Migration

With border restrictions in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, the UK government must avoid nationalist rhetoric as it will harm its most vulnerable populations.

The outbreak of COVID-19 early this year has caused mass border closures. Even now, as governments begin to reopen their borders, controlled migration through approved travel corridors looks to be the ‘new normal’.

Governments are prioritising mitigating the economic repercussions of restricted travel on their own countries. In the wake of such inward-looking policies, it is important to understand how nationalist sentiments can impact the governance of some of the UK’s most vulnerable population: asylum seekers and other refugees.

Nationalism has long been a pervasive factor in UK migration policies. Before Boris Johnson entered the picture, the Parliament had already passed the Immigration Acts of 2014 and 2016. These were introduced to limit non-European Economic Area (EEA) migration into the UK and create a ‘hostile environment’ for undocumented migrants in the country. Non-EEA migrants in the UK were faced with increasingly stringent policies in an effort to deter them from living in the UK. Since migration from the EEA is predominantly white, these policies disproportionately targeted non-white people, thereby creating a framework where the national identity could be manufactured around the white identity. Former Prime Minister Theresa May’s manifesto for the 2017 snap election echoed previous Conservative Party leader, David Cameron’s desire to ‘bear down on immigration from outside the European Union’.

The global nature of this pandemic has been instrumental for nationalist, right-wing voices to amplify their concerns over immigration. Migration Watch UK, an anti-immigration think tank, has announced a controversial policy proposal to ban the entry of those over the age of 50 coming from non-EEA countries into the UK and restrict visas for other age groups.

The right-wing immigration rhetoric: erasing refugees from the picture

Populism and nationalism revolve around defining a person through their shared heritage and the country they were born in. This national identity is then juxtaposed with an ‘other’, someone who does not share the same lineage of a particular demographic. Right-wing nationalism in particular, founded on the ‘us’ vs ‘them’ narrative, privileges the lives of the citizens (‘us’) over immigrants (‘them’).

With COVID-19 resulting in rapid border controls and an inconsistent restriction on international movement; refugees are further defined as ‘others’. The Government is more concerned over the management of its governable population – its citizens – than that of immigrants.

At present, there are 51,906 documented asylum seekers still awaiting a decision on their status as a refugee in the UK. Asylum seekers are often too afraid to access healthcare in fear of their possible refugee status being overturned. They are not legally allowed to work to make a living and have to depend on ill-equipped government systems to sustain themselves.

Refugee migration will continue even as the pandemic rages. While a global pandemic may halt some economic activities, it does not stop wars, natural disasters, or tyrannical regimes from committing human rights violations on their own citizens. Thus, even during a pandemic, the drivers of migration continue. History has shown us time and time again that migration cannot be curbed simply by imposing stricter border controls. In fact, the number of migrants crossing the Channel from France to the UK has risen to more than 1,400 in the month of June from a mere 200 earlier this year.

The UK’s migration management policy needs to see a drastic shift from merely containing refugees to creating structures that can better oversee their governance. Providing a healthcare system that is accessible to refugees and spans both physical and mental health should be a priority for the Government. This global pandemic has shown the myopic nature of nationalist immigration policies but it has also provided us with an opportunity to learn and improve our systems of governing immigration.

Paakhi Bhatnagar studies International Relations at King’s College London.

COVID-19 has changed, and will continue to change, migration policy. As we move towards the end of the Brexit transition period and away from the height of the pandemic, the Government should adapt policy to provide stronger social rights for those migrants who have contributed so much to COVID-19 efforts, or else they risk losing them.

The way politics responds to both the COVID-19 pandemic and migration appears to be two sides of the same coin. Both matters transcend borders and are associated with policy responses which call for the tightening of borders. How will the future landscape for new and existing migrants in the UK change?

In the immediate aftermath of the pandemic, this landscape will drastically change. Beyond this, there is potential for the UK government to create an appreciative environment for those migrant workers that the UK and countries across the EU have relied on for the past few months.

