Safe from whom? How hostile policies harm us all.

Restrictive immigration and asylum policies are already in place in the UK and are likely to intensify over the next 10 years. Far from waiting for the next general election to usher in policies which are openly hostile to refugees and migrants, they are already here. We are living with the legacy of the hostile environment policies of the last 15 years, not to mention new ones in the last 2 years.

Regardless of whether or not the politicians and parties advancing such policies are ‘true believers’, their zealous commitment to appearing ‘tough on immigration’ is, in large part, motivated by keeping explicitly anti-immigrant parties at bay. I think it’s fair to say that this strategy has not been an overwhelming success for either Labour or the Tories. Nevertheless, the constant creep towards anti-immigration positions continues. And all the while, we slowly boil in the gradualism of incrementally restrictive immigration and asylum policies.

The only people kept safe by highly restrictive immigration policies are the elites who use them to distract and occupy voters, keeping them manageable and malleable, ever-fixated on the moral panic of scapegoated migrant boogiemen.

Where we might be headed

We’ve seen what happens when the law penalises support for people with insecure immigration status; widespread discrimination and racism towards anyone who could possibly be ‘foreign’. One of the best recent examples of this is the ‘Right to Rent’ introduced in 2014, designed to prevent people without a legal right to be in the UK from privately renting accommodation. In practice, Right to Rent further entrenched racism and xenophobic discrimination based on assumptions rather than on the basis of immigration status. All policies have unintended consequences and any laws which allow humans a choice between an easy (but discriminatory) approach or a complex, technical one, will always result in bias-based exclusion which overreaches the original remit.

Only those with the palest skin, the plainest accents and most Anglo-Saxon sounding names will be able to pass through public services free from the scrutiny of eligibility based upon immigration status. For those who deviate from this imaginary ideal, there will be a presumption of guilt for those who appear to be ‘foreign’. Because, surely, once we’ve regained full sovereignty and control over our borders (like the ‘good old days’), having rid ourselves of anyone deemed not to ‘belong’, THEN and only then, will we be safe.. ..? Won’t we?

Advocates of highly restrictive immigration and asylum laws seem to be poor students of history, oblivious to the fact that the main reason international human rights law exists is to actually protect people from their own governments. By amending and disassembling protective checks and balances like the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), countries aren’t just making it easier to discriminate against migrants, but also stripping away legal protection of the civil liberties we all enjoy in our day-to-day lives.

Compelling examples already exist where people in particularly vulnerable situations are further intimidated, harassed and excluded from crucial support. The effect of the hostile environment in the NHS is that people are routinely refused treatment or incorrectly charged. More than this, and as I’ve witnessed many times from my frontline work, the fear of ‘being reported’ stops many people, who often have acute, chronic health conditions from even trying to access medical help.

It’s not hard to imagine the witchhunts of McCarthyism applied to rooting out suspected ‘foreigners’ across society (think The Windrush Scandal but on purpose this time). Members of the public and public service workers have already been co-opted as informants through hostile environment policies which force us all to ‘become either border-guards and/or suspected illegitimate’ foreigners. The first police super-complaint by Southall Black Sisters & Liberty highlighted this harmful dynamic, with abuse victims treated as perpetrators, detained, disbelieved, reported to immigration enforcement, left unsupported and being told to ‘sort out their immigration status’ before reporting the crimes committed against them.

photo credit: James Bourne

Precaritisation or ‘deportability’ is where the constant threat of deportation exacerbates exploitation and abuse even when deportation does not occur. It works by preying on people’s fear of being reported / deported, inhibiting their engagement with services, even where entitlement exists. This all compounds the high risk of exploitation by perpetrators of abuse, unscrupulous employers, and criminal gangs. Bad actors are always looking for opportunities to exploit vulnerable people and highly restrictive immigration policies simply give them access to more powerful tools of intimidation and control.

This lack of firewall between a hostile state / immigration enforcement and other aspects of public life amounts to a demolition of civil liberties where victims are deterred (and actively prohibited) from reporting crime to the police for fear of being targeted themselves. And so, with twisted irony, legislation with the stated goal of preventing immigration abuses lead to a proliferation of modern slavery, trafficking and human rights abuses in the UK (including against a sharply rising number of British citizens).

We’re already seeing widespread attacks on organisations and individuals supporting refugees and migrants with many having to rethink how they engage and what they share publicly. Explicit, state-sponsored hostility will only further this and we see the effects in Europe as those who stand in solidarity with migrants are criminalised and imprisoned. A further risk for racialised British nationals is the threat of being stripped of citizenship.

The UK could become even more of a police state as our policies and laws becomes increasingly obsessed with people’s immigration status, reorientating public life and the national economy around policing and restricting access to public services. This could also serve a wider purpose of the UK government reducing and removing public services, thereby avoiding the prohibitive cost of policing such systems. You can see the logic being naturalised and mainstreamed; the worst elements of authoritarianism and libertarianism combined.

Unaffordable government spending / prohibitive costs caused by the inconvenience of human rights may further the nostalgia and pursuit of the ‘glory days’ of Empire, when Britons felt powerful, all-supreme, further endangering and undermining civil liberties such as provisions in the Equality Act (2010), democracy and voting rights. Nothing would be off the table if it is deemed an inconvenience or complication to the holy grail of complete sovereignty for ethno-nationals.

How might we respond?

A bleak picture, but never hopeless, as there are always ways to stand up for justice against the insidious advance of discriminatory and unjust policies.

Some thoughts on how organisations and individuals could respond and where we should urgently direct investment / financial support:

• Physical and digital security training and infrastructure for people and organisations in frontline services.

• Strategic litigation, funding organisations working on public interest law, supporting legal training and qualifications.

• Strategic communication and narrative change, including through independent media, journalism, arts, culture and history.

• Community organising which unites and strengthens whole local communities with a highly practical focus on tangibly improving people’s quality of life.

• Places of sanctuary (cities, towns, places of worship, devolved nations) could become more fully-realised in their protection of people escaping persecution, providing accommodation, support and access to crucial services.

• Decentralised networks to strengthen long-term sustainability and resilience in the face of explicit hostility.