ve always understood the concerns – the genuine concerns of hard-working
people, including many in our migrant communities, who worry about uncontrolled
immigration. They worry about the pressure it puts on public services, the rapid pace of
change in some of our communities and of course the concerns, deeply held, that some
people might be able to come and take advantage of our generosity without making a
proper contribution to our country”. *UK Government, 2014]
From this statement, we would not analyse whether the concerns of people are
justified or not or whether the mentioned threats are real and existential to this group, but
the focus will rather be to explain how the speech act is securitising the issue and what
security sectors are being referred as to be in jeopardy.
Securitising actor(s), in this case The Prime Minister, will be also a great focus in this
work. The aim is to understand which actors are the most active and effective within the
state and what are their main topics with immigration. Actors utilize the speech act in order
to securitise immigration. The goal is not to research and analyse the immigration policy of
political parties, but to highlight the securitising speech acts of securitising actors. The
referent object, in the above case being the hard-working people, can be different as shown
in the above introduction to Copenhagen school and the aim is to describe different referent
objects which are being used in the speech acts of the securitising actors.
It is very much the idea of the construction of security, international relations and
subsequent promotion or demotion of identities that plays a primary role in the hypothesis.

10. 10
Immigration has become an increasingly discussed topic in the political circles across the
whole Europe and is increasingly causing tension, not just amongst political parties but also
among the general public. Swiss voters, for example, had to vote numerous times over the
last few decades in referendums regarding immigration, most recently in February 2014
where the Swiss People’s Party proposed a referendum ‘against mass immigration’ which
was accepted by 50.3% of all voters. As a result, the Swiss federal council will now have to
bring quotas on immigrants from within the European Union back into their legal framework
which will effectively invalidate the agreement between Switzerland and EU on the point of
freedom of movement. For a country so greatly incorporated in the European Community to
take such a radical step, there must be an extreme consciousness of possible insecurity, if
the current policies remain in place.
In the UK, much of political debate over the past few months has been dedicated to
immigration subject. This only shows the importance of understanding the issue and the
process by which the issues have been elevated to the national political debate. In the
autumn of 2014, the British Academy held a series of debates on immigration and there
have been a number of documentaries national broadcasting television channels on
immigration, not to count the number of articles issued in the newspapers and magazines.
Considerable portion of the United Kingdom Independence Party’s (UKIP) support comes
from their views on immigration and its possible consequences. UKIP received 2.3% of votes
in the 2005 elections and the latest Guardian/ICM poll revealed a significant increase of
party preference to 14% equalling Liberal Democrats which is a dramatic change in the
traditional bi-party political system [Guardian, Online news, 2014b]. In a report published by
NatCen Social Research, 13% of those who view immigration as ‘strongly negative’ identify
themselves with UKIP compared to only 1% of those who see immigration as ‘positive’
[NatCen, 2014, 91]. UKIP has capitalized the most on the negative views of immigration in
terms of voting preferences. All this attention to immigration requires a detailed and
thorough analysis as immigration is a very sensitive topic closely linked with other policies
firmly embedded in the UK democratic system and it cannot be ignored or overlooked.
The concept of securitisation allows the analyst to review contemporary discourse
within the polity and identify trends within the population and hot topics of current policies
of the governing body. Securitisation has been criticised for being too Eurocentric and

11. 11
producing Westernised description of the situation [Wilkinson, 2007, 15-25+ and that it can’t
be really applied globally. While the use of the theory might be limited outside Europe, it fits
perfectly for studying this case of the United Kingdom.
It is the speech act, one of the main pillars of the Copenhagen school, which has very
strong implications in well-developed democracies, such as the UK. As the political parties
are regularly competing for the popular vote, they need to address issues about which the
public is most concerned. During their governing period, parties are then expected to
produce a policy which will reflect the mood of the general public. This analysis should
therefore uncover not only whether immigration is being securitised, but also whether the
general public has begun to perceive the issue as a serious threat or not.
1.3.Sources and authors
The literature of authors such as Barry Buzan, Ole Waever, Lene Hansen, Jaap de
Wilde is essential to understanding properly the Copenhagen School and the related
methods. Specifically, the book Security; A New Framework for Analysis [1998] really set the
analytical approach of the Copenhagen School to security studies and reiterated the
emerging division between traditional security studies (mostly all positivist approaches with
objectivist views on the threats) and critical security studies or the constructivist approaches
[Buzan et al, 1998, 203-4]. The authors describe in detail the terminology used within the
approach as well as provide in depth analysis of the securitisation concept. This work also
attempts to move beyond the Classic Security Complex Theory (CSCT) originally described by
Barry Buzan in People, States and Fear [1991].
Subsequent authors have tried to extend the work done by Buzan and apply
different security sectors to the CSCT and embed a more constructivist approach of research
elaborating on the original Buzan’s work. In People, States and Fear, Buzan explores the
relationship between the state and society and categorises states between strong and weak
from a perspective of military and social cohesion. He argues that some states despite being
strong in terms of sheer power can be weak in other areas, such as socio-political cohesion
[Buzan, 1991, 112-116]. His work also explores the vulnerability of states to different threats
based on their location, historical relationships, military power, socio-political cohesion and

12. 12
other elements. The United Kingdom would, from this perspective, belong to strong states
which are immune to most type of the threats. On the one hand, this is due to its military
power which protects the state from military attacks, and on the other hand the stability of
its state. The Government, rule of law and a functioning political system ensure a cohesive
state, which is invulnerable to internal political and social threats.
This will make the analysis slightly more difficult as discourse analysis is ultimately
aimed at uncovering the securitising actors and the social construction of the threat which is
impossible if there are no threats or issues to be securitised. However, it needs to be
remembered that the goal here is not to highlight the actual threats the UK is vulnerable to,
but to only describe and understand the process of how an issue (in this case immigration) is
being securitised and who are the securitising actors. Amongst other Copenhagen School
publications belongs Egbert et al European Security – Problems of Research on Non-military
Aspects [1987] or Ole Waever’s Identity, Integration and Security [1995] or European Security
Identities [1996].
Literature on constructing a social identity and societal security is also of a great
importance to understanding immigration and its securitisation. Many actors within the UK
political spectrum try to securitise the issue of changing British identity in light of increasing
immigration. The British National Party “call for an immediate halt to all further immigration,
so that the British people retain their homeland and identity” in their official immigration
policy [British National Party, 2014]. Whilst collective and personal identity has been studied
extensively during the past decades, there are some studies which fit nicely into the
securitisation approach to society. A very useful overview of the approaches to security and
identity come from Bill McSweeney in some of his works but mainly in Security, Identity and
Interests [1999], where the author devotes a whole chapter to the Copenhagen School.
While the Copenhagen School sees itself mainly somewhere between constructivist and
positivist approaches, Bill McSweeney argues that with regards to the societal security and
identity, the Copenhagen school authors are much closer to the positivist camp which they
themselves are trying to distinguish from. McSweeney argues that “their case studies, their
style and their apparent intention stand solidly within a neorealist tradition which is not
noted for its affinity to relativism” while he acknowledges that the identity disputes are