Is migration an area of concern for the UK public?

Since the pandemic began, immigration has seemingly slipped from Britain’s policy agenda. Whilst it might feel like an era ago, it has only been a few months since Brexit was at the forefront of British politics, which itself was built on a foundation of hostile migration policies. It is important, therefore, to see how migration has shifted in the list of top issues facing Britain.

According to public surveys by Ipsos MORI in February and April 2020, “immigration/immigrants” was no longer a top 10 issue for the UK public. Just 5% mention this as a key issue, the lowest score for “immigration/immigrants” recorded since December 1999. The change in perception towards this issue is particularly stark when compared to views just before the EU referendum in early 2016, when over half (56%) of those surveyed stated that “immigration/immigrants” is a concern (the highest proportion recorded for this issue).

The beating heart of the country

During the pandemic, the efforts of migrants working in essential industries have been singled out. Notably, Boris Johnson publicly thanked two nurses: “Jenny from New Zealand” and “Luis from Portugal”, who were by his side for 48 hours when he was in a critical condition due to COVID-19. It is even more interesting that he stated an unnecessary piece of information when describing someone’s merits: their respective countries of origin. He described their roles in the NHS and referred to them as being part of the “beating heart of this country” and “the best of this country”.

Health Secretary Matt Hancock also paid tribute to NHS workers “from all over the world” who “came to this country to make a difference”. Indeed, according to a report published by Parliament in July 2019, 13.1% of the NHS workforce are not British, or around 153,000 staff. Losing such a sizable proportion of the NHS workforce would undoubtedly cause the NHS to suffer.

This immigrant-positive rhetoric is a far cry from the Conservative government’s previous announcement of the ‘hostile environment’. Many people from migrant backgrounds may be curious whether and how this will change in the aftermath of the pandemic. Will they still be welcomed in these sectors or is ‘clap for carers’ only temporary? It is questionable whether this rhetoric will manifest into concrete policy changes after the pandemic.

The aftermath of the pandemic

For the UK Government the topic of migration should become a renewed area of focus, but for different reasons to those prior to the pandemic. The pandemic has revealed the very visible contribution of migrant workers, yet many could face the double blow of being classed as ‘low-skilled’ and earning below the minimum salary requirement to work and settle in the UK. These include supermarket workers, caregivers, people working on farms, and those keeping the country moving by driving buses.

Indeed, there was a notorious call for people to fill a shortage of workers on British farms in April 2020. After a call for British workers failed to attract people to the role, the Government was forced to bring in seasonal workers from Eastern Europe using chartered flights. It seems, contrary to previous anti-immigration rhetoric, that there is a deep-rooted need for migrant workers.

Migration policies must change to provide stronger social rights for migrants. They are COVID-19’s unsung heroes, making the ultimate sacrifice to the pandemic and essential services recently. These policies should shift away from attracting solely skilled workers if the UK wants to keep our essential workers after the crisis. This is particularly crucial towards the end of the Brexit transition period when immigration may return to the agenda. If policies stay stagnant or move along their hostile trajectory, the Government risks losing those they have been relying on, something that may be hard for them to admit.

Preeti Pasricha is co-Head of Agora’s Democracy & Governance Programme.

The International Labour Organisation estimates that there are 40 million men, women and children globally who are victim to modern slavery on any given day. Today, the issue of modern slavery is commanding increasing levels of international attention, with the UK government positioning itself as a ‘global leader’ in the fight for its eradication. However, while the UK government characterises modern slavery as caused by exploitative criminal groups, the issue ultimately has deeper structural roots.

