Mapping Discourse on the European Migration Crisis: A Critical Discourse Analysis of Media Reactions in the United Kingdom and Germany to the Migration Crisis from January 2015 to August 2016

(1)

Mapping Discourse on the European Migration Crisis:

A Critical Discourse Analysis of Media Reactions in the United Kingdom and Germany to the Migration Crisis from January 2015 to August 2016

Benjamin Oliver Painter 11279559

MA

Thesis in European Studies: Governing Europe

Graduate School for Humanities

University of Amsterdam

July 2017

Thesis Supervisor: Prof. Dr. Luiza Bialasiewicz

Second Reader: Dr. de Cesari

(2)

Since 2015, the European Migration crisis has continued to worsen, with an estimated 1.005.504 migrants and refugees attempting the treacherous crossing of the Mediterranean with the aim of reaching Europe in 2015 alone. What is most shocking about the crisis however is the non-existent response from the European Union and its member states in the face of thousands of people dying on Europe's borders, with 3.771 people dying in 2015 and the number rising to 5.096 by the end of 2016 (International Organisation for Migration, 2015; 2017).

The reaction to the crisis that had emerged on the shores of Europe from the media was mixed, from country to country, with many media outlets calling for increased rescue operations and pleading for a response from the European Union, whilst other media outlets adopted extensive right-wing populist rhetoric and calling for closed borders in response the thousands of people attempting to cross into Europe (Berry, Garcia Blanco & Moore 2016).

The aim of this thesis is to map the way in which discourse may have fluctuated and changed from January 2015 up until August 2016. A primary focus will be the extent to which right-wing populist rhetoric was present within articles in relation to the crisis and to analyse the use of language through a Critical Discourse Analysis.

The way in which the discourse will be mapped is through an analysis of 4 different case studies that occurred within the timeframe mentioned, which are the 2015 British Election, the Aylan Kurdi pictures, the New Year’s Eve sexual assaults in Cologne and the 2016 and the United Kingdom European Union membership referendum. Within these case studies, there will be a critical discourse analysis of newspaper articles stemming from both the left and right-wing of politics from both the United Kingdom and Germany. The United Kingdom was chosen as one of the countries to focus on due the aggressive right-wing reporting that has become prominent in the British Press (Berry, Garcia Blanco & Moore 2016), the European Union membership referendum and the hardline stance the government has taken in response to the crisis. Germany, on the other hand, was chosen due to Angela Merkel and her government casting Germany as the leader in the attempt to solve the European Migration crisis by open their borders to Syrian refugees and the generally pro-immigration stance amongst German Society (Die Zeit 2015).

(4)

The thesis will be split into 7 chapters. Beginning in Chapter 2 with a literature review that will attempt to give a comprehensive overview of literature providing a definition for right-wing populist rhetoric and how it has become prevalent within media coverage on the migration crisis. Chapter 3 will provide an introduction to the proposed methodology used in the research, which in this case is critical Discourse analysis, the particular form of which that will be used is the Discourse-Historical Analysis. Chapter 4 provides a background on the case studies. Chapter 5 presents a thorough analysis of an array of texts mainly drawn from newspapers and articles that were published around the time of the case studies. Chapter 6 will present final conclusions based on the analysis done in Chapter 5. Chapter 6 will provide the reader with a bibliography.

2. Literary review:

Understanding what right-wing populism is and how it is used within discourse is key to the research in this thesis. This chapter will outline a definition for Right-wing populism and an understanding of the ways in which it has become prominent within the media and especially within its representation of the immigration crisis

2.1. Understanding Right-Wing Populism

Right-wing populism is often simply attributed to chauvinist and nationalist parties, with brash leaders. However understanding where the term originated from and what right-wing populist rhetoric entails provides will provide a more critically informed view of the way in which right-wing populist parties function and gain support.

Beginning with defining what “right-wing politics” and “populism” are, we can see they are rather contradictory, to begin with. Right-wing parties or politics are seen as the “conservative or reactionary section of a political party or system” (Oxford Dictionary Online), this side of the political spectrum often is in favour of social hierarchy and a class system with clear splits between the elite, upper class, middle class and lower class. Coupled with this desire for a class system, most right-wing parties also aim to create a strong national identity, this nationalism and rejection of social equality explain right-wing parties vilification of foreigners and immigrants. Ironically, right-wing politics is also often

(5)

attributed to elitist parties and political ideologies, which is in contrast to the way in which right-wing populist parties present themselves as representative of the “homogenous people” and being vehemently anti-establishment, whilst also demonizing the elites for working against the interests of society (Betz 1993, 423-437).

Populism despite having increasingly negative connotations in contemporary times, it’s actual definition is intriguing, the Oxford English Dictionary Online defines Populism as the “support for the concerns of ordinary people” (https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/). Through a historical perspective, the word populism stems from Latin and originates from the word “populous” which means “the people” in English. As a political phenomenon it is historically anti-aristocracy, anti-elitist (Wodak 2015, 8). Right-wing populist parties rhetoric is overwhelmingly focused on support for the native people. Furthermore, Right-wing populists are very anti-establishment and are weary of globalisation and are highly critical of high taxation. Coupling many of the values of populism with those of right-wing values makes for a peculiar blend that needs further analysis to properly understand it. A clear separation between where populist and wing ideals fit within the workings of Right-wing populist parties with ideology and policy more fundamentally rooted within right-Right-wing beliefs whereas the way in which these parties present themselves is heavily rooted within populism (Wodak 2015, 7-8; Betz & Immerfall 1998, 4-5; Betz 1994).

To further elaborate on this point, a populist party has a deliberately divisive and antagonistic message, often claiming to be on the side of the working class while demonising the so-called “elites” of society who are working against their interests. In doing so, these parties are exploiting the frustration of the general public for political gain. These parties employ a populist approach in that they specifically cater to voters who have become disassociated with their political system and are able to effectively channel this anger into electoral support by creating scapegoats out of immigrants and the mainstream “elites” who control the parties in power (Mudde & Kaltwasser 2012, 8; Wodak 2015, 7-8). When defining right-wing populist parties, understanding the definitions of both terms “Right-wing” and “Populism” is key as on their own they seem relatively contrasting, but in combination, they represent the contemporary parties we now find in western Europe.