13. 13
difficult to solve within any approach [McSweeney, 1999, 75].1
However, even though he
considers Copenhagen school assumptions that the social production of security is
sufficiently stable to be treated as an objective process [McSweeney, 1996, 81-93), he is left
to contend that “Collective identity is not ‘out there’, waiting to be discovered. What is ‘out
there’ is identity discourse on the political leaders, intellectuals and countless others, who
engage in the process of constructing, negotiating, manipulating or affirming a response to
the demand…” *McSweeney, 1999, 77-78].
Great insight into the construction of identity provides Lene Hansen in her case study
Security as Practise: Discourse Analysis and the Bosnian War [Hansen, 2006] where she
engages a number of possible identity constructions. She explores the discursive
construction of Self-identity and compares it with construction of Other-identity which then
helps us to understand how different identities are constructed within discourse. Hansen’s
work will be a key to understanding the securitisation of immigration in the UK as many
securitising actors try to invoke the threat to the national ‘British’ identity with increasing
immigration as we will see further below. Furthermore, a set of studies published in Global
Migration, Ethnicity and Britishness [ed. Tarqi Modood, John Salt, 2011] focusing on the
migration into the UK and how different ethnics and cultures feel about British identity.
Identity is a central focus in the debate over immigration as the majority of immigrants
comes from a different cultural background bringing new customs and traditions which, in
the current multiculturalist environment, can survive despite being remote from their
country of origin (viz Muslim areas in Birmingham). This might then create anxiety amongst
the native British population who can see their unique identity diminishing.
The discourse analysis requires an in-depth review not only of governmental policies,
ministry officials, campaigns of political parties and articles or speeches of the influential
individuals within the country’s elite, but also of the public media including newspapers, TV
programmes, electronic media and so on. Discourse is usually managed through the most
popular communication channels which can deliver news or message to millions of people
within seconds which is why it’s very important to monitor and analyse the stream of
information that we’re being exposed to through public and social media. As Stuart Croft
1
More on the critique of Copenhagen School approach to societal security and identity see for example T.
Theiler (Socieal Security and Social psychology, 2003), Claire Wilkinson (Copenhagen School on Tour in
Kyrgystan, 2007) or Bill McSweeney (Idenitty and Security: Buzan and the Copenhagen School, 1996).

14. 14
argues, “it matters when a Prime Minister makes a securitizing move. But it also matters
when major newspapers, religious figures and cultural commentators do so.” *Croft, 2012,
82]. The discourse analysis will utilise primary sources such as discussions in the parliament,
politicians’ public speeches and other statements. The media play an important part in the
analysis as they are the essential communication tool for securitising actors.
Part of the study will therefore focus on the media and the type of language being
used in relation to immigration. Language and the rhetoric of the securitising actors are
particularly important as there are certain implications with different language. Work of
Christopher Hart [2011] is very useful to provide basis for language analysis. Publicly
accessible media will be used and referenced throughout the work to document the public
discourse, the type of actors which feature in the media and the amount of space they are
provided within the communications channels. It is very important to analyse the discourse
as the securitising actors which are provided with more space will be more powerful in terms
of affecting the public opinion. Powerful securitising actors “have a power base of privileged
access to scarce social resources, such as force, money, status, fame, knowledge,
information, ‘culture,’ or indeed various forms of public discourse and communication,” as
argued by van Dijk in his study of Critical Discourse Analysis [1999]. It should be quite clear
those actors that have access to this power base possess more power and influence to
securitise an issue for the pubic than actors accessing limited or none of the power base.
1.4 The scope
This discourse analysis will focus only on the securitisation of immigration in the
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The analysis will review mostly
speeches and literature from 2014 to keep the analysis as contemporary as possible and also
to reiterate the topicality of the issue. One might argue that many countries in Europe
experience problems with immigrants and asylum seekers. The French Front National party
for example has become the third biggest political party largely thanks to their agenda
around immigration and preserving French values within the society. We can observe a
similar scenario in Holland with Geert Wilders’ Party for Freedom and in Belgium or Demark
with the Flemish Block and the Danish People’s Party respectively. Interestingly, these anti-

15. 15
immigration parties generally enjoy better success in the European parliamentary elections
rather than in national elections which only further prove the point that immigration will be
politicised in the European Parliament and that the centre of this analysis should be Europe
as a whole rather than one specific country.
There are a few problems with considering European Union as a case example for
securitisation of any issue. Not taking into the consideration the sheer size of the analysis
which would exceed the limit imposed on this thesis, and only focus on the analytical issues,
one would have to conclude that the analysis would suffer from incoherence and would
greatly differentiate depending on the area of the European Union. Firstly, different
countries or regions within the EU would perceive immigration in different terms. For
example, Romania would probably not consider immigration into European Union as a major
threat to their identity or economy in the same way that France or Norway would, possibly
quite in the opposite terms. Romania might benefit from receiving educated international
labour, which could help local economy. In addition, obtaining a more International and
multi-ethnic identity, Romania might attract more international companies to invest in the
country. Secondly, powers of European Union towards immigration policies of individual
states are still not clearly defined, especially towards immigrants from outside of the EU. An
official EU immigration report admits that “it is impossible to come up with reasonable
proposals for European labour-migration policy” and that “approaches to migration level are
more securitarian than those of Members States, who have the luxury of a comprehensive
approach” *Weinar, 2011, 3+. Simply put, the European Union is too large an entity for the
comprehensive discourse analysis and it does not possess the necessary powers compared
to the executive branch of the member states. There are too many potentially securitising
actors with different reasoning and too many referent objects which would make any
tangible conclusions extremely difficult.
To choose a smaller administrative unit than a state, for example a province or a city
would rid the issue of too many actors and referent objects; however it would only
exacerbate the problem with powers of the executive powers of the local authority. In the
UK, as well as in any other EU member state, local authorities possess little to no power over
immigration policies and despite the possibility of an issue being securitised locally, it could

16. 16
not ever be fully securitised based on the local securitisation process i.e. becoming a
national issue which can only be prevented with special measures or policies.
The United Kingdom as a unit was chosen for several reasons. Firstly, the UK was one
of the first countries who allowed immigration from the New Commonwealth (Caribbean,
India, and Pakistan) immediately after the Second World War and continued long into the
60s and 70s. The increase in immigration continued to over a million people arriving to
United Kingdom over the course of every 5 years since 1975 with apparent quickening pace
in the new century [Tarqi Modood, 2011, 16]. Since the expansion of the European Union
and the Schengen area, UK, as a developed country and one of the financial centres of the
world, has been an attractive destination for economic migrants from new European
members from Eastern Europe.
Alongside this, many British people have migrated over the last decades to the US,
Australia and other countries and regions all over the world [Tarqi Modood, 2011, 16].
Therefore demonstrating that the UK has a rich history and experience in migration of
people ‘in and out’ which makes it a good case example for the study of policies around
immigration and in establishing a public discourse. Additionally, David Cameron in December
2014 announced quite a radical step in the UK’s immigration policy with the intention of
imposing quotas on immigrants and limiting the access to welfare benefits for the short term
migrants. This was not accepted with great pleasure in the European Union. It has resulted in
a greater tension regarding immigration than ever before between the UK and the EU
making UK even more attractive case for securitisation analysis.
1.4.Structure
The first chapter is dedicated to introducing immigration and the context within
which the analysis takes place. It is vital to understand the complications and circumstances
which are not specific to UK but encompass several states within Europe. The anti-
immigration mood is spreading across the region and is slowly becoming interpreted as a
security issue. The argument is not that immigration has been fully securitised and that is
has become a security issue even though some actors present it as such as we will see

17. 17
below. The argument is that immigration is currently being securitised by several actors and
that it can potentially become a security issue.
The second chapter focuses on immigration debate within the government and on
the wider political platform. The intent to describe the political discussion in the parliament
of the United Kingdom, as well in the general political arena, and to reveal the most active
securitising actors and which communication channels they tend to use. I will also elaborate
on the legitimacy the actors possess in public which is of a crucial importance when
assessing securitisation.
In the third chapter, the analysis will focus on the attention of the popular media and
other public sources of information towards immigration. The media plays an important role
in setting the discourse and is still extremely influential on public opinion. The media will be
examined irrespective of its political preference and across the whole political spectrum to
understand the full political discourse presented via the media. Chapter 4 then concludes
the study and reassesses the theoretical base chosen for this analysis. It will be understood
how the securitisation aided us to understand the increasing importance of the issue. The
conclusion also reveals whether immigration is being truly securitised by the leading political
and public figures. The role of the media is also put into the context with other securitising
actors and further consequences of the securitisation are discussed.