Britain’s prioritisation of modern slavery

‘Modern slavery’ is a fairly new term within British political discourse. Having evolved from the older term of ‘human trafficking’, it was first given substance by the 2014 Modern Slavery Strategy and is defined as encompassing “slavery, servitude, forced and compulsory labour and human trafficking”. The Home Office estimates that there are between 10,000 and 13,000 potential victims of modern slavery in the UK, and government expenditure on this issue has grown rapidly in recent years. In 2017/18 an estimated £39 million was spent, and this figure is projected to rise to a high of £61 million in 2018/19.

The UK government characterises modern slavery through the lens of organised crime, and places the blame firmly upon the organised criminal networks that exploit vulnerable victims for their own financial gain. The acts of these criminal networks are defined in the Government’s 2014 report with the moralistic language of manipulation and abuse: “traffickers and slave drivers coerce, deceive and force individuals against their will into a life of abuse, servitude and inhumane treatment”. This conceptualisation of the issue – and the powerful language used to describe it – directs the state into a particular form of response, one which mobilises the weight of the criminal justice system and the British enforcement apparatus, including the National Crime Agency (NCA), the police and the Home Office. A key piece of legislation in this battle was the 2015 Modern Slavery Act, which Prime Minister Theresa May claimed created “tough new penalties to put slave masters behind bars where they belong”.

Addressing structural drivers

Whilst understandable, this characterisation is problematic as it diverts attention from a more pressing reality, namely that the exploitation that defines modern slavery is itself embedded into the structure of the UK’s restrictive immigration regime. At its core, modern slavery is defined by exploitation, whether that be physical or psychological, cultural or social. A prerequisite of exploitation is an imbalance of power, and the UK immigration system, including the ‘hostile environment’ strategy pursued by the Home Office, contributes to the emergence of these imbalances.

The UK immigration system is highly restrictive for low-skilled labour, and as such it is difficult for these individuals to obtain legitimate working visas. Low-skilled migrants are hence pushed underground into illegal employment, working in restaurants, on building sites and as cleaners. Their status puts these workers in a precarious position as they are not covered by the legal employment guarantees that ensure a base level of worker protection. In the absence of legal protection, power imbalances can easily transform a case of illegal working into one of modern slavery, when, for example, an employer forces an individual to work with little or no pay or to work when sick, or engages in sustained physical or verbal abuse.

Beyond this, there is a further coercive mechanism that prolongs exploitation, namely that the result of escape from an abusive situation can often lead to removal from the country. The National Referral Mechanism (NRM) is the body within the Home Office responsible for handling cases of modern slavery. Once a referral is made to this body, an investigation is initiated and a positive or negative decision is reached on whether an individual is a ‘confirmed victim’. Crucially, neither decision entails a permission to stay in the UK, with confirmed victims only being offered a 45 day ‘move-on’ period in which, in the absence of other leave entitlements, they must depart the country. Where the alternative to exploitation is removal from the UK, this creates a structural disincentive for victims of modern slavery to escape their abusive situations.

Reframing the causes

The Government’s discourse characterises modern slavery as an issue of organised crime, the blame for which rests with the criminals who exploit others for their own financial gain. This discourse hides a deeper reality, that the UK’s restrictive immigration regime and the Home Office’s policies create the conditions through which exploitation – and, ultimately, modern slavery – proliferate. It is therefore difficult to resist the conclusion that the responsibility for modern slavery cannot be solely attributed to criminals and the organised crime groups they populate; the Government itself and the policies it enacts also share in moral culpability.

Oliver Goodman is a graduate student in Migration Studies at the University of Oxford.

The privatisation of immigration detention in the UK symbolises a policy shift from restricting movement due to nationalist concerns to extracting financial value from migrants. Today, seven of the nine Immigration Removal Centres (IRCs) in the UK are outsourced to private companies. Mitie, G4S, Serco and GEO receive Government contracts worth £243 million a year. The growing political influence of the immigration ‘security’ lobby has been accompanied by allegations of severe abuse of vulnerable detainees, cost-cutting measures and a nebulous lack of accountability.