2.2. Minimum and Maximum Definitions

However, simply defining both “right-wing” and “Populism” is certainly not enough to give a clear understanding of the inner notions of Right-wing populism and the extensive academic

(6)

debate behind its actual definition is representative of its complexity. Cas Mudde in his book "The populist radical right in Europe” differentiates between a “minimum definition” and a “maximum definition” of right-wing populism (Mudde 2007,15). To form this minimum definition Mudde believes that a “core concept” which unites all right-wing populist parties must be found. Firstly Mudde takes “nationalism” into consideration as the core concept of right-wing populism, but decides nationalism is far too broad of a concept. Nationalism without a doubt plays a large role within right-wing populist parties, with their calls for national unity and national pride, however, nationalism triumphs and core to many other political parties and there is certainly something special about the “nationalism” triumphed by the right-wing populist parties. It is for this reason that Mudde chooses “nativism” as the core concept of far-right populist parties, as Mudde defines the term as “an ideology which holds that states should be inhabited exclusively by members of the native group (the nation) and those non-native elements (persons and ideas) are fundamentally threatening to the homogenous nation-state” (Mudde 2007, 19).

In his maximum definition, Mudde expands his understanding of Right-wing populism, whilst Nativist notions remain the core condition of right-wing populist parties, he adds two more core concepts that are applicable in most cases. One of the additional core concepts is notions of authoritarianism and that these parties believe in an ordered society in which ‘infringements on authority are punished severely’ (Mudde 2007, 22). In addition to Nativism and authoritarianism, Mudde also believes that these parties more obviously should be inherently populist and that these parties consider ‘society to be ultimately separated into two homogenous and antagonistic groups, the “the pure people” versus the ‘corrupt elite’ (Mudde 2007, 23). In summary to fit in with Mudde’s narrow or “minimum definition” of right-wing populist parties they have to adopt Nativism as an ideology, whilst in broader terms to fit within his “maximum definition”, these parties have to also endorse authoritarian and populist notions, which is applicable in most cases.

2.3. Common Characteristics

Ruth Wodak goes about defining right-wing populism in a similar fashion, she considers all right-wing populist parties to have 3 principles but also elaborates and provides a more in-depth understanding of Right-wing populist parties by identifying 9 characteristics, which she believes is common to most if not all right-wing populist parties. Whilst the three principles that Wodak identified are fairly simple, and repetitive of ideas already mentioned, it is

(7)

interesting to identify overlapping beliefs by different academics. The first principle that she attributes to right-wing populism is this notion of “the people”, the people, in this case, is a central community that is often in their rhetoric homogenous and “pure”. Secondly, the notion of the “others” is consistently apparent within right-wing rhetoric. This “other” can take on many forms, it can be the elitist European leaders in Brussels, national governments or often it represents the fear of immigrants. Finally, there is a consistent distancing dynamic within right-wing rhetoric that distances “the people” from “the elites” and “immigrants” (Wodak 2015, 26; Taggart 2000; Reisigl 2013, 159). These three principles are essentially a definition of Nativism, therefore there is a clear link between Wodak’s three principles and Mudde’s ‘minimum definition.

More fascinating are Wodak’s 9 characteristics, which seem to build on Mudde’s maximum definition by going into further detail in ways to identify and define right-wing populism. Firstly she again highlights the overarching characteristic which is nativism as the core ideology, Wodak elaborates on this by stating that these homogenous groups are constructed through a variety of historical, national and socio-political factors. In rhetoric, these nativist ideals are represented through what Wodak calls ‘the rhetoric of exclusion’, from which right-wing populist mottos that include the notions of ‘We’ (Caucasian Europeans) and ‘Them’ (Roma, Jews, Muslims, etc.) have sprung, in essence, many of these slogans simplify the many complexities of society through nativist ideals.(Wodak 2015, 20-21) Building on this is a characteristic that Wodak highlights in focus which is an inherent anti-Muslim rhetoric in almost all right-wing populist parties we find within the western world.(Wodak 2015, 20-21; Reisigl 2013, 141-142; Pelinka 2013, 8). This characteristic seems very context specific and inherent within the nativist ideology that is the core concept of the right-wing populist ideology, but it is worth highlighting as an individual characteristic due to its prominence within the context of this paper. The next characteristic of right-wing populism that Wodak has identified is it’s unique ‘political style’ which is able to derive support from across the political spectrum. A fairly similar characteristic to its unique political style is the flexibility of wing populism in creating a social divide. Right-Wing Populism has the unique skill of constructing new social divides, whilst being relatable to many present fears, be it globalisation, the failure of mainstream parties, the financial crisis, the EU or immigration (Wodak 2015, 20-21).

Differing to the definition provided by Mudde, Wodak has found many characteristics that revolve around the way in which Right-wing populist parties present themselves and the way in which they exploit the media. Central to this is the importance of “performance

(8)

strategies” in the “modern media democracies”. She is, of course, referring to the importance of the media and the exploitation of this media by right-wing populist parties and their leaders in their rise in popularity Wodak states that “right-wing populist politicians are usually well trained as media personalities, and have frequently transformed a ‘thug-like appearance’ into that of a ‘slick’ mainstream politician . . . the assume the habits of serious but young, involved and approachable statement and stateswoman.” (Wodak 2015, 21) The “personalization” and “commodification” of contemporary politics and politicians is another characteristic that complements that of the exploitation of the media. Through charismatic leaders and a hierarchical party structure, right-wing populist parties are able to personalise and commodify their politics, making them ever more approachable. Much of the way in which right-wing populist parties package themselves is the way in which they have adapted themselves to the modern “celebrity culture”, which can also be referred to as a “tabloid culture”. Through what Wodak describes are “front stage performance techniques”, right-wing populist politicians are able to frame themselves as “Robin Hood-like figures” thereby playing into modern sensationalist media reporting (Wodak 2015, 11, 22). Wodak also correlates right-wing populism with anti-intellectualism, which again makes it appealing to the common man and or woman. Wodak’s final observation is a curious one and it highlights the lack of political experience within most right-wing populist parties when it comes to running a country, she states that ‘few right-wing populist parties maintain their strength or survive if elected into government because they lack the necessary experience, programmes and skills.” (Wodak 2015, 22). Wodak’s 9 characteristics seem to be very western Europe-specific, however seeing as this is the context this paper is focusing on, her definition of the core characteristics of Right-wing populist parties gives us a relatively in-depth analysis of their functioning. What is most intriguing about these characteristics to me is the prominence of the media and the “performance” of right-wing populist politicians in the media to the success of these parties. According to Wodak it evidently plays a large part in the thinking of these parties.

When analysing both definitions given by Mudde and Wodak there are significant similarities, Mudde is very straightforward in his definition by clarifying the centrality of three ‘isms’, Nativism, Authoritarianism and Populism as the “core concepts” of Right-Wing Populism. Wodak in her definition simply builds and to some extent explains further what

(9)

this entails and means, seeing as almost all 9 of her characteristics fit within Nativism, Populism and Authoritarianism (Mudde 2007; Wodak 2015).