18. 18
2. Securitisation within the UK political spectrum
In the following sections, the analysis will focus on different securitising actors. Buzan
provides useful guidance as who these securitising actors might be. Although it could be anyone,
“who performs the security speech act,… Common players in this role are political leaders,
bureaucracies, governments, lobbyists, and pressure groups“[Buzan et al, 1998, 40]. The spectrum of
the securitising actors, however, is indefinite in the current environment of viral tools and networks.
Amongst the important ones undoubtedly belong the media, think-tanks, non-governmental
organisations and religious leaders. Nevertheless, as argued by Rita Floyd, “most securitisations are
still performed by state actors, as these – unlike most other securitizing actors – have the capabilities
to make securitisations happen“ [Floyd, 2007, 41]. This chapter will focus on the securitising actors
within the UK political spectrum with a greater focus on the individuals and groups within the current
government.
Members of Parliament (MPs) and high governmental officials have a high level of persuasive
power towards the general public when it comes to securitising matters. That is due to two facts.
Firstly, they possess legitimacy provided by the voters in the regular elections. The politician can
therefore claim a right to speak on behalf of people who voted for him. This mandate then strongly
resonates with the wider public. Politician’s speeches and statements also obtain a new level of
respect in the public forum. Secondly, their expertise and previous career experience further
increase their legitimacy in the given sector. This applies especially to the Government Ministers
where they are considered as being the ultimate authority within the ministry and its remit. When
there is a public debate regarding immigration, for example, the statement from the Minister for
Immigration will have more weight than words of a Minister for Transport or of a Minister of Health.
The expertise of the individual might be constructed with receiving the mandate rather than a
legitimate specialism in the area. The case of George Osborne, the Chancellor of Exchequer or Michal
Fallon, the Defence Secretary, might serve as examples. Provided with this legitimacy and expertise –
proven or supposed – governmental officials and Members of Parliament possess great securitising
powers. Their statements and activity therefore need to be closely analysed with regards to the
impact on the general public.

19. 19
2.1.Conservative Party
The Conservative party who won the last parliamentary election and formed a governing
coalition with Liberal Democrats seems to have a clear approach and goal towards immigration. The
Conservatives campaigned for “cutting net immigration from outside the EU to levels not seen since
the late 1990s” in order to “ease the pressure on the schools and hospitals that all hardworking
taxpayers rely on” [Conservatives, 2014]. The levels of net immigration that the Conservative party
would like to achieve fluctuate between approximately 70,000 in 1995 to approximately 150,000 in
2000 [ONS, 2014]. The leader of the conservatives and the British Prime Minister, David Cameron
than later added that “We would like to see net immigration in the tens of thousands rather than the
hundreds of thousands. I don’t think that’s unrealistic” *The Telegraph, 2010+. The goal of the
conservatives is therefore to reduce the net migration2
to tens of thousands which means cutting
immigration by 70%.
The interesting part is the reasoning for the decrease which is to “ease the pressure on
schools and hospitals that all hardworking taxpayers rely on”. It is clearly implied that the pressure
on schools and hospitals is caused by the immigrants. Due to the high immigration, hardworking
taxpayers might not necessary have the quick and easy access to those services as they were used to.
We can disregard the fact whether immigrants pay taxes or not and focus on the securitising aspect
of the policy. The problem highlighted by David Cameron is that schools and hospitals are not able to
cope with many requests for registrations they receive. Especially overcrowded hospitals can create
serious issues for local residents with possible delay of the treatment which can invoke concerns
about one’s physical health.
David Cameron also gave the long-awaited speech on immigration on 28th
November 2014 in
a JCB factory in Brussels which was marked as ‘potentially historic’ by Tim Stanley from The
Telegraph [Telegraph, 2014]. In the speech, David Cameron urged that people who trivialize
immigration “have never waited on a social housing list or found that their child’s classroom is
overcrowded or felt that their community has changed too fast” *Spectator, 2014]. He repeated
some of the concerns that were mentioned above, but added an important one which is the
changing community. Many parts of Britain have changed in terms of its social and cultural structure.
2
Net migration is the measure of the net flow of migrants into or out of a country. Put simply, it
is the difference between immigration and emigration: the number of people moving to live in
a particular country minus the number of people moving out of that country to live elsewhere.
If more people are arriving than leaving, net migration is a positive number, which means net
immigration. If more people are leaving than arriving, net migration is a negative number,
which means net emigration. (Library of House of Commons, Migration Statistics, p4. Available on
www.parliament.uk; [Accessed: 01/01/2015]

20. 20
The immigrants can change the community with their language, social behaviour, religion and other
cultural customs. The British identity in those communities is said to be in danger because of the
immigrants. The separation of the British identity against the ‘immigrant’ identity creates a clear
division between British and the other without defining what the ‘other’ identity is.
It is not, though, the first time that a leading politician raised the foreign identity in the UK as
a problem. Very interesting is, for example, work of Uberoi, Meer, Modood and Dwyer, where the
authors argue that “leading politicians and journalists conceive and portray some Muslims as having
difficulty feeling and being British” *Modood, 2011, 219+. This work has analysed how the different
identities were magnified by the 7/7 terrorist attack in London. In Cameron’s words, this problem is
being generalized towards all immigrants in an attempt to alien them from the rest of the British
population. He went on saying “there are primary schools where dozens of languages are spoken
with only a small minority speaking English as their first language” *Spectator, 2014+ highlighting
again the problem of the language being important part of the British identity which immigrants
failed to adopt.
David Cameron in the same speech also pointed out more urgent and severe issue which is
directly related to individual’s health and physical security. He said: “There are hospitals where
maternity units are under great pressure because birth rates have increased dramatically” *Ibid+. It is
a serious issue if pregnant women cannot receive the service needed in such a sensitive situation. It
invokes a strong feeling of personal insecurity especially amongst young women but amongst the
whole population too. One in four children was born to an immigrant in 2013 according to the Office
for National Statistics [ONS, 2014]. The link between the current situation in the maternity units and
increasing immigration is therefore obvious. David Cameron’s speeches clearly attempts to invoke a
personal experience in the public with these issues and by creating a link between immigration and
the capacity of the hospitals; he generates the feeling amongst the public that immigrants are the
cause of the potential physical insecurity of pregnant women. This is a sensitive security matter to
families and whole communities which is being used to securitise immigration [Spectator, 2014].
David Cameron and his government have been very active during their time in power with
regards to the immigration agenda which culminated by issuing the Immigration Act in 2014. The
objective of the bill was clearly expressed by the Home Secretary, Theresa May, during the second
reading at the House of Commons on 22nd October 2013: “Our objective remains to reduce annual
net migration to the tens of thousands by the end of the Parliament, and we must also reform
immigration system that manages the flow of migrants in and out of the UK” [Parliament, Commons
debates, 22/10/2013]. The government therefore implicitly signals that immigration could potentially

