Go Back To Where You Came From: A missed opportunity or harmful experiment?
Posted by Jenni Regan on March 19, 2025Recently, Channel 4 aired Go Back To Where You Came From, a reality-style programme that puts participants through a simulated refugee journey. The idea? To challenge views on immigration. But while some found it thought-provoking, others have rightly criticised it for platforming far-right perspectives and reducing real trauma to entertainment.
At IMIX, we believe people with lived experience of migration should be at the centre of conversations about immigration—not just spoken about. So when The Mirror asked us if some of our storytellers would review the show for the Real Britain column, we worked with journalist Ros Wynne-Jones to set up a ‘Refugee Gogglebox ‘session. We asked five people to watch the series because, in the furore, very few refugee voices had so far been heard.
Condemned as ‘A Place in the Sun meets Benefit Street’ and ‘Racist Across the World’, the show features a group of British people brought to Somalia and Syria before taking dangerous migrant routes to the UK. As the series progresses, those most opposed to Britain accepting refugees begin to change their views.
Watching through a lived experience lens
The ‘Refugee Gogglebox’ group offered an insightful and deeply personal perspective on the show. Their reactions highlighted both the flaws in the programme’s format and its potential to shift public attitudes.
“I look at the ratio of how many people change their minds—most of them,” says Shams. “For me, that makes the show worth it. When they land back in Dover, they are kissing the rock. It made me see we all have something in common. We are all humans. They had 24-hour security, and still their hearts were beating outside their chests. The anxiety, the stress, the fear you will die.”
One of our biggest concerns was that a programme like this could turn trauma into a spectacle. While it might change some opinions, it often does so by centring non-migrants, rather than those who’ve actually experienced these journeys.
There’s also a wider issue: why does migration only seem to ‘matter’ when a British person is put in the same situation? The reality is, no TV show can recreate the fear, danger, and powerlessness faced by real refugees. And yet, that’s the bar so often set for empathy.
Reaching the right audiences, safely
At IMIX, we focus on reaching the ‘mixed middle’—people who don’t have strong views on migration but are open to new perspectives.
Many in this group may not watch a documentary on asylum, but they might tune into a reality show. That’s why we engage with these moments—on our terms.
Crucially, we also ensure that anyone with lived experience who engages with the media is fully supported. The group we worked with were all media trained, given a choice about participation, and offered support before and after. Our aim isn’t just to put people in the media—it’s to embed lived experience at every level, from reporting to production.
What we decided
Put to the vote, all five of our ‘Refugee Gogglebox’ participants thought the show should—on careful balance—have been made. But they believe it could have been made better with their input.
Gaida sums up the panel’s verdict: “We have a saying in the refugee community: ‘Nothing about us without us’ – this shouldn’t have been without us.”
We’ll always push for better, more ethical media conversations about migration. But we’ll do it in a way that centres lived experience, engages the right audiences, and prioritises care.
Read the final piece here: The Mirror.
