Piacentini, Teresa

English

Enlighten: Publications

From Calais to Kent, what is wrong with how we are talking about the migrant crisis?

Enlighten

From Calais to Kent, what is wrong with how we are talkingabout the migrant crisis? www.opendemocracy.net /can-europe-make-it/teresa-piacentini/from-calais-to-kentTeresa PiacentiniPopular discourse on the current migration crisis is dangerous, divisive, and inaccurate since it describes migrantsas enemies to fear rather than people to help.The sailors and Royal Marines of HMS Bulwark help migrants ashore. Carl Osmond/Flickr. Some rights reserved.And so it has happened. Talk of ‘incursions of migrants’, ‘monitoring signs of migrant activity’ and ‘sending in thetroops’ is marking the latest transformation of migrants desperately seeking a safe and better life. The presentsituation – largely described under the rubric ‘the Calais crisis’ – is being reported in language usually reserved foractual conflicts themselves, or surveilling the enemy and awaiting the next infiltration.But then, the plight of migrants, making rational decisions to risk their lives, has become a key global conflict of thetwenty-first century. It appears as a new conflict with no obvious single enemy, but an enemy who appears to beeverywhere, a conflict that has resulted from other conflicts, but which are not acknowledged as driving people todesperate measures. It is a conflict that has been moving progressively closer and closer to Europe, from themillions of displaced people on the African continent, to the tragedy of Mediterranean crossings, to the bloody scalingof high razor fences at Calais.'Swarms' of migrantsWhen it's time to go... Jey OH/Flickr. Some rights reserved.The anti-migrant language of the most recent reporting about the present situation of migrant crossings hasaccelerated at an alarming pace, although perhaps with no great surprise. They have been described as "swarms"by Nigel Farage and David Cameron, only to be condemned by Labour leader hopefuls Yvette Cooper and AndyBurnham, and promptly followed up by social media links to Labour's own managed migration policy, which is hardlyany more humane. The language of managed migration is at the heart of the problem, as if it is something that canbe turned off like a tap. As if it refers to a homogenous thing, rather than encompassing mixed flows of peopleseeking family reunifications, economic migrants, unaccompanied minors, and victims of trafficking. So what has been the political response? So far, it continues to be framed along the pull factors. On 28 October2014, the British government quietly announced its decision to withdraw support for Mare Nostrum: “we do notsupport planned search and rescue operations in the Mediterranean,” said Foreign Office Minister Baroness Anelay,to avoid “an unintended ‘pull factor’, encouraging more migrants to attempt the dangerous sea crossing and therebyleading to more tragic and unnecessary deaths.” On 30 July 2015, David Cameron‘s take on the “swarm of peoplecoming across the Mediterranean seeking a better life” was that they are “wanting to come to Britain because Britainhas got jobs, it’s got a growing economy, it’s an incredible place to live.” For too long this has been used as ajustification of increasingly regressive immigration legislation in the UK, which has progressively stripped peopleclaiming asylum of any sense of value, reducing them to fully state dependent shells of their former selves.For those that make it, Britain is not a great place to claim asylum; it is a tough place, where there are extensiverestrictions on movement, consumption, employment, access to education and housing. There is plenty of evidenceof the extreme conditions individuals face trying to survive life in Britain (Oxfam 2011; Scottish Refugee council2012). But where is the focus on the push factors? These factors drive and compel individuals to leave their ‘home’, theirfamilies and friends, everything that is familiar, even when it is incredibly hard. Where is the focus on foreigninvolvement in civil wars across the globe, including the systematic human rights violations that serve as the majorpush factors for refugee and migration flows to the EU from countries like Syria, Eritrea, Afghanistan, and Somalia,as well as from transit countries like Libya? Where is the global responsibility for creating conditions that haveproduced the present situation?Humane solutionsProtest for migrants' rights, Lausanne, 9 May 2015. Gustave Deghilage/Flickr. Some rights reserved.At least three changes need to take place in how we talk about what is happening, how it is reported and how torespond politically. First, the focus on push factors needs to be foregrounded in policy, media and public debates,with nation states taking responsibility for contributing to the creation of impossible conditions for human beings tosurvive. In acknowledging our collective roles, European states will then have to also acknowledge their politicalresponsibilities to find acceptable and humane solutions – ones that provide people with the ability to apply forasylum lawfully, and to be able to do that lawfully without having to wait in places for 10 years, as has been thelegacy of the UK’s asylum policies since 1999. The second change must be a shift in thinking with regards to mobility – not as something to be feared but assomething that requires organisation. As Francois Crepeau, the UN special rapporteur on the human rights ofmigrants, suggests, this means opening up avenues for safer mobility for both refugees and the economic migrants,coming mainly from sub-Saharan Africa to Europe, who may also have protection issues, but who are in search or abetter life that is not on offer in their own countries. Their journey is often a violent and dangerous one. They too areat risk of exploitation from both people traffickers and exploitative employers.Thirdly, there needs to be a focus on the moral imperative and a shift in the conceptualisation of migrants – and inparticular migrants from Sub Saharan Africa, Syrians, Eritreans, Somalis, Afghani – from an enemy threat to be feared to people that need help. The human rights perspective must be at the centre ofresponses to what is happening. As Kent social services advises it is struggling to cope with children seekingasylum, one thing is clear: the present migrant crisis will not be solved by force, or the reframing of migrants as anenemy threat. Saving lives and supporting safer mobility could and should be integral to more humane solutions tothe present migrant crisis.If you enjoyed this article then please consider liking Can Europe Make it? on Facebook and following us onTwitter @oD_Europe

http://eprints.gla.ac.uk/116497/1/116497.pdf

From Calais to Kent, what is wrong with how we are talking about the migrant crisis?

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Enlighten: Publications

Enlighten