21. 21
be a problem to the UK. By setting the objective to reduce the annual net migration, the government
is sending a clear message that high levels of immigration can be potentially harmful to the UK. The
bill was introduced in an expedited manner which was noticed by the MP Simon Hughes (Liberal
Democrat – LD), who inquired about the reason for such an urgent action to approve the bill. Mrs.
May then responded:
“…the Government want to bring forward legal and policy framework proposals to
make sure that we can deliver for people in this country a fair approach on immigration,
which ensures that those who come here and stay here and use our public services
contribute and that those who are here illegally can be removed more quickly.“
[Parliament, Commons debates, 22/10/2013].
While stressing the fair approach on immigration, the Home Secretary points out the real
reasons behind the urgency of the bill which are the exploitation of the public services by legal
immigrants, putting pressure on the economy as well, and stay of the illegal immigrants who can
cause potentially various problems. The legislation also simplifies the process of the appeal process
against Home Office decisions to deny visa, in order to cut the abuse and not to delay deportation of
the illegal immigrants. Furthermore and amongst other newly accepted novelties, landlords are
asked to conduct checks on their tenants who need to prove their right to stay in the UK before
acquiring accommodation. While this bill, including the surrounding parliamentary discussion, might
not be directly securitising immigration because it is not aimed at the referent object – general
public, it clearly sets the scene and mood of the parliament in 2013. Just the fact, that there was a
need for a new Immigration Act shows that there is a potential threat which needs to be dealt with.
The bill was given the Royal Assent on 14th
May 2014.
The problems associated with immigration were described in more detail by Conservative MP
Mr. Stewart Jackson. Mr Jackson, when speaking about immigration, stated that,
“In my constituency (Peterborough), with 34,000 national insurance numbers created
for eastern European migrants in just seven years, a tripling in the number of GP
registrations, and 19 schools with more than 40% of children speaking English as an
additional language. Those are real pinch points in different geographical areas across
the country.” (Parliament, Commons debates, 22/10/2013)
We can see a clear reference here to two key areas where immigration can threaten the UK.
The immigrants from Eastern Europe in Peterborough are said to be putting additional pressure on
the local GPs which can have negative impact on the medical services. Increasing number of

22. 22
registrations at the medical centres can overwhelm the capacity of the medical staff and delay a
treatment for patients. Delay of a treatment in some cases can be perceived as a major issue and can
become a public concern as has been the case with the specialist referrals for anxiety and depression
[The Guardian, 2014c]. In addition to compromising the access to the healthcare for local residents,
immigrants according to MP Mr. Jackson also fail to fully assume the British identity with treating
English as not their primary language. Language, being a core element of every identity, can have an
alienating effect on the group or a community. The societal cohesion is therefore threatened and the
identity can be perceived as being threatened as well by the arrival of a new foreign language along
with the immigrants. The security within the societal sector can therefore be perceived as
jeopardised.
Michael Fallon, the Conservative Defence Secretary, went even further than his fellow party
member Mr. Jackson, by saying that “whole towns and communities are being swamped by huge
numbers of migrant workers” and that “in some areas of the UK, towns do feel under siege with large
numbers of migrant workers and people claiming benefits.” [Sky NEWS, Murnaghan, 2014a]. The
language used by Mr. Fallon quickly became a hot topic within the public and some compared the
phrase used with the rhetoric of Margaret Thatcher in the 1978 regarding Asian migrants. The
Defence Secretary later apologised calling his remarks as ‘careless’. *Independent, 2014+
Nevertheless, he further stood by his point by saying that “there is pressure now, pressure on
communities, on school places, on housing, on public services by the huge increase in immigration
particularly from other European countries” *Independent, 2014a]. We can see similar securitising
rhetoric from as we have seen at Mr. Jackson invoking security pressures in economic and societal
sector.
Mr. Fallon’s speech act, however, could have more securitising effect than that of Mr.
Jackson, because Mr. Fallon was speaking on the national television on a Sunday night show called
Murnaghan whereas Mr. Jackson talked to the House of Commons which was not broadcasted in the
television or published in any of the major newspaper. Whilst the debates in House of Commons are
publicly accessible, they were not provided to the viewer or reader. On the other hand, remarks of
Mr. Fallon were subsequently mentioned in several newspapers and in other media which further
intensified the securitising speech act. Hundreds of thousands of people, if not millions, therefore
read and understood that a senior member of the Conservative party believes European migrants
‘swamp’ British towns and communities. The programme and the communicational channel are
extremely important in securitisation because it obviously has a bigger securitising effect if the
audience is wider.

23. 23
Philip Davies, another Conservative MP and a member of Better Of Out campaign for leaving
EU, also stressed the main issues that come with immigration during a debate in House of Commons.
He asked Mike Penning, The Minister for Policing, Criminal Justice and Victims:
“Does the Minister accept that we cannot cope culturally with immigration at these levels?
Does he agree that the NHS cannot cope with immigration levels of this magnitude? Does he accept
that we cannot provide the school places fast enough and that we cannot build the houses needed
for this level of immigration? We would have to build an entire Bradford district every two years to
keep up and it is ridiculous to think that that is possible in any way. Does the Minister accept that?”
[UK Parliament, House of Commons debates, 22nd
October 2013]
Mr. Davies repeated some of the concerns already mentioned above by his fellow colleagues
including crowded hospitals and schools but more importantly, yet again, the societal security of
culture and identity was brought up. It is understood, that with more immigration, the communities
change depending on the government’s policy towards immigration.
The UK has long been the proponent of multiculturalist policy, which according to Modood
[2011, 44] “is different from integration because it recognizes the social reality of groups”. In other
words, the policy allows different immigrant groups to retain their culture whilst in the hosting
country. If there are high numbers of immigrants of a certain culture different from the local culture,
local residents might find immigration as threatening to their culture and shared identity. Therefore,
some politicians will position immigration as threatening the identity of the local residents and
threatening their sense of cultural security.
This section analysed and revealed securitising actors within the Conservative party. Some
members of the Conservative party, including David Cameron, have been publicly speaking about
immigration and the related issues with little hesitance. Mr Cameron, given his position as a leader of
the party, spoke publicly on behalf of his party and the securitising speech acts could be found in his
statements. As a Prime Minister, his words have a great securitising power towards the public and he
has been using the securitising language in the past few months more intensively than before. Also,
the Home Secretary Mrs. Theresa May pointed at some security issues during the Commons debate
regarding the new government’s Immigration Act. Both David Cameron and Theresa May are high
government officials representing the population of the whole UK and their statements and
speeches, as mentioned above, possess a great deal of securitising effect.

24. 24
The areas that are being securitised by the Conservative party remain perhaps unsurprisingly
consistent across the different MPs. In all of the examples, the biggest concern were the
overcrowded hospitals and schools which were being securitised as a threat the individuals physical
security – in the case of the hospitals – and threat to the one’s economic and societal status in the
case of the schools overcrowded with immigrants. Another important security issue raised by almost
all of the Conservative MPs mentioned was the cultural problem with the immigrants. Although, they
all were very careful not to mention any specific problem which could set the voters against them,
we could sense what they were implying. Language was the most common problem mentioned in
the securitising speeches as well as the general cultural change of the communities to a more diverse
environment.
2.2.Labour Party
Labour Party received a lot of criticism from the MPs regarding their immigration policy
during the years 2005 to 2010 when Labour was at power. The Home Secretary Theresa May called
immigration system under Labour ‘chaotic’ and ‘dysfunctional’ and that the ‘Labour Government
were interested in immigration in the wrong way’ [UK Parliament, House of Commons debates, 22nd
October 2013]. Another Conservative MP, David Ruffley called the Labour open-door immigration
policy ‘shocking’ *UK Parliament, House of Commons debates, 22nd
October 2013]]. The party,
perhaps surprisingly, admitted that. From the Labour official website: “Labour got things wrong on
immigration in the past” *Labour, 2014+ but adding that “Ed Miliband has set out a new approach:
controlling immigration and controlling its impacts on local communities”. Labour party agree with
the Conservatives that immigration bring a change along to the communities and immigration needs
to be controlled which is a centre of Cameron’s policy as well.
However, while Conservatives are mostly securitising immigration, Labour party are
defending fair immigration and would like to tackle illegal immigration and exploitation of
immigrants as announced by the shadow Home Secretary, Yvette Cooper [LabourPress, 2014]. She
announced the new Labour approach towards immigration in April 2014, shortly after immigration
Act was given Royal Assent. Labour recognizes different types of immigration and to the party
supports those immigrants that come to work and pay taxes legally along with fee paying
international students which bring further experience to the country.
Labour also stressed the importance of immigrants to speak decent English but this
requirement is more driven by the fact that non-speaking immigrants are being exploited at work,
rather than it being a security issue. Yvette Cooper said: “No-one living here should be excluded from