2.4. Right-Wing Populism in the Media: A Short Overview

The key to this thesis is to analyse the ways in which many of right-wing populist rhetoric’s ‘characteristics’ have found their way into the mainstream media. Fears of the way in which the media are capable of affecting not only the perspective of society but also the formation of policy are the pertinent issue that this thesis will be dealing with. Scholars believe that the emergence of media-democracies has lent itself to exploitation by media-savvy politicians, many of which represent right-wing populist movements. The way in which right-wing populist parties effectively create fear through brash rhetoric that creates clear-cut answers in the form scapegoats, which are mostly “elites” or “foreigners”, which are easily comprehensible to the majority of the public. This simple creation of scapegoats to complex situations and the clever exploitation of the “celebrity culture” in the 21st century has led to right-wing populist parties and their energetic leaders to get a disproportionate amount of exposure, despite their radical views and lack of structure (Wodak 2015, 11; Taggart 2000; Reisigl 2013, 159; Pelinka 2013, 8).

Sensationalist Right-wing populist rhetoric causes controversy, which has lent itself to slowly seeping into the mainstream media, this is also often referred to as “sloganeering”, “scandalisation” or “scapegoating”. Right-wing populist parties have been able to install successful leaders whom play a “character” of a strong, knowledgeable and problem solving saviors, who portray the perfect balance between populist and anti-establishment notions and authoritarian and legitimating notions, without whom the homogenous community will crumble to the perceived threats of immigration and globalization amongst other controversial topics (Wodak 2015, 11-12; Bos et al. 2010, 3). Wodak calls this the “fictionalization of politics”, “the blurring of boundaries in politics between the real and the fictional, the informative and the entertaining” (Wodak 2009, 157), in essence we live in what many call a post-truth world, where political parties over exaggerate the issues their party aims to solve, on top of which many of the issues are presented in the simplest of forms which are in contrast of the incredible complexities of the contemporary world. The way in which these complex issues are simplified has lent itself to much praise from right-wing populist supporters who believe that mainstream political parties lack the ability to communicate effectively, whereas right-wing populist parties are able to package issues into

(10)

easily digestible slogans. It is also this simplification and dramatisation of politics that media outlets crave for in their “sloganisation” of the news. (Wodak 2015; Reisigl 2013; Pelinka 2013)

Terminology in newspapers representing the migration crisis has become increasingly negative causing shifts in social and political perspective. Examples of this are the use of words such as “crisis” to refer to the movement of people from North Africa and the Middle East invokes a sense of a threat to the “homogenous people”. (Mountz and Hiemstra 2014, 2-3) Terminology such as this portrays Europe as the “victim” of migration, with Europe bearing the negative externalities. Furthermore, the use of the word “crisis” personalises the issue and shows migrants to be “carriers” of crisis to Europe. This is due to the imaginations that these people are coming from “crisis elsewhere”, such as the “crisis of the Arab World” or “the crisis in the Middle East” from which the “migrants” come from, thereby almost making it seem as if it isn’t a crisis that European nations have to deal with. To some extent, this imagination could potentially be linked to the lacking response by European governments and the rise in deaths of people crossing the Mediterranean in the last few years. Furthermore, the shift in terminology is often in correlation with events that are negatively linked to Foreigners or the dangerous “other”. It is, however, dangerous to shift terminology with key events such as terrorist attacks or other such noteworthy events, as is it puts all migrants under one term with the result that all migrants become a “suspect” and “potential terrorists” who have infiltrated Europe alongside the influx of “genuine” refugees.’ (Europe/Crisis: New Keywords of “the Crisis” in and of “Europe 2016, 6-20) The so-called “crisis” can take on many forms such as a “migrant crisis”, “refugee crisis”, ongoing results of the “economic crisis” or for many politicians a perceived “European Border Crisis” (Europe/Crisis: New Keywords of “the Crisis” in and of “Europe 2016, 2). It is this flexibility that can be concerning as many in the public will link migrants to other crisis that have plagued Europe in recent times, thereby being put in the position of a dangerous but easily adoptable scapegoat.

Many news outlets also use the word “migrant” instead of “refugee” to describe the people moving across into Europe, despite many of them fleeing war-torn nations. Referring to “migrants” instead of “refugees” takes away any legal status, making them seem like an irregularity or “illegal”. The use of certain terminology can have an incredible effect on the blurring of categories as “refused asylum seekers”, for examples, quickly turn into illegal migrants, and people who are deemed legitimate refugees in the middle east become illegal in

(11)

the process of moving to Europe (Ehrkamp 2016, 2). This is not only dehumanising but stripes away “attributes of social distinction and class of migrants and refugees” (Ehrkamp 2016, 3). This is overly prominent within the British press, even reputable news sources use this terminology such as the British Broadcasting Corporation noting in disclaimers: “A note on terminology: The BBC uses the term migrant to refer to all people on the move who have yet to complete the legal process of claiming asylum. This group includes people fleeing war-torn countries such as Syria, who are likely to be granted refugee status, as well as people who are seeking jobs and better lives, who governments are likely to rule economic migrants.” (BBC article 2016). Terms such as “migrant”, “refugee crisis”, “crisis”, “swarm” are all effective at creating buzzword slogans but also humanise a perceived “crisis” or “irregularity” within the people crossing the border into Europe. The prominence of this terminology, which creates a perceived dichotomy and scapegoats is representative of a rise in the exaggeration of crises and security threats, the effect of this excessive reproduction of fear scenarios within the mainstream media has created legitimation for the Right-wing populist “Politics of Exclusion” (Wodak 2015, 5).

It is the influence that the right-wing populist rhetoric has over the media that should be of concern, be it due to its sensationalist slogans, its media-savvy leaders or its controversy inducing tactics. This rise of right-wing rhetoric is representative of the normalisation of its ideals, be it in regard to anti-immigration sentiment, opposition to the system or the sensationalisation of issues. Through their rise in power and exposure, their rhetoric has taken on an agenda-setting role in politics, with many political parties adopting policies based on or to counteract them. Also very notably, issues triumphed by right-wing populist parties have consistently become the central issue around which elections have been fought, be it the British election in 2015, the Dutch election in 2017 or the upcoming French election. The centrality of right-wing rhetoric in the mainstream media and recent social debate is concerning and it will be important to decipher the impact it really has on discourse.