Within the framework of the Private Finance Initiative, private companies running immigration detention centres in the UK claim that they are better equipped to deliver specialised services efficiently than the state. There has, however, been no concrete proof that privatisation is better value for money. In contrast, the privatisation of immigration detention means big business. From 2010 to 2014, outsourced contracts between the National Offender Management Service and G4S and Sercor accounted for more than 70% of NOMS’ 2.5 billion budget. Mitie, after taking over Harmondsworth and Colnbrook IRCs near Heathrow Airport in 2014, experienced an increase in annual profits from £333,000 to £2 million as it secured a Home Office (HO) contract worth £180 million over an 8-year period. Although some contracts might not be as profitable, they still provide a steady, state-backed, low-risk income. Private contractors receive on average £92 per detainee daily (£34,000 per detainee annually).

Clearly, the growing hostility of the British immigration system is influenced by the financial interests of private sector companies. Private contractors, moreover, employ 1.2 million people in austerity Britain, which only increases the political capital of the migration ‘security’ lobby. The entanglement of private companies and the public sector have made the big security firms ‘too big to fail’ as outsourcing reinforces the Government’s dependence on private corporations. This trend is increasingly worrying because the corporate endeavour to increase profit margins is accompanied by allegations of extreme violence at detention sites, cost-cutting measures, hardening penal laws and a lack of accountability.

Due to private sector interests, the bottom line of a company now is what counts in immigration detention. The strict management of detention facilities is ensured by recruiting senior staff who worked in prisons or the military before joining the ranks of private contractors like G4S, the world’s biggest security company whose portfolio includes security services in Guantánamo. To reduce running costs in labour-intensive IRCs, the number of junior staff is decreased. Serious staffing issues have been reported at Colnbrook IRC since Mitie took over a contract whose value was reduced by 30% while demanding the same service. Unsurprisingly, Mitie has been accused of aggressive cost-cutting practices.

The HO, nevertheless, continues to shed responsibility and dismiss reports of abuse. In 2008, a dossier of 300 alleged assaults at IRCs was collected by an NGO coalition but did not provoke any response from the HO. When Jimmy Mubenga was killed during his forced removal from the UK in 2010, the G4S guards were acquitted of manslaughter despite their racist messaging. Mitie’s CEO justified a large fire in Campsfield IRC in 2013 by claiming the HO had not instructed the contractor to install water sprinklers. The Global Detention Project details numerous cases of sexual assault and harassment at Yarl’s Wood IRC, which received limited attention when two Serco staff members were suspended in 2015. These reports have critics wondering whether the Government deliberately benefits from blurred lines of accountability to shed responsibility.

Despite high-profile failures of private companies, a serious investigation of privatised immigration detention seems impossible. Private companies delivering public services are exempt from the Freedom of Information Act and their Government contracts are protected from public scrutiny by ‘commercial confidentiality’. CorporateWatch questioned the integrity of the ‘self-audit’ system between private firms and the HO in 2014. Since 2013, G4S and Serco have been under investigation by the Serious Fraud Office for overcharging the Government on electronic monitoring contracts. After paying £109m and announcing a ‘corporate renewal plan’, G4S was however awarded further contracts. The Government also reached a £70.5m settlement with Serco, which has additionally been investigated by the Financial Reporting Council since 2016. Recently, Bail for Immigration Detainees initiated a judicial review to officially brand G4S a “High Risk” supplier to hold the global outsourcing company accountable.

In conclusion, treating immigration detention as a profitable business is clearly dangerous for detainees and undermines accountability. Despite severe failures of private companies, as well as numerous judicial reviews, the lack of accessible information and accountability complicate a genuine investigation of outsourced immigration detention. To improve conditions in the short term, G4S, Serco, mitie and GEO must submit to systematic, public oversight but in the long run the privatisation of immigration detention in the UK must end to enable the fundamental reform of a failing system.

Josefine Brons studies Politics and International Relations at SOAS University of London.