The “good” versus “bad” migrant idea has been created in order to assign migrants different levels of worth and deservingness. The “good migrant” includes migrants who  “contribute” and “work hard”, whilst the “bad migrant” is perceived as migrants who do not “integrate” and who do not have a “genuine” claim for protection.

The “good” versus “bad” migrant narrative is everywhere

You only have to look at the coverage of Ukrainian refugees as “civilised” and “just like us” to know that this is true. Across right-wing spaces, this “good” versus “bad” migrant narrative crops up again and again, either in politician’s comments, or in the media. 

Examples include ex-Home Secretaries Priti Patel saying that most people on small boats are not “genuine”,  Sajid Javid questioning whether those crossing the channel are “genuine” refugees, but also Suella Braverman saying her parents “integrated” and supported “British values”, to separate them from undocumented migrants who she believes are “at odds with British values”, or people seeking asylum who she believes are “gaming the system”. 

We have included many media examples of the “bad” migrant narrative in the table below, which link to British newspapers such as the Daily Mail, the Telegraph, GB News, The Express, and The Sun.

The “good” vs “bad” migrant narrative in pro-migrant spaces

What is especially concerning is the prevalence of this idea in pro-migrant spaces. We have seen organisations make references to “refugee contributions”, an article saying that “refugees make great employees” because they “work hard”, and even some organisations making references to “British values” and “integration”, or making a distinction between “genuine” and “not genuine” people seeking asylum. We have even seen pro-migrant organisations focusing on famous refugees who “bring much more than their belongings with them to their new countries”: an unintentional implication of this is a reinforcement of the idea that famous refugees are more “deserving” of the protections we are obligated to offer them. 

The media is also filled with examples of refugees being celebrated for achieving certain feats, such as “social worker of the year”, footballer, CEO, and “Afrobeats star”. Even people seeking asylum themselves have used language playing into this idea: they say they are “grateful”, or that they want to “contribute”, “integrate” and “pay taxes”.

It might seem far-fetched to say that celebrating “contribution” or “integration” is feeding into the idea of the “good migrant” versus the “bad migrant”. But it actually isn’t. What we have to realise is that celebrating the “good migrant” gives validity to the very existence of the concept of the “bad migrant”. 

What is a ‘binary’ and how does it work?

What we mean by this is that the concept of the “good migrant” cannot exist without its opposite: the “bad migrant”. The concept of the “good migrant” and the “bad migrant” are interdependent. This means they rely on each other to exist and to have meaning, and reinforce each other as part of a binary: a division between two groups, where these two groups are framed as distinct opposites. The idea of the “good migrant” is only real in relation to the ideal of the “bad migrant”: if the “bad migrant” didn’t exist, then the “good migrant” wouldn’t exist either. 

This binary has been put into place in order to hierarchise people and assign them different levels of worth: hierarchies require a binary against which they can rank and assign people. 

How does this binary relate to racism and ableism?

The “good” versus “bad” migrant binary is informed by systems of oppression, such as racism, including Islamophobia, and ableism. This means that whether someone is deemed to fall on the “good” or “bad” side of the binary is dictated by racist or ableist narratives and beliefs.

Let’s look at a couple of examples.

The definition of “integration”, “assimilation” and “British values” is shaped by racism, including Islamophobia. This means that those who are seen to have “not integrated” are often racialised or Muslim. The “good” versus “bad” migrant binary has therefore been used to increase surveillance against migrant, racialised and Muslim communities in the UK. 

Another example revolves around the concepts of “hard work” and “contribution”. These concepts are informed by capitalism and ableism, which means that those who are disabled or from lower socio-economic backgrounds are more likely to be seen as “lazy” or a “burden”. 

“Good migrant” examples	“Bad migrant” examples
Is “legal” or “law-abiding”	Is “illegal”, a “criminal” or “lawbreaker”, or is “gaming the system”
“Contributes”, “pays taxes” and “gives back”	“Doesn’t contribute” or is a “burden” or “net cost”
Is “hard-working”	Is “lazy”, a “burden” or a “scrounger”
“Integrates” and is “grateful”	“Forms separate communities” “Can barely speak English” Is an “extremist”, “terrorist” or “criminal” Comes from “clannish societies” Is “ungrateful”
Has a “genuine” claim for protection	Does not have a “valid” claim for protection, is an “economic migrant”, or is “simply not genuine”
Adheres to “British values”	Possesses “cultural attitudes completely incompatible with British values” Has an “underdeveloped spiritual, moral, social and cultural education/understanding of the fundamental British values of democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty and mutual respect and tolerance“ Is an “extremist”, “terrorist” or “criminal” Has a “narrow view on women” Shows “signs of radicalisation” Shares pro-Palestinian sentiment “Wants Sharia law”
Is “civilised” or “just like us”	Is a “homophobic Muslim” Is “intolerant” and “patriarchal” Is “savage” or “barbaric” Is from a “jungle” “A poll showed that over half of British Muslims think homosexuality should be illegal”
Is on an entrepreneur visa or is “skilled”	Is “unskilled”/ “low-skilled” or on a temporary agricultural worker visa
Is wealthy	Is not wealthy, or is applying for NRPF

Racism and ableism dictate who is seen to fulfil the criteria of the “good migrant” versus the “bad migrant”, and by extension dictate who is deemed “deserving” of rights and respect, and who is deemed “unworthy”. This binary then shapes laws and policies that give rights and protection to some whilst subjecting others to violence. Examples include the Illegal Migration Act 2023, updates to the “good character” requirement, and the points-based system.

It’s time to move away from the “good” migrant narrative

In celebrating the “good migrant”, pro-migration spaces end up reinforcing a racist and ableist binary that is also used to legitimise increased violence against racialised, Muslim and disabled communities.  

This means that they are also unable to effectively shut down outright forms of hatred (like those on the far right) because they reinforce the very same racist and ableist hierarchies in their arguments that the far right do.  

If we truly want to pursue migrant justice, we have to defy binaries that reinforce systems of oppression, and that rank our communities in a hierarchy along racist and ableist lines. 

Check out our Words Matter campaign.