Refugee mental health: a critical discourse analysis of the parliamentary debates on the passage of the UK Illegal Migration Act

Abstract

The passage of the UK Illegal Migration Act (the Act) has implications on the mental health of refugees and people seeking asylum (PSA). A critical discourse analysis (CDA) was employed to critically examine 29 UK parliamentary debates surrounding the Act. The current study focuses on the top-down effect that these discourses have on societal perceptions about this population and their negative influence on their mental health. Using Fairclough’s three-dimensional framework for CDA, the findings revealed three core discursive practices: (1) construction of the othered; (2) criminalisation and punitive control; and (3) conditional compassion. The findings of the analysis are consistent with current literature, demonstrating that PSA were systematically othered through mechanisms of dehumanisation and criminalisation. This justified punitive legislation while allowing the government to maintain a moral high ground by offering compassion only to those who meet the narrow, often unachievable, standards of deservingness. Clinical implications and recommendations are discussed.