How do we deal with the increasing politicisation of migration?

Some narratives have become dominant over others, writes May Bulman. What impact does this have on both the public and policymakers’ decisions and attitudes?

Deterrents without safe routes do not reduce irregular arrivals of asylum seekers (Getty)

In Britain, we have become accustomed to seeing images of Black and brown people packed into dinghies crossing the English Channel. Rarely does a week go by without versions of this image from boats arriving on the Kent coast. The focus is on a collective of migrants crossing the border without permission – rarely on the passengers as people with complex stories.

This centring of border crossings in reporting on migration is not unique to the British media. In EU countries we see similar trends. During what became known as the “migrant crisis” in 2015 the situation was framed by some as an unwelcome influx of anonymous foreigners pouring across the seas from Africa and the Middle East, or “swarming” in overland from Turkey. The very term “crisis” reflects a sense of panic. This has continued to the present day, with much of the media in Europe portraying the continuing arrival of asylum seekers from these regions as an emergency, with the attention focused on the border.

But there is, of course, far more to the migration story than the act of crossing a border, and the narrative that is often pushed in some quarters is not necessarily the full picture. Why have these people left their homes? What has their journey been up until now? What happens to them next?