3. Methodology:

3.1 Understanding Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA)

Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) as described by Norman Fairclough, the author often attributed with its creation, “brings the critical tradition of social analysis into language

(12)

studies and contributes to critical social analysis a particular focus on discourse and on relations between discourse and other social elements (power relations, ideologies, institutions, social identities, and so forth).” (The Routledge Handbook of Discourse Analysis 2013, 10). CDA can be understood as a normative and explanatory critique of social realities. It is a normative critique as it evaluates existing social realities, and “assess the extent to which they match up to various values, which are taken . . . to be fundamental for just or decent societies (e.g. certain standards - material but also political and cultural - of human well-being)”. Furthermore it is also explanatory critique of social realities as it strives to explain them “for instance by showing them to be effects of structure or mechanisms or forces that the analyst postulates and whose reality s/he seeks to test out (e.g. inequalities in wealth, income and access to various social goods might be explained as an effect of mechanic and forces associated with ‘capitalism’)” (The Routledge Handbook of Discourse Analysis 2013, 20). The understanding is that social realities (e.g. social events or practices) don’t exist without “representations, construals, conceptualisations or theories of these events and practices” in other words people's personal understanding and representation of social realities is a part of these realities and the way in which they are imagined (The Routledge Handbook of Discourse Analysis 2013, 10, Jessop 2004, Fairclough 2006) CDA does not simply focus on the semiosis behind the discourse that is being analysed but also on “relations between semiotic and other social elements” such relations are heavily dependent on the institution, organization or person and the context they find themselves in. (The Routledge Handbook of Discourse Analysis 2013, 11)

3.2 Fairclough’s Critical Discourse Analysis

Critical Discourse Analysis as a method to study the use of language came into being in the late 1980s. Norman Fairclough created a framework through which language can be analysed in the hope of determining the agency for the choice of grammar and vocabulary used in a discourse. In the 28 years since Fairclough first created his framework for CDA, there have been many elaborations and differing methods to analyse discourse that has spurned from his work, which is representative of its continued relevance as a method of discourse analysis. Firstly this section will focus on the shift in Fairclough's version of CDA, from the first edition of his book “Language and Power” to his most recent edition released in 2014.

The central aim of the original understanding of Fairclough’s CDA was “to help increase the consciousness of how language contributes to the domination of some people by

(13)

others” (Fairclough 1989, 1). In the original book he explained his CDA in three steps, first having a good understanding of the text (the text can be anything that is an interaction) at hand, Secondly interpreting the relationship between the text and the social interaction and finally finding an “explanation of the relationship between the interaction and the social context.” (Fairclough 1989: 91) In this case texts are the semiotic dimensions of events, it does not simply mean written texts and can take many forms and are “to be understood in an inclusive sense”, they can be written texts, conversations, interviews, multi-model texts (a mix of language and visual images), such as on TV. (The Routledge Handbook of Discourse Analysis 2013, 12). In essence, Fairclough’s initial aim in 1989 is to raise awareness amongst the public, of the way in which language can and is used to push particular agendas.

The third edition of Fairclough's book “Language and Power” was recently released in 2014 and brings with it a shift in his version of CDA. His updated version of Critical Discourse Analysis is also comprised of three steps which he summarises as “CDA combines critique of discourse and explanation of how it figures within and contributes to the existing social reality, as a basis for action to change that existing reality in particular respects” (Fairclough 2014, 6). This sees a shift in the function of CDA from simply just a critique of discourse and is expanded into a “critique of discourse as a point of entry for a critic of the existing social order” (Fairclough 2014, 14). In a sense, he seems to have seen the potential value of his method of discourse analysis in trying to incite social change and has expanded his original target of creating awareness to inspiring political action, policy-making and genuine social change. The new target audience for his Critical Discourse Analysis has now shifted from the general public to people in places to make a change such as politicians so that they can “directly inform action to change social life only through dialogue with social actors who are in position to undertake such action” (Fairclough 2014, 15).

3.3 The Discourse-Historical Approach

The Discourse-Historical Approach is the variant of Critical Discourse Analysis that this thesis will focus on, due to its flexible and interdisciplinary nature. Firstly it is important to take into account the way it conceptualises the notions of “critique”, “ideology” and “power”, which Wodak believes is core to every approach in CDA. (Wodak 2009, 87). In terms of “critique” DHA adopts an understanding that has three related aspects:

(14)

“1. Text or discourse-immanent critique aims at discovering inconsistencies, self-contradictions, paradoxes and dilemmas in the text-internal or discourse-internal structures. 2. Socio-diagnostic critique is concerned with demystifying the – manifest or latent – persuasive or ‘manipulative’ character of discursive practices. Here, we make use of our contextual knowledge and draw on social theories as well as other theoretical models from various disciplines to interpret the discursive events.

3. Future-related prospective critique seeks to contribute to the improvement of communication (for example, by elaborating guidelines against sexist language use or by reducing ‘language barriers’ in hospitals, schools and so forth).” (Wodak 2009, 88; Reisgl and Wodak 2001: 32-35 for extended discussions)

In essence through its understanding of critique, the DHA attempts to distance the analyst from the text by making his ‘own position transparent’ (Wodak 2009, 88).

The DHA has a straightforward approach to its understanding of ideology and the role it plays in discourse, it sees it as opinions, attitudes amongst other things shared by a specific group, it is also seen as “an important means of establishing unequal power relations through discourse” (Wodak 2009, 88) Despite the fairly simple understanding this method of discourse analysis holds interest in the way in which the use of language and discourse is able to reproduce ideology and the way in which certain ideologies use language in relation to their beliefs and audience. Wodak states that “one of the aims of the DHA is to ‘demystify’ the hegemony of specific discourses by deciphering the ideologies that establish, perpetuate or fight dominance” (Wodak 2009, 88)

Finally, the DHA sees language as the “means to gain and maintain power”. Its understanding of power is that it is a way in which one has “the possibility of having one’s own will within a social relationship against the will or interests of others” and the way in which this power is implemented or maintained is through threats or promises. The relationship between Power and Language is that Language de-legitimizes or legitimises power in discourse. This is why it is again important to analyse how linguistics are used to express ideas and manipulate power. (Wodak 2009, 89)

(15)

The DHA understands the complexities of modern society and the way in which discourse is formed and therefore it must be interdisciplinary and flexible. Wodak states that the way it does this is through “the principle of triangulation which implies taking a whole range of empirical observations, theories and methods as well as background information into account” (Wodak 20019, 89; Wodak 2007)

To understand this further we need to understand the way in which the DHA breaks down discourse. Discourse is understood as:

- “a cluster of ‘context-dependent semiotic practices that are situated within specific fields of social action

- socially constituted and socially constitutive - related to a macro-topic

- linked to the argumentation about validity claims such as truth and normative validity involving several social actors who have different points of view.” (Wodak 2009, 89) Within discourse, you find texts, which are part of the discourse and make them visible, or in other words “objectify linguistic action” making it easier to analyse. Texts come in many different formats as stated earlier, such as speeches or articles. DHA further categories texts as being representative of genres. A genre is a “socially ratified way of using language in connection with a particular type of social activity” (Fairclough 1995, 14).

