immigration
The Overton Window: A Migrant’s Tragedy
The service had not been planned. So, they had to ask to use a small space behind a coffee shop, and the place was soon filled. Some were dressed in the huipils (blouses), fajas (belts), and cortes (skirts) of the Guatemalan highlands. Others were in denim shirts and cowboy boots. They took their hats off and when they sang, their voices merged with the passing traffic and raised up into the thin, blue air and grief was marked on their faces.
But this was a wake without a body.
Rossana Azucena Coché Navichoc was just 25 years old when she died crossing the Rio Brava into the United States – some 3,300 km to the north.
At 11am she, her boyfriend and three others had attempted to enter the Estados Unidos.
By 11.15am, she and her partner, Whitman Alexander Tax Chinic, had drowned in the Rio Brava.
The last time her mother, Francisca Navichoc Mendoza de Coché, had spoken to her was the day before at 4pm. Rossana was fine; nervous, but excited at the life that awaited her. The promise of a well-paid job in Miami beckoned, and she planned to be there for five years, saving each dollar she could working in a kitchen. Saving up for a future here in San Juan La Laguna in Lake Atitlán, tucked away in the blue-washed mountains of the Sierra Madre.
It had been nine days since her mother had hugged her a final time, and now the mother stood, gaunt and blinking under a harsh light, lamenting the daughter. Her other children, three daughters, three boys, joined the congregation in reciting the litany of the faith, and paid testimony to a life taken too soon.
Rossana's funeral service Photo: Iain Overton
This quiet tragedy, unreported by the American press and unrecorded by the Guatemalan government, is just one of unnumbered tragedies that stalk the dangerous crossings into the United States. Last year, the numbers heading north from Central and South America were so great that a town near where Rossana died – Eagle Pass, Texas – declared a state of emergency.
The US Departments of Homeland Security and Justice reported last year that in 2022, more than 890 migrants died attempting to enter the United States across the southwest border, this was up 22% from the year before. And this is just those known – of course, there are the migrants who die who are never found or identified.
Their deaths are hard, and their loss even harder to grasp. In June 2021, 53 people suffocated, cooked inside an overheated trailer on the side of a Texas highway. It was the most deadly smuggling incident in recent US history. Severe injuries caused by people falling from the new border walls – built under President Trump – are on the rise.
According to the El Paso Times, the number of women in those border-lands more than doubled from last year and more than tripled from 2021. As the paper reported: “If the migrant death toll in El Paso was viewed as a national emergency — an unnatural disaster — it would be larger than that of the Lahaina, Hawaii, and Paradise, California, fires, more deadly than 2017's Hurricane Harvey. It would draw federal attention and emergency resources.”
But such resources are not forthcoming and the dangers of the crossing did not dissuade Rossanna, nor did the mural in nearby Panajachel that showed a Guatemalan woman reaching towards the Statue of Liberty but instead of seeing the familiar green copper face, all she could see was the hollows of a skull.
Instead, Rossanna had paid 150,000 quetzales (just over £15,000) to the coyotes (smugglers) who had taken her across the border and now the family were left with a debt and no-one to earn it off. Later, a truck would drive through the streets of San Juan and women would follow with small baskets, asking for donations to help pay off the debt.
Rossana's mother. Photo: Iain Overton
What leads Rossana, and so many like her, to risk their lives to cross the border has become a huge political issue in the United States. In 2023, its border policy underwent significant changes, including the cessation of rapid expulsions under the Title 42 pandemic-era directive and the potential for legal action against unauthorised entry. There was a rise in deportations alongside the establishment of new "legal pathways" for migrants from countries like Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, Venezuela, and Ecuador. Additionally, asylum seekers are now required to attempt to find refuge in another country first.
The Biden administration has also declared it would proceed with the construction of the border fence, a u-turn from a previous campaign pledge. It’s a raft of attempts that seem to mimic the UK’s own complicated responses to the far lesser numbers crossing the Channel.
And, far from Washington, families like Rossana’s are just left with the weight of loss and not even a body to bury.
“She loved singing, cooking. She was so kind, so sympathetic,” her sister says, wiping away her tears. “The family was so close and this grief just rises.”
Later, the mother meets mourners in a simple shop-front. The local printer has been employed to produce a banner of Rossana. She used to be a teacher here and her college friends come to pay their respects. They stand under her image that hangs on the wall. “Si vivimos, para el Senōr vivimos,” the poster reads. “Y si morimos, par el Senōr morimos”.
“If we live, we live for the Lord. And if we die, we die for the Lord.”
The words are strangely hollow; Rossana’s youthful, smiling face seems so separated from this quiet, devastating tragedy. And so very far from what her crossing promised.
