Migrants are blocked by French riot police in a makeshift migrants camp near Calais, France, March, 2016. Jerome Delay / Press Association. All rights reserved.
“… clearly the point that is being made here
is that should we leave the EU then some of these other arrangements that we
may have with other countries … could be called into question … [if] those
controls cease to exist, then you have potentially thousands of asylum seekers
camped out in Northern France who could be here almost overnight…if we leave the EU the
Jungle camp in Calais will move to Folkestone. That is not something people
want”.
– David Cameron, Prime Minister, Anti-Brexit
“[We] have
no idea whether these people are genuine refugees or asylum seekers, or
economic migrants, or terrorists operating under the cover of either
… [if Britain remains in EU, these people] will have an absolute right to come to the UK – and
we won't know who they are either… they might be crossing the
borders both to work, or coming to do us harm”
– Liam Fox, Former Defence
Secretary, Pro-Brexit
The campaign to leave and
remain in the EU are broad in their scope, involving various parties from
across the political spectrum, highlighting a wide range of issues[1]
and approaching each of these issues in a different manner.
Despite such nuances, it is
the strong anti-immigration wings of both campaigns that have remained dominant
and gained publicity. The pro-Brexit
camp has argued that, leaving the EU will result in a tightening of ‘porous’
borders, a drastic reduction in immigrant numbers and a consequent decline in
crime. Whereas, the Prime Minister’s anti-Brexit camp has warned that leaving
the safety and protection of the EU will result in a weakening of borders, a huge
influx of ‘illegal’ immigrants coming into Britain, and consequently a rise in
crime.
Both discourses on anti-immigration
have attempted to outmaneuver each other by presenting extreme, ideologically
biased, misleading, and faulty scenarios – lacking robust research, evidence
and substance.
What is perhaps most striking is the
pejorative portrayal of asylum seekers and undocumented migrants who are
constructed as a larger army of ‘illegal’ people waiting to invade resource
rich Britain, whose entry will threaten the social fabric, prosperity, stability
and peace of the country. The campaigns
have used the so-called ‘illegality’ of migrants (for example: ‘failed’ asylum
seekers, those living with irregular status and people in Calais jungle camp)
to misrepresent the ‘risks’ they pose, and have emphasized the need for stronger
enforcements. The age-old divisive politics of insecurity and fear are
constantly played out in these debates; constructing the immigrant ‘other’ as ‘bogus’,
‘criminal’ and a ‘foreign enemy’, who needs to be controlled and excluded.
In the event that Britain exits the EU, it is more than likely that its
cooperation agreement with Europol will continue to exist, taking into account
the mutual interest of developed nations in keeping out the ‘dangerous’
classes.
Over three decades ago, Steven
Box (1983) argued that the depictions of ‘crime’ and ‘criminals’ are
grossly manipulated and shaped by those in power, creating distortions and
“mystifications”. For quite some time, migrants and criminals, two entirely different
categories, have become inextricably connected in public minds, contributing to
the processes of mystification that Box demonstrates. As a result, there are
high levels of opposition to immigration and consistent calls for tougher
restrictions, which is captured in various opinion polls and social attitudes surveys
(see: Ipsos Mori webpage and Migrant
Observatory Report).
Regardless of whether Britain leaves the EU or
remains a part of it – such opposition will stay intact due to the reasons
mentioned above, and the then government will continue to gain legitimacy for systematically
expanding policing measures and implementing further criminalizing, punitive
and exclusionary policies and procedures against asylum seekers and
undocumented migrants. Therefore, in this piece, I will discuss more broadly these
measures and most importantly answer the question – is Brexit going to have any
impact on borders and the control of migration?
The policing
of migrants have now spread to numerous “sites of enforcement”, other than
the ever-expanding physical borders. Over the past decade, there has been a
dramatic proliferation of measures (carrier sanctions, visas, biometrics etc.)
and cooperation between various domestic, national and European crime control
bodies such as, various regional police forces, Border Force, National Crime
Agency and European Police Office (Europol) – all created to deal with ‘illegal’
migration, terrorism and organized crime. Certain countries like Switzerland
and Norway, who are not part of the EU, have an agreement
with Europol to cooperate in the fight against ‘crime’. In the event that
Britain exits the EU, it is more than likely that its cooperation agreement with
Europol will continue to exist, taking into account the mutual interest of
developed nations in keeping out the ‘dangerous’
classes.
