Introduction
This essay explores the intersection of immigration and moral panic within the context of criminology, examining how societal fears surrounding immigration are constructed, amplified, and exploited. Moral panic, a concept popularised by Stanley Cohen (1972), refers to the exaggerated public reaction to a perceived social threat, often fuelled by media and political discourse. Immigration, particularly in the UK, has frequently been framed as such a threat, linked to crime, economic strain, and cultural erosion. This discussion aims to outline the theoretical framework of moral panic, analyse its application to immigration, and evaluate the social and political consequences of such framing. By drawing on academic literature and official data, the essay will argue that moral panics around immigration often distort reality, perpetuate stereotypes, and influence punitive policy responses, while also considering alternative perspectives that challenge these narratives.
Theoretical Framework: Understanding Moral Panic
Moral panic, as defined by Cohen (1972), emerges when a group or phenomenon is portrayed as a significant threat to societal values, prompting widespread fear and hostility. Cohen identified key stages in this process, including the identification of a ‘folk devil’—a scapegoated group blamed for social ills—and the escalation of concern through media sensationalism. In the context of immigration, migrants are frequently cast as folk devils, blamed for a range of issues from unemployment to crime. Garland (2008) further elaborates that moral panics are not spontaneous but are often orchestrated by powerful actors, such as politicians or media outlets, to serve specific agendas. This framework provides a lens through which to analyse how immigration is framed as a crisis in public discourse, despite evidence often contradicting such claims.
Immigration as a Catalyst for Moral Panic in the UK
In the UK, immigration has been a recurrent focus of moral panic, particularly since the post-World War II era when large-scale migration from former colonies began. More recently, events such as the 2004 expansion of the European Union and the 2015-16 European migrant crisis have intensified public concern. Media portrayals often depict immigrants as a homogenous group responsible for overburdening public services and increasing crime rates. For instance, during the Brexit campaign, narratives around ‘taking back control’ of borders suggested that immigration posed an existential threat to British identity and security (Goodwin and Milazzo, 2017). Such rhetoric arguably oversimplifies complex socio-economic issues, ignoring, for example, the positive contributions of migrants to the economy, as highlighted by the Office for National Statistics (ONS, 2020), which notes that EU migrants contribute significantly to tax revenues.
Furthermore, moral panic surrounding immigration often focuses on crime, despite limited empirical support for a direct correlation. A study by Bell et al. (2013) found no significant link between immigration and increased crime rates in the UK, suggesting that public perceptions are shaped more by sensationalist reporting than by evidence. However, tabloid headlines frequently amplify isolated incidents involving migrants, fostering a distorted view of reality. This raises questions about the role of media as a driver of moral panic, as well as the responsibility of policymakers to counter such narratives with facts rather than exploit them for political gain.
Political and Social Consequences of Moral Panic
The framing of immigration as a moral panic has tangible consequences for both policy and social cohesion. Politically, it has often led to the implementation of restrictive immigration policies, such as the UK’s Hostile Environment policy introduced in 2012, which aimed to deter illegal migration but resulted in widespread discrimination against legal migrants, including the Windrush scandal (Gentleman, 2019). This punitive approach reflects what Garland (2001) describes as a ‘culture of control,’ where fear-driven policies prioritise public reassurance over evidence-based solutions. Indeed, such measures arguably exacerbate social exclusion, as they institutionalise suspicion towards migrant communities.
Socially, moral panics contribute to xenophobia and the marginalisation of immigrant groups. The rise in hate crimes following the Brexit referendum, with a reported 41% increase in racially or religiously aggravated offences (Home Office, 2016), illustrates how moral panic can translate into real-world harm. This creates a vicious cycle, where stigmatised communities are further alienated, potentially increasing vulnerability to crime or radicalisation—issues that are then, ironically, used to justify further panic. On the other hand, some scholars argue that public concern over immigration is not entirely baseless, pointing to genuine challenges around integration and resource allocation in certain areas (Casey, 2016). While these concerns warrant attention, the disproportionate focus on immigration as the root cause of societal issues often overshadows structural factors like austerity or inequality.
Challenging the Narrative: Alternative Perspectives
Despite dominant narratives, there are voices that challenge the moral panic surrounding immigration. Academics and advocacy groups argue that immigration is a net positive for the UK, citing economic benefits and cultural enrichment. Dustmann and Frattini (2014) demonstrate that immigrants, particularly from the EU, make a positive fiscal contribution, countering claims of economic burden. Additionally, community-based initiatives and grassroots campaigns have sought to humanise migrants, shifting the discourse from threat to opportunity. However, these perspectives struggle to gain traction against the backdrop of sensationalist media and populist rhetoric, highlighting the difficulty of dismantling deeply entrenched fears.
Moreover, a critical approach to moral panic theory itself suggests limitations in its application to immigration. Critics argue that the concept can sometimes oversimplify complex public attitudes, ignoring legitimate concerns held by some communities about rapid demographic change (Jewkes and Yar, 2013). This critique suggests a need for nuanced analysis that balances the recognition of exaggerated fears with an understanding of genuine anxieties, thereby avoiding the dismissal of all public concern as irrational.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the concept of moral panic provides a valuable framework for understanding how immigration is constructed as a societal threat in the UK. Media and political discourse often amplify fears, casting migrants as folk devils and driving restrictive policies that prioritise control over evidence. The social consequences, including increased xenophobia and marginalisation, underscore the real-world impact of such narratives. However, alternative perspectives that highlight the contributions of immigrants and the complexity of public attitudes remind us of the importance of challenging simplistic framings. Ultimately, addressing the moral panic around immigration requires a commitment to evidence-based policy and a media landscape that prioritises truth over sensationalism. The implications of this issue extend beyond criminology, touching on broader questions of social justice and national identity, and demand ongoing critical engagement to foster a more inclusive society.
References
- Bell, B., Fasani, F., and Machin, S. (2013) Crime and immigration: Evidence from large immigrant waves. Review of Economics and Statistics, 95(4), pp. 1278-1290.
- Cohen, S. (1972) Folk Devils and Moral Panics: The Creation of the Mods and Rockers. London: MacGibbon and Kee.
- Casey, L. (2016) The Casey Review: A review into opportunity and integration. London: Department for Communities and Local Government.
- Dustmann, C. and Frattini, T. (2014) The fiscal effects of immigration to the UK. The Economic Journal, 124(580), pp. F593-F643.
- Garland, D. (2001) The Culture of Control: Crime and Social Order in Contemporary Society. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- Garland, D. (2008) On the concept of moral panic. Crime, Media, Culture, 4(1), pp. 9-30.
- Gentleman, A. (2019) The Windrush Betrayal: Exposing the Hostile Environment. London: Guardian Faber Publishing.
- Goodwin, M. and Milazzo, C. (2017) Taking back control? Investigating the role of immigration in the 2016 vote for Brexit. The British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 19(3), pp. 450-464.
- Home Office (2016) Hate Crime, England and Wales, 2015/16. London: Home Office.
- Jewkes, Y. and Yar, M. (2013) Handbook of Internet Crime. London: Routledge.
- Office for National Statistics (ONS) (2020) Migration Statistics Quarterly Report: February 2020. London: ONS.
