| Summary: | In this thesis, I identify key ideologies and discourses that exist concerning immigration in the UK Parliament, drawing upon a discourse historical approach, as part of an integrated socio-cognitive method of critical discourse analysis. I base my work on a multidisciplinary theoretical framework that incorporates discourse analysis, argumentation theory, social cognition and sociological theories. This longitudinal work, which incorporates both Houses of Parliament, periods of rule by both major parties and an analysis of the speeches of smaller parties, closes a gap in the field, which has previously focused on immigration in the news media and typically within political parties/politicians of the (far-)right.
Analysing the debates of three immigration-related bills and the EU Referendum, with data ranging across a 25-year period, from the General Election of 1992 to 2017, I demonstrate that the Discourse of Immigration is grounded in institutional xenophobia that intersects with socio-economic class. I explore data from both Houses, including both major parties, whether in Government or in Opposition and the smaller parties to demonstrate the range of argumentation strategies Members of Parliament adopt to persuade others of their/their party’s position on immigration. I use critical discourse analysis to reveal the ideologies upon which these argumentation strategies are based. I explore the socio-cultural and historical roots of these ideologies to demonstrate their prevalence and persistence across the political spectrum.
|
|---|