25. 25
the mainstream of society and the world of work by being unable to speak English” *Labour, 2014+. In
this speech, considered to set the official Labour approach towards immigration, there was no
mention of either type of security being threatened by immigration. The official Labour policy
admitted that immigration needs to be controlled and limited, but not due to national or individual’s
security being in danger. In a different statement, Yvette Cooper stated:
“Labour has already announced plans to stop recruitment agencies and employers exploiting
immigration to undercut wages and jobs, longer waiting periods for out of work benefits, reform so
that in-work benefits aren’t available until someone has contributed and action to stop child benefit
being sent abroad, so the system is more fair. In place of broken promises we need sensible plans.”
[Labour Press, 2014].
There are some members of the Labour party, however, which consider immigration as a
serious threat. The Great Grimsby Labour MP, Austin Mitchell, spoke about the opening of the UK
borders to Romania and Bulgaria with some concern. He said: “…In the immediate term a sudden
increase is a threat to both employment and public services. It has got to be managed so people can
accept it" [Grimsby Telegraph, 2014]. He refers to the overuse of public services, as did many
Conservative MPs but he also mentions the change to the employment rates that would immigration
bring. Increased number of immigrants obviously strengthens the labour market and hardens the job
acquisition for anyone on the market. It is therefore inevitable, that the employment of locals will
decrease at least by a minor percentage because of the increased pressure on the labour market
caused by the immigrants. It can have a direct impact on the economical and societal security, if a
person is unable to find a job; it impacts his/her economic situation and putting a financial pressure
on him/her. Worsening economic situation of local residents can have also a negative impact on their
social status.
We hear Labour arguing that ‘European migration creates additional challenges’ *Labour,
2014+ and that ‘employers *are+ exploiting cheap migrant labour to undercut local wages and jobs’
[Labour Immigration Leaflet] but most of these concerns are aimed at the politicians to deal with
rather than at the public and their security. Labour party were long considered as without a policy on
immigration after admitting that they’ve ‘got it wrong in the past’ and despite recent speeches from
the current shadow Home Secretary on immigration, the party don’t seem to consider immigration
as a security threat to the UK public.

26. 26
2.3. Liberal Democrats
Liberal democrats formed a governing coalition with the Conservative party after the UK
national elections in 2010 and can claim a fair share on the policies that the Conservatives have
introduced including the Immigration Act. With regards to their view on immigration and despite to
the recent criticism for their previous policies and behaviour, Liberal Democrats seem to be a lot
closer to the Labour party than to the Conservatives. As their name suggests, Liberal Democrats
advocate a very liberal approach to public affairs and immigration is no exception. They support open
and welcoming Britain and appreciate the benefits immigrants brought to the country in the past,
but agree that immigration needs to be more controlled than in the past [Liberal Democrats, 2014].
Liberal Democrats defend more intensive control of the borders mostly to stop “people
breaking the rules” *Ibid+. The concern from the party is then that immigrants will engage in the
criminal activity. The leader of the Liberal Democrats, Nick Clegg, agreed in his speech on
immigration in August 2014 that “successful immigration needs to be managed” but stressing the
wish to “retain the open character of our economy and the generous spirit of our society” *Liberal
Democrats, 2014b]. In the same speech, he expressed the desire to “marry our ideals about the
open, welcoming Britain we love with the realities of running an effective immigration system”. From
the securitising arguments that have been mentioned so many times but Conservative MPs such as
pressure on public services or communities, Nick Clegg mentioned only on language saying that
“everyone who wants to settle in Britain should speak English”. Unlike his colleagues from the
Conservative party though, he did not positioned the language as a security problem to the local
public. Instead, he urged for governmental support of the language courses for immigrants to
provide better conditions for their integration into the society.
Liberal Democrats to confirm that the immigration is an important issue for the party, issued
a policy paper 116 called ‘Making Migration Work for Britain’ *Liberal Democrats, 2014+. They
understand that underpaid immigrants present a threat to the low skilled UK workers which they
struggle to find a job. [Ibid, 16] Social cohesion is also mentioned as an issue that the party needs to
deal with. It says, that “in some places the impact of immigration on communities is real, with non-
migrants worried that those settling in the UK don’t share their language, culture or beliefs” *Ibid,
53]. It is more of an acknowledgement of a general understanding of a threat rather than active
securitisation move. The paper then further elaborates on the people migration and what is the ideal
policy for Britain to benefit from immigration. It stresses that “Economic migration is vital to building
a stronger economy. The Office of Budget Responsibility estimated that a net migration rate of

27. 27
250,000 per year boosts annual GDP by 0.5%”. Liberal Democrats see immigration as a potential
benefit to the UK rather than a threat and the language they use in public.
In general, Liberal Democrats follow the classic liberal approach towards immigration which
stresses the importance of the free movement and the benefits for the hosting country. Whilst they
agree that immigration brings challenges along, they do not attempt to securitise these challenges.
The party rather points out to the benefits that immigration can generate and highlights the gaps
that limited immigration would create.
2.4. United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP)
Unlike the parties mentioned above, United Kingdom Independence Party does not have a
single MP in the House of Commons. UKIP members do not have any impact on the policies adopted
or drafted by the government. Despite that fact, the party has been given a lot of publicity in the
media over the last few years. It was reported by the Telegraph, that increasing popularity forced
Ofcom – an independent regulator and competition authority for the UK communications industries
– to rule the broadcasters to provide UKIP with same amount of broadcasts and news coverage in the
2015 elections as the major parties in the UK [The Telegraph, 2014a]. This may have been caused by
the victory in the European elections in 2014 and but the subsequent raise in the voting preferences
were at least partially driven by the party’s immigration policy.
UKIP’s leader Nigel Farage is renowned for his criticism of the government’s approach to
European Union, especially regarding immigration. Part of the policy announced by Farage is a denial
of immigrants to access any public benefits such as tax credits, unemployment benefits or public
housing [Independent, 2014a]. This would ease the financial pressures on the British government but
it is not being presented straight forward as a security issue. Mr. Farage went on saying: “In terms of
immigration, in terms of people coming to settle, I would suggest that for up to a five-year period we
don't have people coming to settle until we sort out the mess“ [Independent, 2014a]. The party
sends a clearly negative point across the audience if the leader calls a situation in the country a
‘mess’. Since this ‘mess’ was caused by the immigrants, the public can only develop a negative notion
about immigration. Whilst the public feel that immigration can’t be good for them, it is still not being
securitised in the strong sense.
However, Mr. Farage publicly used also a stronger language towards immigration. On the
UKIP’s spring conference in Torquay, Mr. Farage said that “parts of the country had been ‘taken over’
by foreigners” and that “the arrival of migrants has some British people feeling that parts of the
country are now alien to them” *cited in The Telegraph, 2014+. It is more concerning for the ordinary