This is where the principles of intertextual and interdiscursive relationships are key within the DHA as it creates links between texts, genres and discourses and doesn’t view any example of these as singular entities. Intertextuality means that there are links between texts that need to be analysed when analysing a certain discourse, these links can be the topic discussed, the author or main actor of the discourse, references to similar events, the effect is that we witness a recontextualization of texts and can analyse the way in which language and discourse shifts with context. Interdiscursivity is very similar but refers to the way in which discourses are interlinked, examples of this are the way in which immigration discourses are often linked to discourses on finance, health and safety amongst other topics. Keeping the principles of intertextuality and interdiscursivity in mind whilst critically analysing the discourse centred around immigration is something that will be key to this investigation. The

(16)

2 figures below represent what has just been explained above, with figure 1.1 representing the breakdown and the relationship between fields of action, genres and macro-topics, whilst figure 1.2 shows the intertextuality and interdiscursivity between discourses, discourse topics, genres and texts.

(17)

Figure 1.2 Representation of the intertextuality and interdiscursivity of Discourses, texts and genres (Wodak 2015)

3.4 Strengths and weaknesses of DHA and CDA

Articles by Mogashoa (2014) and Angela Morgan (2010) in addition to their overview of Critical Discourse Analysis delve into the advantages and disadvantages of Critical Discourse Analysis. Angela Morgan believes that the advantages of CDA outweigh the disadvantages quite systematically. She believes the advantages are:

-> The techniques used “can reveal often unspoken and unacknowledged aspects of human behaviour, making salient either hidden or dominant discourses that maintain marginalised positions in society.’

-> They can reveal or help construct a variety of new and alternative social subject positions that are available, which in itself can be very empowering to the most vulnerable individuals.

-> They can provide positive social psychological critique of any phenomenon under the gaze of the researcher

-> Discourse Analysis has a relevance and practical application at any given time, in any given place, for any given people: discourse analysis is context specific

-> Understanding the function of language and discourse enables positive individual and social change, therefore discourse analysis presents a critical challenge to traditional theory, policy and practice in many contexts.

-> A reflective stance is incorporated wherein researchers cannot be neutral observers.” (Morgan 2010, 4)

In terms of disadvantages, Morgan elaborates that, the multi-faceted and interdisciplinary nature of CDA “can render issues of methodology problematic” as every researcher has differing skill sets, beliefs and understanding of discourse and discourse analysis, making

(18)

much Critical Discourse analysis and it’s methodology very unclear. This relates to another shortcoming which is that “everything is always open to interpretation and negotiation”. The number of differing understandings of what Critical Discourse analysis is and how to go about using it makes it not only difficult to grasp but difficult to pin down methods and techniques of how to use it in practice. These advantages and disadvantages relate to DHA as well, as it is simply a variation on Critical Discourse Analysis and is itself often seen as vague and without direction (Morgan 2010, 4, see also Mogashoa 2014). Wodak elaborates further on what she believes are the specific strengths of DHA and believes that the “interdisciplinary orientation” avoids the restrictions of “disciplinary restrictions”. Furthermore, she believes that the “historical analysis” allows for clearer comparative study and explanations for “discursive change” whilst the results found using DHA can have “practical applications” in many different ways be it for democratic purposes, expelling myths or empowering the people amongst other things (Wodak 2009, 120).

4. Background for Analysis 4.1. Context

Since 2015 the migration crisis in Europe has continued to worsen and with it, there has been a continued confused political response and a completely divided and inconsistent Media response. In 2015 alone the International Organisation for Migration estimated around 1.005.504 migrants reaching the European shores (International Organisation for Migration, 2015). Despite the number of arrivals lowering to 363,348 in 2016 (International Organisation for Migration, 2017), the death-toll of refugees and immigrants crossing the Mediterranean has continued to rise in past years. The International Organisation for Migration launched it’s ‘Missing Migrants Project: Tracking Deaths along Migratory Routes Worldwide” in 2013 to accurately estimate the death toll caused by illegal migration, in 2015 it estimated that around 3.771 migrants died attempting to cross the Mediterranean, making it the deadliest year on record at the time, however by the end of 2016, this number had been surpassed with an estimated death toll of around 5.096 people attempting to cross the Mediterranean (International Organisation for Migration: Missing Migrants Project). Despite thousands of people washing up on the shores of Europe, there seems to have been no change in the way many media outlets represent immigration, political reaction to the crisis has continued to be either non-existent or a failure, the public perception surrounding the immigrants continues to vain and there has been a rise in right-wing populist parties. This

(19)

thesis aims to find patterns between the media representations of migrants and immigration in both the United Kingdom and Germany to determine the way in which discourse may have changed. It will attempt to achieve this through a general study of media representation of migrants from January 2015 to August 2016, and in-depth case studies within the confines of these dates. The timeframe of January 2015 to August 2016 was chosen to make the project a contemporary project and due to the correlation with important events regarding the migrant crisis. The timeframe begins with the 2015 British Election, during which immigration was a central topic of the election. The 2015 British election saw Immigration being the core debate topic and also saw populist right-wing parties such as UKIP gain major ground in the popular vote and the Conservative pledge to have a referendum regarding the United Kingdom’s membership of the European Union (Jackson & Thorsen 2015). The timeframe also concludes with the end of the deadliest year for migrants crossing the Mediterranean in history with as mentioned before, there being over 5.000 deaths (International Organisation for Migration, 2017). In terms of Germany, the timeframe is chosen due to 2015 being a turbulent year for Germany and its immigration policy. In August 2015, Angela Merkel declared Germany’s border to be open to all Syrian refugees, in the aftermath of which the New Year’s Eve sexual assaults occurred, which was an incident that many believed might change the immigration debate in Germany and Europe (Die Zeit 2015; Sheer 2016; Der Spiegel 2016a).

