The Politics of Migration: Why Our Identity Matters
Published: 4 June 2026
Ciara Moore is an International Relations student, and this blog draws from her work on the Psychology of Politics course.
"Social identity theory” - an academic approach with its origins in the 1970s - can help us to better understand the factors which mobilise support and opposition to migration in our own era.
Migration Debates or Identity Politics?
While today’s migration debates seem to focus on borders, statistics and shifting numbers, beneath the surface, these conversations are really about identity. Who counts as one of us and who remains an outsider? Across every arena, people naturally draw lines and distinguish between insiders and outsiders. Here, Social Identity Theory (SIT) shows us how one’s identity can motivate attitudes and behaviors just as strongly as economic concerns or material interests. The current arguments surrounding migration in both the United Kingdom and Europe are a clear example.
The Foundations of Social Identity Theory
Seeking to uncover the roots of bias and hostility across different social communities, Henri Tajfel and John Turner formulated a concept in the 1970s, subsequently coined the Social Identity Theory. The theory explains the psychological and social factors that influence when individuals think and act as part of a collective rather than as independent selves.
Tajfel and Turner argued that people seek to view their group in ways that reflect well on them, building a sense of superiority and pride. Lyengar's work shows that even minimal forms of group affiliation prompt loyalty towards ‘insiders’ and unfavourable views of those outside of the group.
Later work on the Self-Categorisation theory has shed light on how belonging begins. Group unity varies by circumstances, a person’s awareness of belonging is not constant, often kicking in when one’s environment brings a part of their identity into the spotlight. Migration debates do just this, making certain identities more salient.
How The Social Identity Theory Explains Group Conflict
As groups emerge, individuals often show preferences to their own members. The Social Identity Theory argues that loyalty and pride to one’s own group comes first, and negative attitudes towards another group often surfaces when a group’s sense of superiority is contested by an outside community.
However, the way that we are defined by others can trigger friction. When individuals are placed into a group identity that conflicts with how they see themselves, it can evoke what Ellemers calls this a "categorisation threat”. These conflicts can spread. Ellemers notes that when groups root their identity on competing moral beliefs, it can spark resentment. Those who fail to align with the in-group's moral standards can be seen as alien, making hostility towards them feel acceptable.
As attachment to a group deepens, individuals become more emotionally invested. People are then more inclined to protect their group and exhibit aggression when their group’s position is challenged, magnifying intergroup versus out group thinking. These dynamics carry over into politics, where political and social identities often overlap.
From ethnicity to class, Mason notes that the political opinions of individuals usually mirror the social groups they are part of. This magnifies rifts and feeds what is known as “affective polarisation”. This type of polarisation focuses on the emotions and attitudes between groups, not clashes over policy debates. If politics is, as Mason defines it, “formalised intergroup conflict” then migration debates make these group conflicts especially clear.
Why Group Identity Drives Division
Public discussions surrounding migration consistently trigger group identities, in ways that the Social Identity Theory explains. As Magnum and Block put it “Like so many other issues, immigration prompts individuals to think in group terms. More specifically, immigration encourages thinking along group terms.”
SIT explains why these responses manifest. Tajfel, the founder of the Social Identity Theory, contended that identifying with a group gives people a sense of purpose and creates a shared emotional bond that binds them to other members. This provides insight into why immigration is central to political debates, and why, as Card observed “attitudes toward immigration are clearly linked to deeply held views about the economic self-interest and social identity of the native population.”
This impulse to preserve in-group values and standards is apparent in European contexts on Muslim integration and cultural practice. One study identified that “Muslims in Europe are regularly accused of non-integration (...) Muslim citizens themselves are perceived as a threat.”
Headlines continue to illustrate this. In 2023, the French government was supported by the Conseil d'état in prohibiting the wearing of abayas in state-run schools, regardless of concerns that hostility could intensify.
In the UK, these dynamics are also clear. Under the Rwanda asylum plan, these contrasting cultural norms were portrayed as a challenge to national identity. In a 2023 speech, Sunak claimed that immigrants will “overwhelm our countries and our capacity to help those who actually need our help the most.”This is language that paints these newcomers as a threat to the country’s stability.
Although they represent under two percent of overall migration levels, political discourse and headlines calling out to curb small boat arrivals have brought extensive media attention to the topic and spread fear throughout the UK. One study shows the impacts of this narrative, discovering that an increase in small-boat arrivals aligns with a substantial reduction in public backing of immigration.
Social Identity Theory uncovers why migration can trigger negative and unwelcoming responses. Fundamentally, SIT holds that individuals prioritise their group and distinguish it sharply from those outside it. Magnum and Block note that “As in-group members, they find their group to be more esteemed, especially regarding a rival out-group". This tendency sheds light on exclusionary responses towards immigrants. They pointed out that “People who have an American identity will oppose immigration because immigrants are members of an out-group that they believe do not have an American identity”.
These lines and distinctions amplify when a group is under strain. As a study by Esses captures it, ”during times of national crisis and threat, one would expect that anti-immigrant attitudes and support for more restrictive immigration policies would be evident.” She adds that this anxiety and perceived threat is then amplified when ”nativist national identity may reinforce perceptions of threat from immigrants (...) because nativist identity may be tied to a belief that one’s interests are rooted in the group”
SIT explains why reactions like these feel acceptable. Card notes “people strive to achieve positive social identity, which is reinforced by favourable comparisons between one’s own group and an outside group. Differentiation from the outside group (…) can therefore increase social identity.” Put simply, this means that certain behaviours towards outsiders can appear, to insiders, as defending their own identity rather than just being biased or hostile to other groups.