28. 28
British citizen to hear that his country is being ‘taken over’ and that they would feel like strangers in
their own country. The security of identity of a British citizen is therefore threatened directly by
immigration. By invoking the feeling of alienation amongst people, Nigel Farage creates an
environment full of insecurity and discomfort so the citizens will attempt to protect their identity.
He further added:
"This country in a short space of time has frankly become unrecognisable [because of
immigration]. Whether it is the impact on local schools and hospitals, whether it is the fact in many
parts of England you don't hear English spoken anymore.” *Ibid+
There are three, closely linked but different, security threats mentioned in the speech. Firstly,
the securitising actor points out that the country has changed and became ‘unrecognisable’ to the
locals. The changing environment could be something very concerning to the public and especially
older generations might be concerned about the influx of the immigrants changing the communities.
Secondly, there is the argument about the impact of immigration on the schools and hospitals and
despite there’s no explicit reason mentioned in the speech, it can be assumed that the problem
implied is the hospitals and schools being full due to the suddenly increasing population. Lastly, Nigel
Farage expressed deep concern over the fact that English is not spoken in the public space enough
which again threatens an individual’s identity as British citizen. English language is an inseparable
element of the British language and the lack of it is therefore a threatening the identity of British
people.
Not only can immigration be seen as a threat to the British identity and public sector, but it
also has a negative impact on the societal cohesion as confirmed by the UKIP leader. Mr Farage
thinks that "it's [immigration] done great damage to the cohesion of our society and the well-being
of working people in this country" [Ibid]. Here the threat to the society is clearly expressed.
Immigration, which the party wants to limit and strictly control, harms the cohesion of the society
which needs to be preserved according to the UKIP leader.
The societal aspect is very important to the UKIP as confirmed by their leader in another
interview on BBC 4 Today programme [BBC4, 2014]. Nigel Farage said in the interview that he’d
“rather not be richer and would rather had communities that felt more united” and adding that “I do
think that the social side of this matters more than pure market economics”. There is an
acknowledgement of problematic consequences in both areas. The societal security however seems
to be on a higher ranking that the economic security.

29. 29
2.5.British National Party
Groups and political parties that usually receive a marginal amount of votes in the national
elections can use a stronger and more distinctive programme and language in the public than the
mainstream parties usually do. These parties operate usually on one of the ends of the political
spectrum. That is the case of the British National Party (BNP).
The British National Party commonly refers to immigration as ‘invasion’ of the UK and
considers immigration as a great threat to the public as well as the country [British National Party,
2014b+. The official manifest of the party claims that “immigration threatens to extinguish all of our
(UK) traditions and culture” *Ibid+. The party, in a very obvious way, securitise the immigration as a
threat to the UK culture. The party predicts that the ‘indigenous British people will soon become a
minority in the UK’ and support the claim with an extensive list of data about immigrants and their
impact on the culture. The societal security of the UK people plays a primary role in the BNP
programme and the economic consequences are being given a secondary meaning.
The difference between the BNP and other mainstream parties, when it comes to
securitisation, is that BNP being a marginal player in the political arena does not receive the same
amount of publicity as the other big parties. Despite their strongly securitising moves, the actual
effect of securitisation is a not as strong as if the same language was used by the Prime Minister or
one of his ministers.
The securitising actors in the UK are positioned mainly on the right wing within the political
spectrum with some individuals stressing the problems with immigration also from the Labour and
Liberal Democrats. Conservative party members, including the Prime Minister David Cameron, along
with the UKIP politicians have been the most active securitising actors in the UK political
environment. Arguments have been largely based around two big topics. First, there is a potential
threat presented to the physical security of individuals by highlighting the problems with hospitals
and maternity units that can’t cope under the increasing pressures caused by the immigrants. The
image, that the physical health of the citizens might be compromised due to immigration is very
concerning. Second, the identity of the British people is changing. The societal issue of immigrants
speaking other languages than English is also being put forward as a threat to the local communities.
Schools that have large proportions of children speaking foreign language as their first language is
positioned as a threat to the traditional British identity based around English language. Language,

30. 30
along with culture and sense of history are all crucial elements of each identity and the sustainability
of the community within which the identity is kept, is vital to survival of that identity [Waever et al,
1993, 52]. Immigration is also damaging the social cohesion of Great Britain and therefore the
national identity is either changing or fading away.
There were also other issues raised in the securitisation efforts such as the economic issues
and employment of the British public which is being hurt by immigration too. The economic
insecurity was not explicitly mentioned in any of the speech acts, but the audience understands that
the consequences of immigration on the labour market are not going to be positive. All of these
security concerns add to the perception that the society can become unstable and could collapse.
Stretching the capacity of these institutions can negatively affect the government in its ability to
govern [Waever et al, 1993, 162). Economic and institutional problem can over time lead to
government losing the legitimacy to govern and start a political turmoil.
The referent object in all of the above cases was the general British public gut only the
citizens of Great Britain, not all the people living in Britain. People of other nationalities that already
live in the UK are part of the issue that is being securitised. The actors made clear that they act in the
interest of their citizens and against the immigrants from other countries. Securitising actors were
very careful not to highlight any specific country, religion or culture which they would argue against
and securitise immigration of their people in particular. Conscious of the possible diplomatic problem
with other international actors, the leaders were mostly securitising ‘immigration’ as a phenomenon,
rather than any nation or culture.
The societal security sector was identified to be one of the sectors were the UK political elite
is securitising immigration. The society is essentially about identity, the self-conception of
communities and those who identify themselves as members of a particular community [Waever,
1995, 67]. Since immigrants are considered by the political elite to be ‘changing’ the communities,
they identify themselves with a different society to the one hosting them. Local residents perceive
the immigration as an extensive threat to their society which they’ve been living for decades.

31. 31
3. Securitising media and public elite
Media and its influence on the public opinion has been a subject of much research and it is
well understood that media is a key instrument in shaping the public opinion [Mendelsohn and
Nadeau, 1996]. The Guardian reported an interesting study on immigrants and the number of
headlines published in media. Beside the fact that the number of headlines increased almost for all
studied immigrant groups with the exception of Bangladeshis, an interesting fact was discovered
about the correlation. Romania and Bulgaria, despite having the lowest number of immigrants in to
the UK, led the ranking of the number of headlines with some distance [Guardian, 2014a]. Every
newspaper in the UK increased the number of headlines of articles about these two nationalities by
325% whilst the actual immigration from these two countries rose just by 35%. Whilst it is not clear
whether the articles about Romanians and Bulgarians were positive or negative, but it represents the
amount of publicity that immigration receives throughout the media despite the real threat.
There is a wide range of the media channels through with the securitisation can take place.
For the purpose of the discourse analysis, it is not important whether we analyse a popular or a
quality media but it is important to understand which newspaper or TV programme has the largest
audience. Having the largest audience provides the media with a higher securitising power as there
are more people that can be influenced with the content and language of the media. The television
broadcasters operate under a very strict broadcasting code which does not allow them to explicitly
and openly securitise issues on behalf of the programme itself and mostly refrain from such speech
acts. The television programmes mostly paraphrase or quote other public figures and rarely come
with own investigations that would make the securitising effect. The focus of the following section
will therefore be mainly on the UK newspapers and magazines.
There is a large number of newspapers sold and read every day in the UK. It is not useful to
analyse newspapers or magazines which are only sold regionally or do not sell nationally enough
copies. The analysis will focus on the major newspapers that are being read the most as per the
National Readership Survey of the newspaper and its dedicated website combined [NRS, Readership
and Circulation, 2014].
3.1.The Media
The Sun is with over 16 million copies printed every month in the UK one of the best sold
newspaper across the country. The newspaper pledged support to Conservative Party in 2010