4.2. Case Studies

As mentioned above, the first section of the discourse analysis will begin with the first case study on the 2015 British Election. This is an important event to analyse due to the prominence the right-wing party UKIP received in the election and the way in which it was able to make immigration one of the main topics of debate. The 2015 British election represents the normalisation of right-wing populist rhetoric in the United Kingdom. An analysis of the British election does not necessarily lend itself to a comparative study with Germany, but is still considered an important event due to the domino effect it has had with the Brexit vote almost a year later and the consistent voice the British government has in regard to immigration on the European stage (Centre for the Study of Journalism, Culture & Community Bournemouth University 2015, 20-22). . It was during the 2015 election campaigning that immigration and asylum became the centre on in all domains, to only did politicians debate the topic extensively, the Newspapers ‘mentioned immigration daily’, with right-wing populist parties such as UKIP getting more exposure than ever in Newspaper

(20)

headlines and on television. As a result of the successes of the brash populist parties, the main parties assimilated and adopted immigration policies to their debate plans, such as Labour leader Ed Miliband stating that “having ‘ got it wrong in the past’ Labour would now be ‘smart’ on immigration.” (Moore 2015, 20) The extent of negative campaign escalated dramatically in the 2015 elections, with parties accusing the Conservative party of failing their goals of reducing immigration elections since the 2010 elections. On the other hand, Conservative party members were making claims that Ed Miliband and the Labour party weren’t actually concerned with Immigration and that they could not be trusted in that policy area. With the mounting numbers of deaths in the Mediterranean around the election time, there was some outrage about the narrow-minded platform on which the 2015 election was being fought over, but these did not challenge the negative narratives, which forced parties to continue to debate the immigration issue throughout (Moore 2015, 20). In the public sphere, it was a key issue to many of the electorate, with opinion polls undertaken during the 2015 campaign timeframe indicating that asylum and immigration were the 3rd most important issue to the public. This put asylum and immigration at a similar importance as education and above concerns about law and order. In more general Index polls were undertaken in March, immigration and asylum were consistently ranked within the top 5 of people’s concerns making it more of a concern than the NHS. The reason for why immigration and asylum have become such an important topic of conversation within the British public and political sphere is many folds, with Kerry Moore believes that it is not “natural” but “the product of populist cultural work to which main political parties and the press contribute. (Moore 2015, 20) Populist Right-wing parties such as UKIP played an extensive Agenda setting role in the 2015 General Election, through the use of cunning media tactics and a flamboyant ‘likeable’ Leader who appealed to the ‘common person’, they were able to affect political debate and put the issue of migration at centre stage. For much of the election, the main parties were trying to “neutralise UKIP’s populist appeal” (Centre for the Study of Journalism, Culture & Community Bournemouth University 2015). In this case study, 1 article from the Daily Express will be analysed that reflects the way in which populist right-wing rhetoric has become normalised in British debate. On top of this 2 articles from the Guardian will be looked at which both try and delegitimize the way in which the right-wing media have made immigration the focus of the election (Mckinstry 2014, the Guardian 2015a; the Guardian 2015b). Finally, a short analysis of both the Labour Parties manifesto and conservative parties manifesto will be undertaken to identify to what extent populist right-wing rhetoric

(21)

may or may not be present within them. (The Conservative Party 2015; The Labour Party 2015)

Moving on from this, the next case study will be the statements made in late August 2015, by the German government that “We are at present largely no longer enforcing #Dublin procedures for Syrian Citizens.” (Foster, 2016), which in effect meant the opening of Germany to Syrian refugees and Merkel's statement that “Germany is a strong country - we will manage” (BBC, 2015) The importance of this case study to the research was the broad range of responses to the news the Germany was no longer deporting Syrian migrants much of which was delight amongst supporters of immigration around Europe representative of the thousands of volunteers signing up to help welcome new arrivals at railway stations (Foster 2016). However, there was also a consistent negative fallout from the statement made by Merkel and her government, with many believing it to be a ‘reckless’ and unrealistic gesture. The daring move by Merkel and her government divided Europe, with many citizens questioning their respective government's commitments to promoting human rights and equality, norms the European Union and its governments prided themselves on, whilst also adding to the rise of populism in Europe and Europe scepticism (Foster 2016).

The second media moment that will be undertaken in this thesis is the ‘Death of Aylan Kurdi’ on September 2nd, 2015.The picture of a 3-year-old Syrian boy that had been washed up on the shores of Turkey after attempting to cross the Mediterranean caused a whirlwind of responses in Europe, with an exponential rise in empathetic, “positive” articles and political statements (European Journalism Observatory 2015). The reaction to the pictures was sympathetic and remorseful to the way in which the crisis had developed.(Watt 2015). Whether or not the death of Aylan Kurdi had a lasting effect on the discourse on the European migration crisis will be key to determine within this research. The articles that will be analysed in this case study will come from the Sun, the Guardian and Der Spiegel. 2 articles will be looked at from the Sun, in which the authors take a very sympathetic approach to their reporting of the pictures. This is interesting to the thesis due to the history the Sun has with negative reporting on the migration crisis (Wells, Pisa & Harvey 2015) In terms of the left-wing reports, the articles that have been chosen come both from the British and German media. The left-wing media seize the opportunity to humanise the crisis in Aylan Kurdi in an attempt to forward their pro-immigration agenda (Nelles and Reimann 2015; Der Spiegel 2015c; Der Spiegel 2015d).

(22)

The third case study will be the New Year’s Eve sexual assaults in Germany. These incidents are seen by many as a potential turning point in the course of the debate on the migration crisis. It was reported on that on new Year’s Eve large groups of “Arab or North African appearance” (Deutsche Welle 2016) sexually assaulted women throughout the night. An alleged government cover-up of the incidents only worsened the situation. These incidents put the government's immigration policy, handling of the free press and the discourse on the migration crisis as the focus of debate and gave right- wing organisations and parties a platform from which they could legitimise their policies and rhetoric. (Der Spiegel 2016a; Der Spiegel 2016b; Benninghoff 2016).

The final case study that will be analysed within this text is the period surrounding the Brexit vote and the triggering of Article 50 in the United Kingdom. The British referendum on the United Kingdom’s membership of the EU ended in the ‘Leave’ campaign claiming victory, the importance of analysing statements made in the build up to the referendum and the way in which the media used immigration will give us insight into whether or not discourse has changed since the British election in 2015 (BBC 2017). We don’t know the exact effect the British referendum will have for the future of Europe, but it represented interesting reservations many people in Britain had over the European Union and an analysis of it could provide an interesting insight into the agenda-setting ability of the media. In terms of Germany, analysing the articles in the time after the New Year’s Eve incidents will help us conclude on whether or not discourse has taken a turn towards the right in as a result.

With an overall study of media reactions from both the United Kingdom and Germany in relation to the case studies above, this research should be able to give us a map of how discourse has changed within the timeframe of the analysis.

5. Analysis and Findings

5.1 2015 British General Election

The British election held in May 2015 is the first case study that will be looked at within this research to map the changing discourse of the migration crisis, this is due to the fact that immigration became a central topic of debate that both politics and the public was concerned

(23)

with. Some parts of the British press is inundated with populist and often right-wing language, the newspaper that uses right-wing populist rhetoric consistently and has a national readership is the Daily Express (Berry, Garcia Blanco & Moore 2016). During this election, the right-wing Daily Express endorsed Nigel Farage and his party the United Kingdom Independence Party (Daily Express 2015). Leo Mckinstry’s article published on March 2nd, 2015 in the run-up to the British Elections is a good example of right-wing populist rhetoric becoming common place within British reporting.

