Hard truths
On 22 June the EU's three main institutions reached a landmark decision.
After twenty years of fierce debate around the handling of irregular migration the European Commission, the European Council and European Parliament reached a political consensus on this highly contentious issue. Driven in part - possibly in large part - by the growth of rightwing politics in many European countries, the change of mood - and therefore of policy - seems to be a response to decades of un- or poorly-controlled migration. Much of the anti-migrant sentiment has undoubtedly been whipped up by hate-fuelled rhetoric from commentators with a clearly xenophobic, and more particularly, Islamophobic axe to grind. However, even those more liberal and sympathetic onlookers now appear to be questioning some of their former assumptions in light of recent highly-publicised events. I count myself amongst them.
The EU has given its members the green light to pursue 'return hubs' - third countries to which irregular migrants can be sent pending a legal decision on their futures. Albania, Rwanda, Uganda and others are among the countries with whom plans for the rollout of this scheme are currently under discussion. Schemes to return migrants to their countries of origin already exist and are well-established and well-utilised. The problem arises over how to deal with economic refugees or asylum-seekers from countries which are deemed unsafe for returns. Such migrants may be obliged to remain in third countries permanently, or until their home countries become safe to return to, which may in practice amount to permanent exile.
There is also the issue of how to treat unaccompanied minors - a problem which has received international coverage recently after incursions by 70,000 young people into the Spanish exclave of Ceuta (see my two previous articles). Though the majority of these were Moroccans who have now returned home, up to 1,000 appear to be minors fleeing from elsewhere in North Africa via Morocco. They remain trapped in legal limbo in the exclave, along with some men fron Sub-Saharan Africa, leading directly to an unedifying spat between Spain and Italy about suspending freedom of movement within the Schengen area for fear of these children being allowed into mainland Spain. (Ceuta itself, though Spanish, is not actually in the Schengen Area.)
Needless to say, malign voices, such as those of Donald Trump and Binyamin Netanyahu, have seized on the humanitarian crisis to add to the furore, stoking division in support of their own poisonous agendas against Spain's socialist Prime Minister, Pedro Sánchez. At the same time, Vladimir Putin must be rubbing his hands in glee at the prospect of Europe pulling itself apart over the issue. Against this febrile international background, with voices in the UK such as Reform UK, Restore Britain and Tommy Robinson stoking anti-migrant hatred, what chance does a more nuanced, facts-based debate have of cutting through all the noise?
For those of us with a progressive world view, discussing this subject candidly can be a sensitive and painful experience. In fact we would probably rather avoid discussing it at all than risk seeming sympathetic to any rightwing narrative. But we cannot allow ourselves to remain silent when the deep problems the issue is creating risk dividing our society; nor can we simply keep blaming the right. We need, rather, to address the subject honestly, admitting where past policies have failed our fellow citizens in more deprived areas of the country.
Of course, we need to challenge robustly the myths and misinformation spread by the right but if, in the process, we dismiss the legitimate fears of a significant portion of the population, we will only benefit their narrative. The first duty of any government is to protect the security of its own people and if that entails making difficult decisions about the futures of vulnerable foreign nationals then so be it. We cannot risk our state descending into anarchy and extremism over this issue as a result of the government not taking tough decisions expeditiously.
People of goodwill need to make the point humbly but rigorously, challenging the fake news while acknowledging the threat to the liberal democracy we value. If we are too afraid or embarrassed to admit that we may have got some things wrong the right will win the argument. People who, like me, harbour no hatred in their hearts against other races, cultures or religions but who nevertheless concede that un- or poorly-controlled migration has created extreme stresses in British society, must voice that opinion honestly.
These concerns may be most acutely felt in areas of the country that have, or until recently had, very little experience of migrants but that doesn't mean they aren't legitimate. Even in my own inner-London borough, with its long history of hosting migrant communities, there exist some tensions. In the past it was with the Russian Jewish diaspora, now it is the Bangladeshi Muslim. Luckily, there is relatively little overt inter-communal hostility in a society long-used to such close proximity, but in those largely monocultural areas of Essex and Norfolk, for example, mass protests have arisen.
I suspect this is largely down to that same monocultural demographic. London and other major British cities have had time to accustom themselves to inward migration since the 1960s and '70s, mainly prompted by the need for workers, focused in areas where the native working classes had moved (or been moved by planners) out to postwar suburbs and new towns. Communities in smaller towns and villages, however, with very few, if any, experience of this phenomenon, will inevitability feel unsettled when large numbers of unsupported migrants, often single young men, are unceremoniously dumped in their midst, with little or no consultation or preparation and limited facilities to cope with the resultant pressures on already overstretched local services.
And, in contrast to past waves of largely (though not exclusively*) invited economic migration, which took place at a time of full-employment, these young men are fleeing war, famine or severe economic hardship at precisely the time when there is little or no employment or housing for British-born young people, let alone for large cohorts of unskilled migrants speaking minimal English. In the end it comes down to a perception of fairness, and many small communities are not being treated fairly by current government migrant dispersal policies.
Inevitably, this reality creates resentment and anxiety in reluctant host communities which, sadly, often finds an outlet in protests that turn ugly and violent. Unfortunately, shifting government policy merely exacerbates the problem, with migrants first being housed in ex-military barracks and bases, then moved into hotels, and now being moved back into barracks and bases, or homes in multiple occupation (HMOs) - the latter policy prompting an even more viscerally negative reaction. As critics have pointed out, migrants are not being sent in numbers to Chelsea, Mayfair, Belgravia, Hampstead or Highate - it is poorer regional communities who bear the brunt.
It is currently all a terrible mess, with no winners, only losers all round. If we are ever to reverse this baleful trend, preserve community cohesion and curb the rise of the right, we will need to embark on some very honest, and frankly painful, discussions. For example, was the Tory deterrent policy of sending to Rwanda asylum seekers arriving in the UK via unauthorised routes possibly a sensible one after all? (See what I mean about it being uncomfortable?)
Now's the time for progressives to ditch some of their long-held and cherished shibboleths.
*My own borough's Muslim community originally arrived as refugees from a brutal civil war in 1971
Update 17/08/25: I note Denmark has just signed a €600m deal with Estonia to house its excess prison population.