32. 32
elections and is considered generally to support conservative views on the society. With its
sensationalist content and red headlines, it aims to attract and shock readers, which makes it
perhaps even more suitable medium for securitisation.
The Sun is arguably a most active medium in the securitisation of the immigration. Their
conservative views often clash with the rules of the European Union of free movement and trade.
The Sun has issued over 850 articles about immigration in 2014 alone which equals to over 2 articles
a day [www.thesun.co.uk]. The number of articles increased substantially compared to years 2013
{496 articles) and 2012 (360). Some of these articles were well in line with the sensationalist agenda
of the tabloid. On 18th
of December 2013 which is the ‘International Migrants Day’, The Sun issued a
front page of the volume with a map of Europe and a thick red line separating the UK from the rest of
the Europe with the headline reading a message to the Prime Minister: “Draw a red line on
immigration or else!” *The Sun, copy of 18/12/2013+. The article referenced a poll where people
urged David Cameron to regain national powers over immigration. The text further warns the Prime
Minister to ‘stop the flood’ of immigrants into Bitain which is ‘overwhelmed’ by the influx.
According to the survey cited in the article, 42% of British citizens consider limiting
immigration an ‘utmost importance’ to the Prime Minister and further 20% thought it should be a
‘major aim’. While the original question in the survey asked the respondents if they’d like to ‘limit the
immigration’, The Sun used stronger language and reported that people want to ‘slam the door on
immigrants’. Furthermore, it was written that ‘immigration is a burning issue’ in the UK politics.
The author of the article highlighted that cities and towns are overwhelmed by the
‘population explosion’ which the ‘small island’ can’t cope with. The issue pointed out in the article is
once again that the hospitals and schools won’t be able to accept the patients and pupils due to high
immigration further associating immigrants with ‘other’ identity against the ‘British’ identity. The
newspaper creates this division between locals and immigrants and it further mobilises people to
take action against the immigration. It is the language in the headlines such as ‘500k new homes
needed to cope with soaring immigration’, ‘immigration often hits the working people of Britain the
hardest’ or ‘Immigration figures show migrants flooding in from EU’ that makes people largely think
of immigration in negative terms. Words and connotations such as ‘soaring immigration’,
immigration hits’ or ‘migrants flooding’ are those that general public immediately have negative
perception about.
Almost all articles in 2014 issued by The Sun had negative connotations of immigrations.
Majority of the headlines invoked a sense of economic insecurity such as ‘Mass immigration hurts
Brits on the lowest incomes’ or ‘Immigration has cost Britain £148billion in last two decades’ [The
Sun, 2014]. The newspaper brought mostly negative economic consequences of immigration rather

33. 33
than positive ones. There is no article or a headline with how much of a capital was brought in by
immigrants or how immigrants in the various jobs help to fill the expertise gaps on the labour
market. Immigration is positioned mainly in the negative terms and economic and societal insecurity
is in direct association with the issue.
The Sun is not the only major newspapers that treat immigration as a major security issue to
the British public. The Daily Mirror, which according to the National Readership Survey has over 12.5
million readers each month, issued 781 articles about immigration in 2014 [www.mirror.co.uk]. The
articles have a mixed connotation and there are positive headlines as well as negative headlines.
Amongst those pointing out on the economic security issues falls also an article written by the
panelist Alec Shelbrook titled: “Why we should be selfish about immigration - and unafraid to talk
about it” *Mirror, 2014]. The article claims that ‘immigration is a major issue for British people today’
and that ‘Europe’s free movement of trade principle has been badly undermined in recent years
through migrants claiming from our welfare system’. It is argued that EU immigrants who come to
the UK put additional pressure on the UK welfare system by having the same rights and privileges as
local residents. That is one of the basic principles of the European Union which undermines the UK
economy supposedly.
Economic burden of immigration is a key issue to both, British public and the government.
The Daily Mirror reported on 22nd
November 2014 that “treating overseas visitors and migrants costs
the NHS an estimated £2 billion a year” under the title ‘Health Tourism: What is the cost to Britain’
[Mirror, 2014a]. Immigrants, who sought treatment under the NHS in the UK has been labelled
‘health tourists’ clearly implying that some of the migrants travelled to Britain only to receive
treatment through the NHS. The definition of the health tourist is helpfully included in the article: “A
'health tourist' is someone who isn’t entitled to free NHS care but who travels to the UK to obtain
treatment.” The costs incurred by the NHS for ‘health tourists’ is estimated to be up to £300 million
which equals to 0.3 per cent of the NHS’s budget. While it can be seen as a small portion of the total
NHS expenditure, it is enough to become a headline on one of the UK’s largest newspapers with a
clear link between immigration and economic costs covered by the taxpayer.
The Daily Mirror also issued a number of articles which defend immigration against all the
securitising attacks. For example, the claim that high level of immigration is pushing local UK
residents out of a labour market has been dismissed in an article citing the head of the National
Institute for Economic and Social Research, Jonathan Portes: “EU migrants don’t appear to have a
negative impact on the employment prospects of natives – several different studies have failed to
show any link.” [Mirror, 2014b]. This statement defies the accusations that immigration is the reason
for economic insecurity of the low-skilled workers. Some of the securitising acts also related to

34. 34
immigrants adding pressure on the welfare system and social benefits. The Daily Mirror published an
article contradicting this claim with a clear headline: ‘EU migrants pay MORE tax to government than
they receive in benefits’ *Mirror, 2014c]. The article quotes a study created by University College
London which revealed that between 2001 and 2011, EU immigrants positively contributed £20
billion and non-EU migrants positively contributed £5 billion to the government’s exchequer. There
are similar types of articles issued on the newspaper’s webpage which mostly defend common myths
about immigration such as higher crime rate, immigrants taking public housing or that immigrants
are overloading the school systems.
The securitisation of immigration does not take place only in the tabloid media, but also in
the media which is considered to be quality media. The Telegraph reports that one in five migrants
from Romania and Bulgaria into the UK is unemployed although being in the working age [The
Telegraph, 2014b]. Bulgarians and Romains were in the centre of the immigration debate in 2013
when it was the last year of the restriction on migrant workers from these two countries. The article
suggests that some of the migrants from Bulgaria and Romania come to the UK not for work, but only
to claim benefits. This claim was then supported by a quote from David Green, director of the think
tank Civitas: “What this shows is that although most of the people who have come here have come
to work, the UK is also an attractive place for people who want to claim benefits and that problem
has not been solved yet.” *The Telegraph, 2014]. Immigrants from these two countries are then
positioned as only gaining from the generosity of the British welfare system without contributing to
the system. This is one of the crucial arguments used by the securitising actors of the governmental
sector as well.
The supposed negative aspect of immigration can be witnessed across different media, not
just in the ‘red top’ tabloids or conservatively thinking newspapers. The Times (2014) issued an
article titled ‘Soaring population is almost entirely fuelled by migrants’ describing how immigrant
population rises in a quicker pace than a British population while The Guardian (2014d) headline
reads ‘Now is the time to slow down immigration’. London’s daily free newspaper Metro [2011]
reports that ‘Fears of immigration (are) highest among UK teenagers and young adults’ quoting a
report that 71% of the young people (below 24 years of age) consider immigration as ‘very big or
fairly big problem’ and finally The Telegraph issue articles with headlines such as ‘Immigration adds a
city a year to Britain’s population’ [2014c] or ‘Britain can’t afford this level of immigration’ [2014d].
The securitisation of the issue is happening throughout all of the media. It is not a domain of
sensationalist newspaper, but also a quality newspaper read every day.