The title itself jumps off the page with its aggressive tone. The author is using provocative language to present his beliefs that immigration is having a negative effect on the United Kingdom by stating that he believes that further rises in immigration are “destroying” the United Kingdom. This statement is so drastic at face value it depicts immigrants moving to the United Kingdom as the potential end of a country, associating migrants and refugees, who are in many cases fleeing war-torn nation with the chaos and destruction they are leaving and bringing it to the United Kingdom (Mckinstry 2015). This reflects the notion discussed in the literature review about ways in which populist right-wing language is able to personalise migrants and refugees as “the carrier of a disease” in this case a disease that will “destroy” the United Kingdom (Mountz & Hiemstra 2014, 20). Additionally, immigration is presented as a threat to nativist notions of right-wing populism, as it is ‘on the verge’ of destroying the United Kingdom, in this case, the equivalent of the right-wing chauvinist concept of ‘the nation’ (Wodak 2015, 47).

As with most right-wing populist articles similar to McKinstry's, there is a constant linking of various discourses. In this case, immigration is the main discourse that is discussed with an anti-immigration narrative, in an attempt to identify the various issues with increasing immigration, which could in the opinion of the author bring about the destruction of the United Kingdom. The discourses he used to fit within the anti-immigration narrative

(24)

are nationalism, anti-establishment notions, terrorism, the welfare state and security discourses, which are all common types of populist discourses (Wodak 2015, 49).

From the very beginning of the article, in an attempt to criticize the current government's immigration policy and lacking border controls Mckinstry uses the “Jihadi John” incidents as a way to highlight the “the last remnants of that tattered fabric” or the “net” that should be the British border (Mckinstry 2015). ’Jihadi John’ was the nickname, given by the British press, of a British Arab who was identified as the main figure in a string of videos depicting beheadings of captured aid workers and journalists amongst other things, posted by ISIS between 2014 and 2015. ‘Jihadi John’ whose real name is Mohamed Emwazi, was of Iraqi origin and moved to the United Kingdom at the age of six, before getting a university degree in information Systems with business Management from the University of Westminster and was a full British National.

Using this story of an extreme case of failed integration to fit within an anti-immigration narrative is far-reaching and indicative of the shock-value the author is attempting to create. Looking further into the language used is also interesting, he calls ‘Jihadi John’ “a bloodthirsty Islamist brute”, thereby grouping Islam with notions of blood-thirsty brutishness (Mckinstry 2015). The use of the “Jihadi John” incidents within this article is an example of the way in which the right-wing press portray Muslims as a “dangerous outsiders” who have infiltrated the “heartland” and threatens the “homogenous demos” in the United Kingdom (Wodak 2015, 66).

(25)

The article continues with shifting the blame for “Jihadi John” slipping through the net on “a gang of unpatriotic, self-serving politicians”. Thereby inciting anti-establishment narratives and backing them up with branding the government anti-democratic and “unpatriotic” making decisions “without the consent of the British people”. He further discredits the government as being affected by “cowardice” in its attempts to reduce immigration, calling Conservative efforts at reaching immigration an “epic failure”. (Find something about conspiracies)

Finally nearing the end of the article he links two more discourses to his anti-immigration narrative in the form of the welfare state and historic discourses. He echoes the familiar concerns of right-wing rhetoric in relation to the welfare state such as making statements like “rates of welfare dependence, joblessness and economic inactivity are all significantly higher among immigrants from outside the EU than among people born here” and stating that migrants “far from propping our civic infrastructure, mass immigration has imposed an intolerable strain on the state, with every migrant costing on average 8350 pounds in terms of education, healthcare and benefits”. In these statements again the “immigrants from outside the EU” or in other words, the foreigners, are a threat to the infrastructure of the homeland and are depicted as dragging it down. Naturally, there is a complete disregard of any mention of what immigration and migrants might contribute to the United Kingdom and the way in which they aid the welfare state. Naturally many of these statements are in contrast to statements by other newspapers that the welfare state would collapse without the manpower that migrants provide, especially the NHS, in rebuttal Mckinstry states that “we are constantly told that our public services would ‘collapse’ without migrant labour, even though we managed to become a great industrial nation and create the NHS without it” (Mckinstry 2015). As stated in the literature review, to give legitimacy to their nativist and chauvinist ideas, right-wing populist rhetoric has to create revisionist histories, in which historic struggles are omitted and successes of the people as a nation are promoted (Wodak 2015, 67). In this example, Mckinstry is referring to a time in which Britain became a great industrial nation and created the NHS two events that are 200 years apart during a time in which Britain had a global empire within which it subjugated and exploited countless nations and fought countless wars. As stated in the background of the Analysis, Immigration became a central debating point of the British election, this was in large part due to the effective campaigning of the British right-wing press. This article by Leo Mckinstry exemplifies a good example of the way in which right-wing populist rhetoric was consistently used throughout the campaign.

(26)

In regards to the more centre-left press and in particular the way the Guardian approached the topic of immigration in the run-up to the British election, they make their agenda clear and back up many of their values with more in depth facts and perceptions from outside sources, rather than brash headlines and provocative language.

“It’s (Conservative Party) also set on an isolationist abandonment of British commitment to international human rights conventions and norms, outcomes which this newspaper – unlike most

others – will always do all in its power to oppose.” (Guardian 2015b)

In terms of the political direction, the Guardian has consistently endorsed the Labour party as it believes it represents its values on human rights and equality in society in particular (The Guardian 2015b), which the newspaper considers being the most important concern of the 2015 election, not immigration. Despite this, the Guardian does take part in a fair share of negative campaigning, this is clear in its scathing reviews of the Conservative performance since it’s election in 2011, especially in terms of immigration (Guardian 2015b).

“In the coalition agreement, the Lib Dems accepted the Tory red lines on immigration in return for a deal, not entirely honored, to end the detention of children. David Cameron’s “no ifs, no buts” pledge

to reduce net migration to “the tens of thousands”, which was never compatible with membership of the EU and the obligation to respect free movement of workers, fared even less well. In 2010, the figure for net migration, 252,000, set a new record, but the latest figure stands at another new high of almost 300,000. That is despite a three-pronged attack on students, workers, and extended families.”

