Skip to content
Licensed Unlicensed Requires Authentication Published by De Gruyter Mouton August 2, 2018

Welfare restrictions and ‘benefit tourists’: Representations and evaluations of EU migrants in the UK

Deanna Demetriou
From the journal Communications


This article investigates online representations and evaluations of EU migrants, focusing on the notion of ‘benefit tourism’ and discursive strategies used in the (de)legitimization of new welfare restrictions in the UK. Through the examination of online newspapers and corresponding public comment threads, this article adopts theoretical and methodological premises from Critical Discourse Studies (CDS), drawing upon the Discourse-Historical Approach (DHA) to provide both a politically motivated as well as reflexive account. Although new participatory structures allow for resistance to emerge, the openness, scalability and anonymity of the internet also allows for the spread of discrimination through the construction of EU migrants (in particular Bulgarians and Romanians) as the ‘Other’.


Balch, A., & Balabanova, E. (2016). Ethics, politics and migration: Public debates on the free movement of Romanians and Bulgarians in the UK, 2006–2013. Political Studies Association, 36(1), 19–35.10.1111/1467-9256.12082Search in Google Scholar

Banks, J. (2010). Regulating hate speech online. International Review of Law, Computers and Technology, 24(3), 233–239.10.1080/13600869.2010.522323Search in Google Scholar

BBC News (2014, May 18). Nigel Farage attacked over Romanians ‘slur’. Retrieved December 12, 2017from in Google Scholar

Borjas, G. (1999). Immigration and welfare magnets. Journal of Labor Economics, 17(4), 607–637.10.3386/w6813Search in Google Scholar

Cameron, D. (2013, November 27). Free movement within Europe needs to be less free. Financial Times. Retrieved December 12, 2017from in Google Scholar

Charteris-Black, J. (2006). Britain as a container: Immigration metaphors in the 2005 election campaign. Discourse and Society, 17(5), 563–581.10.1177/0957926506066345Search in Google Scholar

Chilton, P. (2004). Analysing political discourse: Theory and practice. London: Routledge.10.4324/9780203561218Search in Google Scholar

Cohen, S. (1972). Folk devils and moral panics: The creation of mods and rockers. London: Granada Publishing Limited.Search in Google Scholar

Consterdine, E. (2015). Managed migration under Labour: Organised public, party ideology and policy change. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 41(9), 1433–1452.10.1080/1369183X.2015.1045711Search in Google Scholar

Davis, D. (2004). Speech delivered by the Shadow Home Secretary to the 2004 Conservative conference, 3–7 October.Search in Google Scholar

De Cleen, B., Zienkowski, J., Smets, K., Dekie, A., & Vandevoordt, R. (2017). Constructing the ‘refugee crisis’ in Flanders. Continuities and adaptations of discourses on asylum and migration. In M. Barlai, B. Fähnrich, C. Griessler & M. Rhomberg (Eds.). The migrant crisis: European perspectives and national discourses (pp. 59–78). Zurich: LIT.Search in Google Scholar

Drinkwater, S., Eade, J., & Garapich, M. (2006). Poles apart? EU enlargement and the labour market outcomes of immigrants in the UK. IZA Discussion Paper, No. 2410, October.10.2139/ssrn.944475Search in Google Scholar

Dustmann, C., & Frattini, T. (2014). The fiscal effects of immigration in the UK. The Economic Journal, 124, 593–643.10.1111/ecoj.12181Search in Google Scholar

Fairclough, N., & Wodak, R. (1997). Critical discourse analysis. In T. van Dijk (Ed). Discourse as social interaction (pp. 258–284). London: Sage.Search in Google Scholar

Giulietti, C., Guzi, M., Kahanec, M., & Zimmermann, K. (2011). Unemployment benefits and immigration: Evidence from the EU. Discussion paper series, Forschungsinstitut zur Zukunft der Arbeit, No. 6075. Retrieved June 16, 2017from in Google Scholar

Hughey, M., & Daniels, J. (2013). Racist comments at online news sites: A methodological dilemma for discourse analysis. Media, Culture and Society, 35(3), 332–347.10.1177/0163443712472089Search in Google Scholar

