How structural inequality and colonial legacies shape anti-immigrant narratives in Britain's political economy
Original framing: “How immigrants hoping for a better life in Britain came to be viewed as ‘colonisers’ or ‘invaders’” — The Conversation - Global
The article omits Indigenous and postcolonial critiques of how British imperialism created the conditions for modern migration. It also neglects the role of corporate lobbying in shaping migration policies, as well as the lived experiences of migrant communities beyond political rhetoric. Historical parallels, such as the treatment of Irish immigrants in the 19th century, are absent.
High structural omission detected in mainstream coverage.
The Conversation, as an academic outlet, produces this narrative for an educated, Western audience, often reinforcing liberal critiques without challenging the deeper power structures. The framing serves to pathologise migration while obscuring how British capitalism benefits from migrant labor. It also obscures the role of media and political elites in amplifying anti-immigrant rhetoric for electoral gain.
Cross-culturally, migration is often framed as a natural response to economic and environmental pressures, not an act of aggression. In Latin America, for instance, migration to the U.S. is seen as a necessity due to neoliberal policies, not an invasion. Meanwhile, in Africa, migration to Europe is often a survival strategy linked to colonial-era economic structures.
The framing of immigrants as 'colonisers' or 'invaders' is a symptom of deeper structural failures—colonial legacies, neoliberal economic policies, and political scapegoating.