35. 35
3.2.Research groups
Another type of groups or media that can significantly contribute to shaping public discourse
is independent research groups. Research groups can be an important partner and source of
information for other securitising actors by producing reports and briefing which present negatives
effects of immigration and depict it as a threat to the state or local population.
3.2.1. MigrationWatch UK
The most high-profile research group which studies immigration in the UK is arguably
MigrationWatch UK. It is ‘an independent, non-political body’ whose main purpose is to ‘monitor
migration flows to and from the UK’ *MigrationWatch UK, 2014a]. At the level of different research
group, the source data for the research can differ and so can the conclusions. Although it has been
mentioned in this work that immigration does not have any significant effect on the wages of the
local UK residents, MigrationWatch UK reports that “There is mounting evidence that immigration
has had a negative effect on wages at the lower end of the UK labour market” [MigrationWatch UK,
2014b]. The report was then subsequently quoted on BBC’s online article *BBC News, 2014+. In
another report on the fiscal impacts of immigration, MigrationWatch UK argues that migrants are
imposing a high costs on the public spending. The research reports that “migration from 1995 to
2011 had cost the taxpayer £96 billion or about £15 million a day” *MigrationWatch UK, 2014c]. The
overall message that resonates from the group is that economically, immigration is a threat and a
burden to the British public. It is presented as a thread to a particular group of the UK residents
which is the low paid British workers, as well as to the general public given the financial impact on
the government.
MigrationWatch UK strongly opposes any kind of immigration into the UK. Most of the
general public perceive low skilled workers as a threat from economic, societal or political
perspective but not many see inflow of international students as an issue. Students generally
contribute to economy by paying fees and living expenditure. After acquiring their degrees, they
constitute an educated labour force which can be used by the British employers. Despite these
undisputed benefits to the UK economy and society, MigrationWatch UK [MigrationWatch UK,
2014d] argues that many immigrants who come to Britain to study, remain in the country after they
finish their studies further adding to population growth and to the pressure on the public services. In
2013, 50,000 students are estimated to left the country of the total of estimated 156,000 students
that arrived on average every year during the previous five years constituting only one third of the

36. 36
total number according to the MigrationWatch UK. Remaining two thirds of the students after
graduation remained in the UK either or illegally which then can intermingle with the remaining
immigration population and are subjects of the same securitisation acts as other immigrants.
3.2.2. Better of Out group
Better Of Out is a non-party group which campaign for UK to leave the EU and has been
heavily involved in securitisation of immigration. The group has been advocating the benefits for the
independent United Kingdom and stressed several other problems associated with immigration. They
argue in one of their studies that “high rent prices can be attributed to the significant rise in
immigration seen in the South of England since 2004” *Better of Out, 2014+. The group points out the
economic issue with the height of the rent prices and implicitly says that people are struggling to
afford rent in South of England. That clearly suggests that the economic security of people living in
that area can be threatened by the rising prices caused by immigration. In the same study, Better Of
Out also make a prediction that “by 2021, London, which also has the highest levels of immigration,
will need to build the equivalent of eighteen Olympic villages to accommodate the increasing
population” which can only be perceived as a further securitisation attempt to invoke a feeling that
future economic security of the people is in danger.
Politicians, as well as other public figures and well known individuals are supporters of the
group. Some of them, for example Conservatives Mr. Stewart Jackson and Philip Davies or Labour
Austin Mitchell, are Members of the Parliament whilst openly supporting this campaign. The group
has published several reports and research books part of which focuses also on immigration and
restoring the control over UK borders. These MPs are also campaigning to control immigration and
are regularly stressing the issues associated with immigration.
4. Conclusion
Immigrants can be perceived as additional competition on the labour market for the local
work force. Most of the research so far did not prove a negative effect on the wages of the local
residents [Manacorda, Mannin, Wadsworth, 2012]. The perceived threat, despite questionable
actuality of the threat, has a big influence on the public opinion. As Hericourt and Spielvogel (2014)
argue: “it is the subjective perception of the effects, and not an objective assessment, which could
lead individuals to come out for or against immigration.” The securitisation acts during 2014 has

37. 37
caused that immigration has, in a very short amount of time, become one of the most debated issues
within the UK.
4.1.Main findings
The analysis of the case study presented in this work suggests that there is evidence of
securitisation of immigration. Several statements and speeches from senior members of parliament
and government were identified with securitising language and claiming threatening consequences
of immigration. Immigration was depicted as a threat mainly in the economic and societal sector
although negative political implications were obvious in various speech acts.
The case study chosen in this analysis confirmed that immigration is an important topic in the
political as well as in the public environment. It is understood, that securitising actors can be found in
the highest levels of political platform and even the Prime Minister has made a several speeches
adding to securitising of immigration. The most active securitising actors appear on the right wing of
the political spectrum within the Conservative party and UKIP whilst Labour party and Liberal
Democrats also view immigration as a problem, but not yet as a security issue to the public.
Politicians repeatedly attempted to depict immigration as a threat to economic security of individuals
as well as of the nation. The main arguments for securitisation were mainly that immigration puts a
pressure on public services and abusing the welfare system. Personal security as well as the societal
security of the nation was also commonly spoken about as a threat to society. The inability of
immigrants to speak English in connection with fast-changing communities of local residents was
securitised as a threat to identity of British people.
Media played very important role in facilitating the speech act of politicians and other actors.
As a communicational tool, media frequently cited politicians securitising immigration. The style of
headlines and the language within the articles commenting on various reports and statements added
threatening notion to the already clearly securitising information. Stronger language, perhaps
unsurprisingly, was used in the ‘tabloid’ newspapers than in the broadsheet newspapers but
securitising language and articles were found across all major newspapers irrespective of their
political preference or reader’s attributes. In addition to the media, two main research groups were
identified operating in the UK which explicitly campaigned against immigration and published
number of reports, briefings and publications against increasing immigration in the UK. These groups
attempt to invoke the perception of insecurity amongst the British public to justify emergency
measures such as retrieving from European Union or limit immigration.

38. 38
What this work revealed is a process within which securitising actors are able to securitise an
issue and elevate it from a standard security discussion into a national discussion with further
security implications. At the end, it is not a matter of which issue is securitised, but it seems that it
can be any issue which can be successfully securitised. Immigration might not be considered a
security issue in other countries, but in the UK it has been securitised up to a level where wider
public contemplates about immigration mostly in security terms. The national and individual’s
security was analysed from a perspective of Copenhagen School’s theory. Looking at the security
concept from a process perspective, allowed to analyse the way in which a standard political issue
becomes a security issue. The securitisation approach enabled us to explore these processes and
actors involved in them. It is interesting to monitor the change in public opinion as shown below. It
appears that immigration became a major concern to the public in line with the securitising efforts.
While Buzan et al. (1998) stress the importance of the legitimacy of the securitising actor to speak on
behalf of the people i.e. being part of the state, this work has moved beyond that in line with Croft’s
(2012, 73-110) post-Copenhagen School theory and included other public actors such as the media,
research and academic groups which also add to the securitising acts.
4.2.Public opinion on immigration
British public appears to be responding to these securitising calls as showed by the report
produced by NatCen Social Research which revealed that 77% of the respondents want immigration
to be reduced ‘a little’ or ‘a lot’ [NatCen, Immigration, 2014]. There is a view that immigration is too
high in the UK and that the political action needs to be taken. Political parties than apply the
securitising approach of immigration in attempt to secure the higher amount of votes. Jan Brulc from
the charity Migrant Rights Network has accurately described the current situation in the UK: “Is it any
wonder young people are worried about immigration when politicians emphasise the problems
rather than the opportunities it brings to the UK?” *Metro, 2011]. Jan Brulc accurately described the
atmosphere in the UK with regards to immigration during 2014 where there is little debate about
what positives and opportunities immigration brings but the debate is rather focused on what are
negative consequences and threats of the immigration.
In a report on UK public opinion on immigration published by Migration Observatory – a
research group associated with the Oxford University – it is reported that over 50% of British public
hold the view that immigration has ‘gone too far’ *Migration Observatory, 2014]. In the same report,
a negative attitude towards immigration is measured and compared with other countries with a lot