(The Guardian 2015a)

In the articles “the Guardian view on Britain’s choice 2015: immigration” an editorial on the Guardians perspective on the issue of immigration, we can see two running themes, firstly negative campaigning is common place posting articles similar to this that highlight the failure of the Conservative government to reduce net migration to “the tens of thousands” since 2011, a pledge that David Cameron had made. The Guardian even pokes fun at the conservative leader in their quotation of his “no ifs, no buts” pledge and point out that since his election net migration has risen every year to set new records. Despite not seeing immigration as a key political issue that should be addressed in this election we can see consistent negative campaigning, based upon criticism of David Cameron’s Conservative government's track record on immigration (The Guardian 2015a). the second theme that is of more importance to the Guardian is a major criticism of the discourse and language that has emerged in the British political sphere especially in relation to immigration. language and the discourse used into immigration (The Guardian 2015a).

“Headlines about schools where every child spoke English as a second language fueled rising anxiety about immigration, which became a dominant concern for voters. Yet these fears were often based on

(27)

inaccurate ideas about the scale of immigration and the number of non-British-born citizens, which politicians failed to challenge” (The Guardian 2015a)

The article doesn’t limit its criticism to the right-wing populist and in fact, criticises the government’s handling of the spread of headlines such as the example in the quote above. The article believes the issue of immigration has become central to the political debate due to the effective way in which the right-wing media has mobilised its rhetoric, which it describes as “political over-reaction” and due to “political neglect”, thereby creating and atmosphere susceptible to right-wing and anti-immigration notions. Interestingly the article even goes as far as accusing the government and the “anti-immigration Home Office” of encouraging this spread of right-wing rhetoric (The Guardian 2015a).

“How the country imagines itself is always the unspoken context of an election campaign. What sort of a society we want to live in, and what kind of economy will best sustain it – this is the underlying matter of most party policy proposals and most politicians’ rhetoric. Migration speaks directly to both

parts of the debate. Britain can be an outward-facing nation, engaged with Europe and the world, capable of building and sustaining a society in which both old and new citizens of the union feel

comfortable and reap the economic rewards that flow from it. But only if politicians frame their arguments in that context.” (The Guardian 2015a)

The Guardian is quite clearly pro-immigration and states its support for the Labour party and its imaginations of immigration policy roughly, however similarly to the article analysed before by Leo Mckinstry, the guardian is very critical of the current conservative Government and the way in which they have handled the immigration issue, by not only allowing it to become a central topic of debate that fuels polarization of society but also for the way in which it completely failed to implement its election promises of the last election. More importantly, the Guardian seems to be more concerned about the language and discourse that has emerged within the British media and political sphere in relation to the immigration issue. On top of this, it believes that the issue has created what it terms is a “bidding war” between parties in their adoption of immigration policy to attract votes. In conclusion, it seems as if the Guardian and the Left-wing media are most concerned with trying to change the discourse in Britain after this election (The Guardian 2015a).

The analysis of these two articles indicates that immigration and the migration crisis has become a central issue in British politics, with an emerging right-wing rhetoric taking a foothold within the media and the public, having a look into the manifestos of the tow main

(28)

parties, the Labour, and Conservative parties, could give us an indication to what extent this rhetoric has taken hold in British politics.

In terms of the Labour party manifesto whilst being vague does not try an attempt to draw in a variety of discourses to backup policies in regard to immigration in its manifesto. The section “Controlling immigration with fair rules”, simply acknowledges public anxiety in response to rising migration but states that

“Labour will never cut Britain off from the rest of the world. Our economy and our society benefit from the talent and investment of people who come here, including university students coming to study. But

the system needs to be controlled and managed so that it is fair. Low-skilled migration has been too high and needs to come down. We need much stronger action to stop illegal immigration.” (Labour

Party 2015, 49)

Despite rising anxiety in Britain towards immigration, the Labour Party remains faithful to its ideals of equality and non-discrimination, but acknowledges that the needs reform and needs to be “controlled and managed”. The way in which it outlines how it plans to achieve this seems fairly limited to policies of increasing investment in stronger borders and more border staff, to in part prevent people smugglers and illegal migration and better manage immigration in general. Furthermore, the Labour Party believes a key to a successful immigration policy is an increased investment into integration attempts (Labour Party 2015, 49-50).

“We will enforce immigration rules humanely and effectively. We will end the indefinite detention of people in the asylum and immigration system, ending detention for pregnant women and those who

have been the victims of sexual abuse or trafficking. And we will ensure Britain continues its proud history of providing refuge for those fleeing persecution by upholding our international obligations, including working with the UN to support vulnerable refugees from Syria.” (Labour Party 2015, 50) The language used within the manifesto relies on language that creates sympathy and tries to humanize the crisis, this is clear through the use of words such as “humanely” and promoting humane policies such as ending the detention for pregnant women and those who have been the victims of sexual abuse or trafficking”, whilst upholding international obligations to the granting of asylum to refugees. The issue of immigration does not take centre stage within the Labour Party manifesto as it is 1 page long and it is almost dealt with as a secondary issue, which is intriguing to the extensive coverage it got during the campaigning (The Labour Party 2015 49-50). Many of the ideals found within the Labour manifesto are similar to those found in the Guardians article, such as staying committed to international obligations and human rights.

(29)

The Conservative Manifesto and its section on immigration policy are slightly more indicative of the evolving discourse in British political campaigning. The section “Controlled immigration that benefits Britain” has some resemblance with right-wing populist rhetoric and links discourses such as nationalism and the welfare state.

- (Conservative Party 2015, 29)

Populist language is found within the Conservative manifestos section on immigration, with quotes such as the one above, reference to putting “Britain first” occurs multiple times over 2 pages. Another example is a quote stating that “Across the spectrum, from the student route to the family work routes, we will build a system that truly puts you, your family and the British people first”. Some of these quotes could shed a negative light on immigration like the right-wing press aims to do, one quote that states that “We will protect British values and our way of life” makes it seem as if British values are under attack from strangers or outside sources, invoking sentiments of being threatened, similar to those invoked in Mckinstry’s article that also used nativist notions (The Conservative Part 2015, 29-31).

In terms of discourses used, the only consistent discourse that is used other than the master narrative of immigration is that of the welfare state.

“When immigration is out of control, it puts pressure on schools hospitals and transport; and it can cause social pressure if communities find it hard to integrate” (Conservative Party 2015, 29) The quote above echoes sentiments amongst anti-immigration supporters and right-wing politicians, that the amount of migrants and refugees coming into the United Kingdom is causing extensive pressure on British social services. Of course the language used within the conservative manifesto is nowhere near as controversial or provoking, but the fact that nationalism and the threat immigration poses to it, have crept into one of the mainstream parties manifestos is concerning and indicative of the normalization of populist right-wing rhetoric within British politics (Conservative Party 2015, 29-31).