Inhen, C., & Richardson, J. (2011). On combining pragma-dialectics with critical discourse analysis. In E.T. Feteris, B. Garssen & A.F.S. Henkemans (Eds), Keeping in touch with pragma-dialectics: In honor of Frans H. van Eemeren (pp. 231–244). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.Search in Google Scholar

KhosraviNik, M. (2010). Actor descriptions, action attributes, and argumentation: Towards a systematization of CDA analytical categories in the representation of social groups. Critical Discourse Studies, 7(1), 55–72.10.1080/17405900903453948Search in Google Scholar

KhosraviNik, M. (2014). Immigration discourses and critical discourse analysis dynamics of world events and immigration representations in the British press. In C. Hart & P. Cap (Eds.), Contemporary critical discourse studies (pp. 501–519). London: Bloomsbury.Search in Google Scholar

Kienpointner, M. (2011). Rhetoric. In J. Ostman & J. Verschueren (Eds.), Pragmatics in practice (pp. 264–277). Amsterdam: Benjamins.10.1075/hoph.9.17kieSearch in Google Scholar

Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. London: The University of Chicago Press.10.7208/chicago/9780226470993.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Light, D., & Young, C. (2009). European Union enlargement, post-accession migration and imaginative geographies of the ‘New Europe’: Media discourses in Romania and the United Kingdom. Journal of Cultural Geography, 26(3), 281–303.10.1080/08873630903322205Search in Google Scholar

Martin, J. R., & White, P. R. R. (2005). The language of evaluation. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.10.1057/9780230511910Search in Google Scholar

Mawby, R., & Gisby, W. (2009). Crime, media and moral panic in an expanding European Union. The Howard Journal, 48(1), 37–51.10.1111/j.1468-2311.2008.00547.xSearch in Google Scholar

Meyer, A. (2010). “Too drunk to say no”. Feminist Media Studies, 10(1), 19–34.10.1080/14680770903457071Search in Google Scholar

Oliver, M. (2006, October 24). UK to limit EU entrants’ working rights. The Guardian. Retrieved January 18, 2014from dpucservices.Search in Google Scholar

Parliament, House of Commons (2015). Measures to limit migrants’ access to benefits. (HC 06889). London: The Stationary Office.Search in Google Scholar

Radwanick, S. (2012). Most read online newspapers in the world: Mail Online, New York Times and The Guardian. comScore. Retrieved December 12, 2017from in Google Scholar

Reisigl, M. (2014). Argumentation analysis and the discourse-historical approach: A methodological framework. In C. Hart & P. Cap (Eds.), Contemporary critical discourse studies (pp. 67–96). London: Bloomsbury.Search in Google Scholar

Reisigl, M., & Wodak, R. (2001). Discourse and discrimination: Rhetorics of racism and antisemitism. London: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar

Reisigl, M., & Wodak, R. (2016). The discourse-historical approach (DHA). In M. Meyer & R. Wodak (Eds.), Methods of critical discourse studies (pp. 23–61) (3rd ed.). London: SAGE Publications Ltd.Search in Google Scholar

Said, E. (1978). Orientalism. New York: Pantheon.Search in Google Scholar

Todorova, M. (2009). Imagining the Balkans. New York: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Tunstall, J. (1996). Newspaper power: The new national press in Britain. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar

van Dijk, T. (2001). Critical discourse analysis. In D. Schiffrin, D. Tannen & H. Hamilton (Eds.), The handbook of discourse analysis (pp. 352–371). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.Search in Google Scholar

van Eemeren, F., & Grootendorst, R. (2004). A systematic theory of argumentation: The pragma-dialectical approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511616389Search in Google Scholar

van Leeuwen, T. (1996). The representation of social actors. In C. Caldas Coulthard & M. Coulthard (Eds.), Texts and practices: Readings in critical discourse analysis (pp. 32–70). London: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar

Wodak, R. (2015). The politics of fear: What right-wing populist discourses mean. London: SAGE Publications Ltd.10.4135/9781446270073Search in Google Scholar

Published Online: 2018-08-02
Published in Print: 2018-08-28

© 2018 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston

Scroll Up Arrow