Additionally, this explains why misrepresentations can occur. Dustmann noted “even if immigrants are less likely to commit crime than natives, the belief that immigrants are a leading cause of crime may be identity-reinforcing (...) and at the same time accentuates the gap between the native population and immigrant groups.”
Greater cultural unfamiliarity, due to differences in language, heritage or culture can cause these reactions to escalate, as groups are believed to be disrupting social harmony and what’s usually considered normal.
Overall, the evidence indicates that anti-immigrant sentiment often stems less often from ignorance and blatant prejudice, and more by measures taken to protect a group that people fear is eroding.
How Identity Shapes Public Attitudes on Immigration
Empirical evidence corroborates Social Identity Theory’s argument that the degree to which people identify with their group, plays a vital role in shaping attitudes towards immigration. Magnum and Block’s research shows that people’s sense of group belonging is closely tied to how they assess immigration, arguing “American identity is a potent factor (...) the five dimensions of American identity relate to public opinion on immigration.”
This identity dynamic is visible in broader societal contexts. As discussed above, this trend is just as evident across Europe, with analysis from Garcia-Faroldi displaying “The higher the percentage of immigrants in a country, the more negative the attitudes held by the population” underscoring that changing population composition can increase the visibility of identity divisions.
However, this is not the case everywhere. Research displays that broader, more open identities can actually mitigate negative attitudes. Garcia-Faroldi pointed out ”People with broader identities (feeling European and citizen of the world) hold more positive attitudes towards immigrants. As “these identities tend to be more inclusive, more civic and less based on ethnic elements than national identities.”
Research from Card and Dustmann highlights the same pattern. "People tend to be more negative about immigrants of a different ethnicity” and show “more overall support for immigration of ethnically similar people than for ethnically different people.” They reported that people with migrant backgrounds are generally more welcoming and open than non-immigrants.
Together, these studies show us that the level to which a group identity is defined, and how this group identity is then presented, guides public opinion, determining whether immigration is viewed as a risk or socially harmonious.
The Impacts of Expanding Who Belongs
Although SIT largely explains how divisions form, it also demonstrates how these lines can be redirected to bring people together. Studies on group dynamics have discovered that when people start to view those previously seen as outsiders as part of the group, the mental and emotional forces that usually fuel ingroup preference towards one's own group shift course.
Analysis of Germany’s initial approach to the wave of refugees between 2015-16 is a prime example of this. Accommodating roughly one million refugees, Germany continued to respond in an accommodating manner. Thanks to political leaders, the press, and wider society, narratives were promoted that framed refugees as compatible with the German identity, and worthy of safety.
This realignment reveals how tensions can diminish once newcomers are incorporated into a broader sense of identity. Esses also noted that emphasising a shared national identity that encompasses both newcomers and locals can shift attitudes in a more welcoming direction, while adopting more than one group identity appears to strengthen this effect.
A further element of this shift stems from the civic values that underpin national identity. Card and Dustmann noted “while pursuit of social identity could be a source of negative attitudes toward immigrants, it could also lead to more positive attitudes if the native group’s identity is strongly linked to notions of fairness, equality, or social justice.” They explain that national traditions vary, and so how a nation prioritises equality and public justice consequently shapes how societies judge immigration. This might help to account for why some countries are more welcoming than others.
Why Identity Alone Doesn’t Explain Immigration Attitudes
While SIT offers several important insights into the attitudes towards immigration, it does not capture the full complexity of this issue. Magnum and Block explained that “Americans opinions do not vary much according to cultural concerns or their personal characteristics” suggesting that limits exist on theories based entirely on cultural threats. This indicates that identity cannot fully account for all responses to immigration.
Canada provides a clear example. One survey discovered that even in the face of increasing immigration, around sixty percent of Canadians, do not believe that immigration levels are excessive and public opinions continue to be welcoming.
Timotjevic echoed this, noting that identity’s role in shaping threat shifts across different contexts, working differently depending on the society in question.
Card and Dustmann flagged that even larger, broader identities, such as individuals from France or Spain identifying as “European” can still create new lines of exclusion. As they explained “On balance the emergence of a ‘European’ social identity in the post-war period has led to more negative views of immigrants.”
These limitations underscore a clear pattern, while SIT is a valuable analytical lens, migration attitudes are also influenced by wider social and historical conditions. Identity-based explanations do not paint the whole picture alone, they must be integrated with broader theoretical perspectives.
At a wider glance, evidence indicates that identity plays a key role in driving migration debates and attitudes globally. The Social Identity Theory underpins where hostility and fear comes from, why group lines become rigid, and how newcomers can be included when in-groups expand. However, dynamics extend beyond this, public views on immigration are moulded by a nation’s history, cultural traditions, and political contexts reminding us that identity must be considered with these wider factors.
First published: 4 June 2026
Ciara Moore is an International Relations student, and this blog draws from her work on the Psychology of Politics course.