A Proud Future? Labour’s immigration promises.

Labour are nearly in charge.  But what will they do about immigration?  Will they learn the lessons from their last stint in government or be tempted to emulate aspects of the Tories’ (or even Reform’s) approach.

Some segments of Labour’s manifesto would fit seamlessly into recent Tory press releases on migration, proclaiming the UK’s ‘proud tradition of welcoming people’.  Markedly though, the list of schemes we can apparently be proud of (Ukraine, Hong Kong, Syria) does not include any reference to Afghanistan (presumably because of the Labour-led 2001 invasion).

Geographic Borders

One of the most stark contrasts between Labour and the Conservatives’ rhetoric on migration is that the word ‘illegal’ is only used 3 times in the manifesto, twice in relation to sewage and once in relation to Putin’s invasion of Ukraine.  By contrast, ‘illegal migration’ or related phrases appear 12 times in the Tory manifesto.  This is a huge departure for the incoming British government from the rhetoric of successive Tory governments in recent years.  The Conservatives have zealously and increasingly used the phrase to ‘illegalise’ irregular migrants, obfuscating the real causes of irregularity and distracting from the self-inflicted ‘chaos at home’.

Concerningly though, Labour continue to link together the need for strong borders with small boats crossing the Channel, furthering the Conservative obsession with the transgression of physical borders.  This feeds the Border Spectacle which distracts from the real drivers of irregular migration.  Labour’s talk of ‘chaos in the Channel’ matching ‘chaos at home’ ironically obfuscates the role of lawmaking and the British government in manufacturing and sustaining ‘illegality’, by emphasising a Border Spectacle.  In attempting to critique the Conservatives’ handling of immigration by focusing on their approach to the ‘small boats crisis’, Labour are missing an opportunity to reset the narrative more profoundly, by taking responsibility for our national duties in a globalised world.  Use of the phrase ‘small boats crisis’ emphasises the supposed threat to our safety, sovereignty and national security, reinforcing rather than deescalating the moral panic actively stirred by the Conservatives.  Furthermore, proclaiming our need for ‘strong borders’ sidesteps the reality that ‘the border’ has become increasingly dislodged from any physical location.  Thanks to successive restrictive immigration policies, our borders are now everywhere, infringing on civil liberties of citizens and migrants alike as the state consolidates its control.  

Criminal Gangs

Labour’s insistent problematisation of ‘dangerous criminal smuggler gangs’ is a welcome relief from years of the government scapegoating and dehumanising migrants themselves.  However it fails to engage with bigger questions, such as what is really driving irregular migration and what are the greatest sources of irregularity.  Even more worryingly, repeating the Conservative habit of juxtaposing migrants with the threat of danger and death (i.e. ‘undermining our security and costing lives’), albeit from gangs, serves to conflate migration with danger and illegality.

Labour’s promise to ‘create a new Border Security Command’ is a further continuation of Conservative policy in militarising and criminalising immigration, highlighting the supposed existential threat posed by migrants.  The recruitment of ‘hundreds of new investigators, intelligence officers and cross-border police officers’ frames migrants and immigration as inherently devious, criminal and a source of concern.  Furthermore, giving the ‘Border Security Command’ ‘counter-terrorism style powers’ implies migration is as big a threat to the UK as terrorism is, and repeats well-worn far right tropes conflating migrants (and by proxy, ethnic minorities) with terrorists.

Labour say they will ‘smash’ the ‘criminal gangs who trade in driving this crisis’, however, this conveniently essentialises migrants as victims with no agency.  Whilst recent Tory policy has overemphasised how genuine this supposed choice is (‘do not get into that flimsy dinghy’), Labour now run the risk of portraying migrants as having no say whatsoever in deciding where and how to move.  The reality is far more complex and nuanced than either party would surmise.

Photo by RF._.studio.

The Asylum System

Labour’s criticism of the Rwanda plan seems to centre on the potential impact being too small and the overall cost being too expensive, an unworkable scheme which can’t handle the ‘huge’ number of people seeking asylum in the UK.  Although cost is certainly a valid criticism of the Rwanda plan, the greatest argument against it is a moral one; i.e. the breach of international human rights law (which largely exists to protect citizens from their own governments).  If the worst thing we can say about the Conservatives’ Rwanda plan is that, ‘it’s a bit pricey’, we may want to check how highly we value human life.

In attacking the Conservatives’ asylum backlog and use of hotel accommodation, once again, Labour fall into the populist trap of emphasising cost (‘saving the taxpayer billions of pounds’) rather than the very real human cost of re-traumatising people who have experienced the worst of humanity.

Labour’s manifesto also claims to ensure ‘the rules are properly enforced’, implying that this is not currently happening, and therefore migrants are breaking and circumventing the rules.  This is reminiscent of Conservative rhetoric around ‘queue-jumping’ migrants ‘elbowing women and children aside’.  In terms of appealing to British values with soundbites on irregular migration, disrespecting the natural order of a good British queue is surely one of the most heinous crimes.  Ending ‘rule breaking’ is also reminiscent of populist Labour and Tory claims from the late ‘90s about ‘bogus asylum seekers’).

Overall, I would question whether Labour has got the correct order of priorities for the asylum system (‘swiftly, firmly, and fairly’).  In a system tasked with rightly judging life and death matters, surely speed and strictness are lower-down the pecking order than fairness?

Promises Promises..

To end, here is a list of some of the Labour manifesto promises for their time in government (with some quick thoughts from me):

• Cancel the Rwanda scheme - phew!

• Reduced asylum backlog - last time Labour were in charge the backlog was ca. 19,000 which is not insignificant but certainly a lot better than ca. 100,000.

• Stop exploitation of migrant workers - much-needed, hopefully the exploitative employers, rather than exploited workers will be punished.

• Secure borders - are they not secure?  Does that mean we’re in danger?  From whom?  Migrants on boats?

• Dismantle criminal gangs engaged in Channel crossings - good luck to them but the gangs are not ‘driving’ this phenomenon.

• Prevent people from fleeing their homes by tackling international humanitarian crises - again, good luck to them but people do not migrate just because of humanitarian crises.

• Help neighbouring countries to provide stronger support for refugees - sounds admirable but could be interpreted as a form of ‘refugee warehousing’.

• Make the economy less dependent on migrant workers - I’m not convinced that young British workers want to do one of the infamous 3 ‘D’ jobs - dirty, difficult and dangerous (think cleaning and fruit picking).

• Reduce net migration - the Tories have been so lax on regularised migration, it wouldn’t take much to reduce this.  Irregular migration makes up a tiny proportion of these record high net figures.

• Faster deportation for people with no right to stay (people refused asylum & visa overstayers) and more people deported - faster and more isn’t necessarily better, the key thing for people refused asylum is ensuring they have had a fair hearing (which includes much more robust access to high quality, free legal advice).

• Spend less on asylum & immigration - not sure they’ll achieve this but most things are cheaper than the Rwanda plan.