Dr Lin Dong on how language is a battleground in UK asylum debates, stigmatisation distracting from real issues, and the path from judgement to understanding.
Stigmatisation can block understanding in the asylum debate.
In 2025, the UK’s asylum debate has become increasingly emotionally charged, shaped by local protests, legal disputes, and widespread concerns such as the use of hotels for asylum accommodation. In some towns, residents voice frustration over limited consultation and scarce resources, while others emphasise compassion towards those seeking refuge.
Within this tense environment, language has become a battleground. Terms such as 'illegal', 'queue jumper', or 'burden' are used to describe some groups, while others are dismissed as 'idealistic' or 'naïve'. These labels do more than express disagreement; they can influence how people listen, or stop listening, to one another.
As discussions become driven by stigmatisation and defined by labels, the space for addressing the genuine challenges of managing asylum systems risks being overwhelmed by moral conflict rather than constructive engagement.
Stigmatisation in the UK’s asylum discussions flows in both directions. Migrants are sometimes portrayed as threats to security or public resources, while those supporting stricter border control are caricatured as intolerant or lacking empathy. These reactions are understandable in an emotionally charged setting: concerns about housing, employment, or local capacity may be dismissed as prejudice, while worries about the safety and welfare of asylum seekers can be brushed aside as misplaced sympathy.
Stigmatisation in the UK’s asylum discussions flows in both directions. Migrants are sometimes portrayed as threats to security or public resources, while those supporting stricter border control are caricatured as intolerant or lacking empathy. These reactions are understandable in an emotionally charged setting: concerns about housing, employment, or local capacity may be dismissed as prejudice, while worries about the safety and welfare of asylum seekers can be brushed aside as misplaced sympathy. This cycle of mutual stigmatisation reinforces polarisation, blurring the line between legitimate concerns and moral condemnation.
How labels limit listening and problem-solving
Labels are not just words. They are social markers that signal who we are. Terms such as 'illegal migrant' do not simply describe legal status; they attach moral judgment. Once applied, labels tend to stick, simplifying uncertainties by sorting people into categories of 'good' and 'bad', 'victim' and 'villain'. Such moral sorting can feel reassuring, especially amid complex and emotionally charged issues like asylum, where facts are contested and stakes are high.
Yet, this comes at a significant cost: It reduces realities to moral binaries, hiding the intertwined causes behind asylum challenges — from global conflict and economic pressures to institutional bottlenecks. When debate is filtered through fixed moral categories, people may stop asking open questions such as 'What is happening here?' or 'Why do people feel this way?'. Instead, conversation becomes about defending their identities and positions, rather than an inquiry into shared problems.
This dynamic narrows the space for thoughtful dialogue and leaves underlying issues unresolved. The longer it continues, the harder it becomes to build the trust and common ground needed for fair and workable reform. Policy risks being shaped more by identity politics and fear than by balanced consideration of legal duties, humanitarian responsibilities, and administrative realities.
Steps towards better dialogue
Understanding how labelling shapes our perceptions allows us to step back and approach it with a different kind of curiosity. Instead of asking 'Who is right?', we can ask 'Why people hold the views they do?'. This shift draws attention to the emotions, lived experiences, and perceived threats that shape public opinion. It encourages replacing accusation with inquiry and addressing concerns without shaming those who express them.
The first step could be describing situations rather than assigning identities. It helps open space for empathy, shared problem-definition, and evidence-based conversation. A more balanced dialogue does not require agreement on every issue, but it does require the type of language that keeps communication open. For example:
Even small changes in tone, repeated across public and institutional settings, can contribute to a more thoughtful, constructive conversation.
Sometimes, labels can offer clarity. However, they also close doors. By pausing to look beyond them, we may rediscover the complexity — and the possibility — that lies beneath disagreement. In that space, dialogue can move from judgment towards understanding, allowing society to confront the real challenges of asylum policy with empathy, evidence, and courage.
Assistant Professor of Strategic Management
Dr Lin Dong's research examines negative social evaluations such as stigma and misconduct.