Britain has remained consistent in its
attempts to block safe and ‘legal’ channels for migrants to travel. Those who
make perilous journeys and arrive without proper documentation are viewed with
suspicion and considered ‘dangerous’. Similarly, those who live without
documents and irregular status, are subsumed under a discourse on the harms of
‘illegal’ migration, and treated with political contempt.
The current government has embarked on an
overzealous drive at a national level to ‘crackdown’ on ‘illegal’ migration, which
is evident in the recent Policing and Crime Bill (currently awaiting conversion
into an Act of Parliament or law). Under this Bill, law
enforcement officers are to be granted “maritime enforcement powers”, inspired
by Australian
border control policies, and they will be able to intercept vessels, and divert
them to a port in England and Wales or anywhere else in the world, detaining them
there[2].
These powers could be used
against vessels suspected of containing asylum seekers and those in need of
international protection; thereby, risking violation of the Geneva Convention
and obligation to protect vulnerable groups, including minors and those fleeing
war, torture, persecution and other threats to life. Taking into account the
Conservative Party’s anti-immigration stance and lack of will to accept the
refugee quota set by EU or help relocate people in Calais, such measures should
not come as a surprise.
The stop and search powers are already used disproportionately and
aggressively against Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic communities and
individuals who look ‘foreign’. However, the UK’s Policing and Crime Bill proposes
to introduce a new set of measures, requiring
individuals to prove their nationality upon arrest. This is somewhat a replication
of the infamous xeno-racist
laws of Arizona, granting police and
immigration officers powers to order people who have been arrested to state
their nationality and produce identification documents (for example, a passport)
– possibly justified by an individual’s appearance, colour of skin and accent. The failure to produce documents
within 72 hours will become a criminal offence, with a penalty of up to one year
of imprisonment for lack of compliance. A lack of documents and/or ‘illegal’
status would inevitably result in detention and/or deportation.
The Home Secretary (Theresa May) has made her ambition clear
on creating a “hostile environment” for so-called ‘illegal’ migrants. This
hostility is very well demonstrated in the recent Immigration Act, 2016 passed
by the parliament, which significantly expands internal border controls, making
ordinary citizens into border guards. This
hostility is very well demonstrated in the recent Immigration Act, 2016 passed
by the parliament, which significantly expands internal border controls, making
ordinary citizens into border guards.
For instance, the act has intensified the existing measures
to restrict access of irregular migrants to bank accounts, driving licenses and
rental accommodation. New powers have been granted to landlords and agents, and
they can evict tenants who lack immigration status. However, landlords and
letting agents who rent out properties to migrants with irregular status can be
imprisoned for up to 5 years and/or heavily fined. Also, there is an obligation
imposed on banks to carry out immigration status checks on their current
account holders, and immigration authorities can close/freeze bank accounts.
Further, immigration officers are granted enhanced
police-like enforcement powers, including to search for, seize and retain evidence
of 'illegal working' or 'illegal renting', and search for and seize nationality
documents. There is a new offence of ‘illegal’ working created under the act – those
found guilty can receive a custodial sentence of up to 51 weeks and/or a fine,
and their paid wages (now considered as proceeds of ‘crime’) can be seized
under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. Similarly, those convicted of driving
offences while living ‘illegally’ face up to 51 weeks’
imprisonment and/or a fine. Once again, detention and deportation will become a
looming spectre for migrants, and this trend will continue irrespective of the
Brexit.
Needless to say, there is a rapid and irrevocable merger of immigration
and criminal laws taking place, expanding the category of immigration crimes. The violation of
immigration laws were previously considered as an administrative matter and
dealt with in civil courts; however, increasingly such infringements are
considered as
a criminal offence, giving a strong indication of the hyper-exclusion and
marginalisation of migrants.
