‘One in, one out’: UK-France Agreement on Irregular Migration

The UK-France agreement on Channel crossings is Starmer’s first real foray into new policy on irregular migration.  Here’s a summary and some commentary from a migration policy perspective:

Populist approach

Labour continue their awkward dance on terminology around migration, flirting with both ‘irregular’ and ‘illegal’ (could this be part of a plan to gradually phase out illegalisation framing?). However, it’s notable that Starmer’s spoken statements tend to just use ‘illegal’, whilst the written documents say ‘irregular’; maybe some progressive civil servants are hoping no-one will notice..?

Where they were previously regularly accused by the last Tory government of ignoring the will of ‘the British people’ regarding their stance on immigration policy, Labour now seem keen to adopt a more populist stance themselves. As the Tories once did, now Labour are gradually using more populist tropes, trying to regain ground and appeal to ‘ordinary people’ who feel their concerns are disregarded by elites. In an intervention clearly aimed at stemming support for Reform, Starmer focuses on ‘the results people want to see’, emphasising a ‘crisis of fairness’ in the current approach. This messaging is an attempt to reframe the Labour government as defenders of the public interest, articulating and increasingly advocating for the thoughts and feelings of ‘the British people’. Labour are increasingly adopting the populist approach of Reform and the Tories, presenting themselves as the only ones capable of doing anything of impact regarding the complexities of irregular migration. Opposition parties are portrayed as ‘taking photos’ and being detached from reality (not too much of a stretch of the imagination).

Such appeals to ‘what people want’ and ‘the will of the people’ sidestep issues of moral responsibility (as opposed to the popularity of certain policies). As we enter the era of populist, ‘what’s in it for me?’ policymaking, messaging focused on moral arguments simply do not cut through in the way they once did. Instead of appeals to dignity, human rights and international law, politicians speak of ‘fairness’, ‘reciprocal arrangements’ and ‘deals’ to convince us of their value.

The argument from the UK’s refugee & migrant sector will go that preventing people from claiming asylum in the UK is a breach of their human rights.  However, (aside from the waning potency of rights-based arguments), the elephant in the room is that although there is no requirement in international humanitarian law for people to claim asylum in a specific country, many would argue that as France is a ‘safe country’, people should not proceed further to the UK (by any means). Humanitarians have yet to present a robust rebuttal to this question, which is being asked ever-louder in this debate.

Small boats & tall tales

Labour continue to use a Border Spectacle approach with literal ‘crisis’ framing which strongly emphasises geographic flow across physical borders over status flow (i.e. overstayed visas). The Border Spectacle is a consciously sensational emphasis on irregular migration across geographic borders (‘a spectacle of enforcement’) by powerful elites (De Genova, 2002). This dramatically presents immigration as perpetually out of control, generating a moral panic for political gain.  Powerful elites use the Border Spectacle strategy to scapegoat migrants, appealing to base fears to consolidate their control whilst distracting from government failings.  Problems and solutions are all focused upon migrants and the physical border rather than probing the more complex drivers of the phenomena.

photo credit: Arek Dreyer

This approach is performative as states’ highly visible responses to irregular migration at geographic borders are rarely proportionate to the most significant sources of irregular migrants.  In the EU and the UK, the vast majority of irregular migrants enter with a valid visa, subsequently overstaying or otherwise breaching the terms of their stay (Cuttitta, 2014; Triandafyllidou, 2016; Vollmer, 2016). Another important source of UK irregular migrants is people who have exercised their right to claim asylum and subsequently been refused by the government.  Despite this, their presence has been ‘tolerated’ by the government instead of logical deportation to their country of origin.  Viewed in this way, the UK-France agreement is a curated performance because ‘status flow’ contributes far more to irregular migration than ‘geographic flow’.  A focus on border-crossing and ‘illegal entrants’ misleadingly focuses public attention and efforts to tackle irregular migration upon geographic borders rather than effective management of key points of ‘status flow’.

The restrictive immigration policies of many nations sharply contrast with their liberal employment policies which maintains irregular migrants in a condition of legal precarity, allowing states to benefit economically (Triandafyllidou, 2016).  Irregular migrants’ ‘deportability’ makes them governable and easily exploited as highlighted by the UK’s Public Accounts Committee (PAC):

“..basic information, such as how many people on skilled worker visas have been modern slavery victims, and whether people leave the UK after their visas expire, seems to still not have been gathered by government.. ..Government now needs to develop a deeper understanding of the role that immigration plays in sector workforce strategies”.

Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown MP, PAC Chair.

This ‘generalised condition of deportability’ means the threat of removal is ever-present for irregular migrants, facilitating exploitation even when people are not detained or deported.  The mere potential of removal pushes migrants into increasingly vulnerable, risky behaviours, increasing the likelihood of abuse and exploitation. Despite the apparent exclusion of migrants at the physical border, Western states tend to surreptitiously include ‘illegal’ migrants in a nation’s activities by subjugating illegal labour.  The Border Spectacle lays bare the performative nature of border enforcement whilst states profit from large-scale recruitment of easily exploitable migrant labour. And so, because of the complex nature of the UK’s reliance on an irregular migrant workforce (and the inherent challenges of addressing this), successive governments go for ‘boats boats boats’.

Victim-framing

Even whilst he really tries to make ‘smash the gangs’ more catchy than it ever will be, Starmer sadly continues the Tories legacy in presenting the oxymoron of migrants' simultaneous victimhood and complicity - the ‘victim/perpetrator nexus’. The approach says that, although vulnerable, migrants are dangerous ‘others’ who must be kept at a distance, limited and controlled.  The policy rhetoric evokes a disorientating mix of compassion and fear towards those who simultaneously cause and are exploited by ‘criminal’ border crossing. In the same breath as talking about the ‘vile trade’ which ruthlessly exploits vulnerable migrants, he then talks about the ‘security crisis’, the need for ‘strict security checks’ and those who’ve been ‘promised jobs in the UK’. This implies the exploited, vulnerable people fleeing persecution by crossing the Channel are in fact dangerous economic migrants, coming to rape, pillage and steal our jobs.

This poses the question, who is most at risk; migrants or British citizens?  Do the migrants Starmer describes require our protection from an external threat, or in fact, bring with them inherent threats that ‘the British people’ need protecting from? There is an implied contagious aspect to migrants' deficiency or undesirability which must be tackled to prevent harm to ‘the British people’.  The Labour government’s discourse continues this racialised, colonial narrative, conveniently asserting that, as the Tory’s successors, they are the only ones willing and able to take the necessary action. As it has for centuries, the UK government’s solution to race riots and lack of social cohesion always seems to come back to ever more restrictive immigration controls.

Conclusion

Whilst, on the surface, it may appear a ‘common sense’ solution to irregular migration across the Channel, digging a little deeper into the UK-France agreement reveals the wider context and complex dynamics driving and constraining UK immigration policy.

As British politics continues its steady creep into populism, boatfuls of foreigners headed to Blighty’s beautiful coastline prove too tempting a visual proxy for the UK’s problems for the government to focus on meaningful immigration policy. As Starmer’s Labour government struggles to articulate their feelings about immigration (without losing more votes), the risk is that racial discrimination is emboldened just as the value of human life and international humanitarian law are undermined.

ps. here’s an approach that could work better.