Is the UK’s Approach to Immigration Unfit for Purpose?
Jess Pannese / Dec 21 / Immigration
In November, 27 people drowned in the English Channel - the biggest loss of life recorded to date in the region. French media reported that the victims were believed to be Iraqi or Iranian Kurds, and over here in the UK, Johnson linked the tragedy to human trafficking, flippantly blaming ‘gangs’ for putting lives at risk and ignoring the very complex, yet just, reasons for people attempting to cross the channel.
For a while now, and particularly since the 2015 global refugee crisis, the discourse around immigration has been developing into a political hot topic - and a divisive one at that. The EU, with its notoriously liberal and idealistic principles, has struggled to align said principles with a functioning immigration policy, with many countries instead employing a ‘pushback method’ - a method that certainly does not scream ‘humanitarian’. In October, Poland voted to build a permanent £295 million Belarus border wall, and earlier this year, the UK pledged £54 million to France to fund more police patrols along its coastline. More recently, Priti Patel has made sure not to leave herself out of the ‘pushing back’ - earlier this month, Parliament passed the new Nationality and Borders Bill after its third reading. The Bill ultimately seeks to curb crossing at the English Channel, introducing a new ‘inadmissibility regime’ that would declare anyone arriving by illegal route, such as a small boat, as an inadmissible claim, with a potential jail sentence. There have since been claims that the bill does not convene with international law or the UN refugee convention.
This all comes at the end of a year in which a record number of people have attempted to make the journey across the Channel. So far, over 25,000 people have attempted the journey - more than three times last year’s number. This is where the very complex, very contested debate comes in - does this increase in migration justify the heavy securitisation and border strengthening of states, or is it up to the international community to provide asylum for people that are fleeing their own countries. In other words, should the war be on immigration or should it be on war itself?
This move towards securitisation contravenes the central tenets of idealism - the theory that the EU claims to pride itself on. Instead, this hostile approach is much more closely aligned with realism. As this political theory explores, the inherent selfishness of states, and in turn the necessity of security, suggests the implicit presence of a threat. Indeed, and as mentioned earlier, the UK media and its politicians have successfully curated a solid case against immigration. In 1997, 3% of the public thought that immigration was a key issue. In 2016, this figure was 48%. In France, Macron emphasised in a speech how his country must ‘protect’ itself against migration, reinforcing the presence of a threat. The steady but intentional otherisation of refugees has manifested itself in a cultural hostility that resists offering asylum. As put by (-); a spectre haunts Europe: the fear of migration.
You could spend a very long time exploring the philosophical debate behind what truly (and fairly) constitutes a ‘threat’, and whether this threat in turn necessitates quite frankly violent hostility, however, this debate is seemingly not being even slightly considered by our politicians. The problem with the field of asylum is the policy vacuum that exists within it, left there by the ongoing conflict of approaches within Europe. This empty space is being filled with lawmakers bickering back and forth, implementing dangerously ineffectual policy while refugees are left without adequate legal support or funding for basic aid.
The ‘war on immigration’ is much like the ‘wars’ we’ve seen in the past; the war on drugs, the war on terror - lots of fear inciting that is not founded on much real threat. However, it is undeniably important to recognise the influx of immigration to Europe since the 21st century and the dangers that this poses to the continent, yet instead of responding to this with fierce hostility, it might make more sense to look at why people are fleeing their own, cultural homes - naturally not a light decision to make. If there’s anything we can learn from the past, its that the bitter narrative surrounding migration needs to be curtailed. Since 9/11 and with the help of the media, politicians have used tragedies and disasters to propel their own campaigns, grabbing the chance to strengthen their presence by opposing themselves to opposition or a ‘threat’. The reasons behind immigration and the problem itself cannot just be reduced into another buzz term used by Western governments for their own self-interests.