The myth of the "Boriswave"

Over summer 2024 anonymous right-wing accounts on twitter, who support Reform or more extreme ethnonationalist parties, started using the term “Boriswave” to describe the brief but sharp rise in net migration from 2021-2024. A popular account called “Drukpa Kunley” pushed it particularly hard using racist imagery: “groups of Africans standing or walking along country lanes in the middle of nowhere – Boriswave”.

It was an inspired bit of propaganda, simplifying a complex set of different phenomena (humanitarian visas to Ukrainians and those leaving Hong-Kong, a post-pandemic surge in student arrivals, and a large increase in health and care workers), into a single word that neatly assigned blame to a political opponent.

The mainstream press started using it fairly quickly and by summer 2025 it had become familiar enough to appear without any qualifiers or explanation. Reform’s leadership began using it early on, as it helpfully emphasised the distinction between them and the Conservatives. Despite the term’s origins on the ethnonationalist right, even some Labour MPs couldn’t resist a phrase that blamed a political enemy. By September “Drukpa Kunley” was celebrating:

“Widespread adoption of the term ‘Boriswave’ in mainstream politics is a big victory for the British Online Right so-called - where the term originated last year. Internet influence is easy to overstate but it shows how low energy mainstream politics is [that] it can have this influence.”

As net migration is now plummeting towards zero, and small boat numbers have fallen almost 50% in the past year, the mainstream right have become increasingly obsessed with the “Boriswave”, as a way of keeping immigration at the top of the news agenda. Because the vast majority of those that arrived during that period did so legally the focus is not on deporting them immediately but ensuring they cannot get indefinite leave to remain (ILR), and ultimately citizenship.

For a time it looked like Shabana Mahmood’s reforms to ILR would stop many from staying, but pushback from Labour MPs is likely to lead to major concessions (though it’s not yet clear how far these will go). This has led to another bout of wailing and gnashing of teeth on the right. It’s got to the point where supposedly serious commentators are proposing retrospectively removing citizenship from people who’ve done nothing wrong and committed no crimes, simply because they arrived during 2021-24. See this, for instance, from David Shipley in the Spectator:

“Whatever Labour do, the Boriswave will have to be reversed. The next government will have no other choice. And if that means cancellations of settlement, and even of acquired citizenships, then so be it. We should be honest about this – it’s time for Reform and the Tories to announce that they will reverse the Boriswave, whatever it takes.” (My italics)

This fearmongering is usually justified with reference to the supposedly huge cost of accommodating all these people on a permanent basis. Shipley says it will “bankrupt” the country. Reform has talked of a £700 billion bill, £20k per household.

So in the rest of the post I’ll look at who the arrivals actually were; what we really know about the costs and benefits; and the dangerous policy implications of overreacting to a largely invented problem.