Over the past decade, eighty-four immigration offences have been created
(excluding the ones mentioned above), which includes deception intended to circumvent immigration enforcement
measures, false representation by asylum claimants, and a failure to produce a
passport or cooperate with deportation/removal procedures. Offences such as,
possessing fake identity documents (passport, ID card or any other documents),
are also used against those who break immigration laws and are prosecuted in
criminal courts. Such laws have serious repercussions for migrants and ways in
which they are treated by the system.
In my
recent article I explored how asylum seekers and irregular migrants who committed
‘crimes’ by breaching immigration laws were consequently labelled and treated as
‘dangerous criminals’ by various state authorities. This article narrated their
experiences of and on-going suffering inflicted by the British immigration and
criminal justice systems. I noted that, in many cases, destitution/homelessness
was one of the key factors behind committing such ‘crimes’, and restrictive
immigration policies and procedures were increasing their vulnerability, and
pushing them to commit (what are now constructed as) offences.
This takes me to the final point on destitution, detention
and deportation. Over the past few years, drastic restrictions have been
imposed on asylum support, due to the prevailing rhetoric that ‘bogus’ migrants
are attracted to Britain because of generous welfare provisions and need to be
deterred from coming here. Consequently, the hostile Immigration Act 2016 has
implemented further measures to restrict support, and use destitution as a
policy lever to compel ‘bogus’ migrants to depart from the country. This has
and will continue to drive vulnerable asylum seekers, especially those whose
claims have been turned down, to work ‘illegally’ in the underground economies,
where they
could be subjected to further harms and violence. A
lack of documentation, an ‘illegal’ status and the threat of deportation, are
used as a coercive tool by employers to degrade, abuse, and exploit migrants.
It is widely
noted that a lack of documentation, an ‘illegal’ status and the threat of
deportation, are used as a coercive tool by employers to degrade, abuse, and exploit
migrants. Such ill-informed policies will continue to victimise those who are
already victimised, prolonging their suffering and trauma. Further, the Act has
also extended the “deport first appeal later” policy to all immigration cases.
According to the government: “The main benefits of these clauses [in the
new Immigration Act] would be dealing with those who should not be here, by
rooting out illegal immigrants and boosting removals and deportations.” Migrants are constantly
portrayed as a ‘threat’ to ‘security’, and one that needs to be banished from
the community – as opposed to those who desperately need protection and
security. Lastly, the time limit on detention for all is rejected, making
Britain the only country in the Europe which still maintains the unjust practice of indefinite
detention.
EU referendum
The referendum will have certain implications for borders
and the control of immigration. For example, Britain currently takes part in
the Dublin Regulation[3], and is able
to deport (more) asylum seekers to the appropriate Member State (as opposed
to receive). Leaving the EU would ultimately result in not being able to use this
system, and taking responsibility for asylum cases. However, it has recently
been reported that the “first country rule” in Dublin Regulations could be
scrapped and subsequently linked
to the new system based on a refugee relocation scheme.
If Britain remains in the EU, it is very unlikely that it
will consider remaining as part of the Dublin system and/or accept a refugee
quota. In either scenario, such changes won't
significantly alter the current political trajectory of criminalisation, expansion
of policing and surveillance powers, the intertwining of immigration and the criminal
justice systems, enforced poverty and the proliferation of punitive and harmful
policies – which will continue to remain and/or grow over the coming years.
This trajectory is an outcome of a strong and
deep-seated antipathy towards the racialised ‘other’. There is now an ever
growing need for immigration and border criminologists to focus on the harms
inflicted by racist state policies and practices; to draw upon the narratives
and testimonies of vulnerable groups, to uncover the suffering and injustice
meted out to vulnerable people and to contribute/develop strategies of resistance from below that can challenge
the harms of the powerful and de-mystify ‘crime’.
The original version of this article was published in the British Society of Criminology bi-annual newsletter.
[1] For instance, the Scottish National Party and Jeremy Corbyn’s campaign to
remain in the EU have taken a different approach when compared to the Prime
Minister’s campaign (which has repeatedly highlighted the harms of migration).
[2] The maritime powers are
also granted to the immigration officials under the Immigration Act 2016.
[3]
The purpose of Dublin Regulations is to determine which Member State is
responsible for examining an asylum application – normally the State where the
asylum seeker first entered the EU – and return asylum applicant back to that
State.