New blog post warns UK's "increasingly toxic" political rhetoric on migration has harmful real world consequences
A notable blog post published last week by representatives of the International Organization for Migration (IOM) and the Overseas Development Institute (ODI) calls for a less polarised and more balanced and evidence-based political debate around immigration and asylum in the UK.
Image credit: UK GovernmentChrista Rottensteiner, Chief of Mission at IOM UK, and Claire Kumar, Senior Research Fellow at ODI, say the UK's "increasingly toxic" political rhetoric on migration has real world consequences that can cause all manner of harms.
They warn: "In November, firebombs were thrown at an immigration processing centre in Dover, and most recently, scenes of violent disorder and protests against migrants took place outside hotels housing asylum seekers in Knowsley as well as in other areas in the UK. Recently, UN human rights experts warned against the misleading public statements that have called into question the credibility of victims of trafficking and contemporary forms of slavery. Exaggerated claims of abuse can erode public sympathy for victims of human rights violations and – as noted by the UN's Special Rapporteurs – may lead to attacks against migrants and asylum seekers."
The blog post notes that there is no migration crisis in the UK and current asylum application numbers are far from unprecedented in scale, despite the "relentless attention" paid to migrants crossing the Channel in small boats.
Rottensteiner and Kumar also highlight that the toxic political rhetoric is at odds with the British public's increasingly positive attitudes towards immigration.
"What is also clear from recent polling data is that – removed from discussions of small boats and the English Channel – the UK public shows strong support (75%) for the principle of refugee protection, with only around a third showing a preference for deterrence-centred policies," the authors state.
Rottensteiner and Kumar conclude: "What is desperately needed in the UK is a more balanced narrative and more evidence-based migration policies. And it is up to all of us to ensure a more balanced public narrative. Providing accurate data and facts is the basic starting point although a focus limited to numbers can be easily manipulated to stoke uncertainty and fear. We have learned the importance of human-centred stories and reaching peoples' hearts and emotions by promoting values-based messages."
Also of interest last week is a new, evidence-based academic study about proportionality in immigration enforcement by Dr Mollie Gerver, of King's College London, Dr Dominik Duell of the University of Innsbruck, and Dr Patrick Lown of the University of Essex.
You can download the 66-page study here. It considers what level of harm can be justified against migrants in the objective of controlling immigration.
King's College London reported last week that the study finds that the public generally supports limits on migration, but they are far less likely to support enforcement policies or actions which would result in serious harm for migrants.
The study is supported by three sets of surveys with more than 7,000 participants in the UK and US.
The authors explained: "The principle of proportionality holds that an act which involves far greater harm than justified for a given end is morally impermissible. For example, the death penalty for those who commit theft is wrong, as the end of deterrence does not justify the means of death. We argue, like others, that the ends of immigration deterrence do not justify states inflicting especially severe harm. However, we further demonstrate that establishing more precisely when enforcement is disproportionate requires assessing not only the level of harm, but whether those subject to harm are responsible for their migration choices, whether the harm is intended, and whether the harm is inflicted by an intervening agent other than the state."
They continue: "In combining philosophical and empirical research, this article contributes to both discussions on immigration ethics, expanding the debate to formulate principles for enforcement, and on the public's opinions on immigration, expanding the discussion to include opinions on enforcement as distinct from immigration goals. Moreover, in providing the first article evaluating if the public's opinions are consistent with a principle of immigration justice, we evaluate the extent that conclusions from normative theorists face a feasibility constraint arising from the public."
The authors find: "While [the] evidence is not decisive, we have at least established that voters express far more nuanced views than previously thought, including views sensitive to the harms migrants experience. These expressed opinions arise despite general opposition to increasing migration in [the UK and the US]. Given that these opinions are consistent with the principle of proportionality, policymakers have strong reasons to try and introduce enforcement consistent with this principle, bringing immigration closer to what justice requires."
King's College London notes that the study has serious implications for current UK policies aimed at preventing asylum seekers from reaching and claiming asylum in the UK, or seeking to remove those that do to Rwanda.