Photo of mural: Iain Overton
This is dark stuff – how the right is controlling politics:
Although effectively none of that narrative is reflected in the views of the British population… This fifteen minutes is I suggest, well worth watching: Peter Oborne shows how the narrative is being swerved and unfortunately (or purposely?) Starmer and the Speaker (certainly the Speaker) have a leading role – we’re being told that Parliament is... Read more
‘The Opposite of War’: Calls for a Palestinian Visa Initiative in the UK
What's happened with the Palestinian visa scheme? In response to the parliamentary petition last December, the Home Office declared that "there are no plans to introduce bespoke arrangements for people arriving from the region". But it also added that "those wishing to come to the UK who currently have no visa can apply under one of the existing visa routes".
Advocates for the dedicated Palestinian visa are still pressing the Government to address the challenges faced by those caught in the Israel-Hamas war, amidst the mounting humanitarian concerns as individuals in Gaza are left without viable options for travel. At least 300 British-Palestinian families are grappling with their inability to provide immediate assistance to relatives.
A fresh initiative – the Palestinian Visa Scheme Campaign – has emerged to help families in their efforts to lobby the Government to implement a visa program allowing for the safe relocation of their Gaza-based relatives.
Speaking at the launch of the project in Westminster on Wednesday, former leader of the Green Party and current Green Party peer, Natalie Bennett said "From an obvious humanitarian point, there are people in desperate need who require refuge".
"Given that a century of foreign policy has helped to create this situation, we have a real responsibility to take action’" Bennett told Byline Times. She added that ‘‘Everyone who needs refuge should be able to get refuge, whether that includes the Ukrainian, Hong Kong or a Palestinian visa scheme. This is not an either-or".
The Ukrainian Precedent
Since 7 October and the beginning of the Israel-Hamas war, approximately 2,000,000 Palestinians have been displaced in Gaza, which accounts for 85% of the population. Amongst those affected are over 300 UK families waiting to be reunited. A parliamentary petition racked up over 30,000 signatures in support of a scheme supporting these families since its creation in October.
The appeal advocates for the waiver of fees, salary thresholds and testing requirements for Palestinians displaced by Israel's recent attacks on Gaza. Inspired by schemes to support refugees in previous conflicts, it would allow UK residents to offer a home to people fleeing Palestine by becoming a sponsor.
Addressing the committee room on Wednesday, Hamza Elbuhaisi, a British Palestinian whose wife currently lives in the UK through a spouse visa, spoke out against the current issues faced by Palestinian families waiting to be rescued from Gaza.
"Both myself and my wife waited two months to be evacuated by the British foreign office’, Hamza revealed. "My life was in danger during this time. Israeli airstrikes killed my friends and neighbours, most of them women and children".
Under the current system, the Home Office requires Palestinians seeking refuge in the UK to apply via the established visa channels. Such systems require complicated and costly provisions, such as additional health charges amounting to at least £1,500 per person, as well as the refusal to consider individuals unless they are parents of young UK nationals, spouses, or children of UK citizens.
Supporters of the scheme point out the contradictory responses of the Government in addressing the needs of displaced populations. Under the Ukrainian visa initiative, Ukrainian refugees seeking residence in the United Kingdom benefit from empathetic provisions, including waived fees and relaxed eligibility criteria.
Drawing upon the positive implications of the Ukraine visa scheme, Joy Rider from LoveBristol, a church and charity working on the border of Ukraine since March 2022, said that such a scheme "sets a precedent for the British public to actually be able to do something and to be able to make a change".
"Through the Homes for Ukraine Scheme, it created a framework that has been overwhelmingly positive", Rider told Byline Times. "Comparing all the other options available, a visa scheme is one thing we can offer that goes in the opposite spirit of war."
Planning to draft an open letter for MPs, Lords and Life Peers, Natalie Bennett emphasised the need for a bipartisan approach: "It’s essential now to seek cross-party support, seeking allies where we find them."
Unlawful Rwanda Scheme Set to Cost UK ‘Staggering’ £500 Million, National Audit Office Reveals
The Government's controversial Rwanda scheme – which the Supreme Court has ruled is unlawful – looks set to cost the UK more than £500 million, according to analysis by the National Audit Office.
The latest payment as part of the deal to resettle asylum seekers who come to the UK across the Channel in the African country could be as late as 2033, the NAO report states.
The Government has been refusing to reveal the overall cost of the plan. As a result, MPs sitting on the House of Commons’ Public Accounts Committee and Home Affairs Committee commissioned the NAO to produce its own report.
According to its findings, the economic partnership signed by the UK with Rwanda would see £330 million phased in as an initial payment. The aim would be Rwanda accepting 300 asylum seekers in exchange for money for the economic development of the country from the UK.
Once 300 asylum seekers have been deported under the scheme, the Government is committed to giving Rwanda another £120 million and negotiating more deportations until 2028.
In addition, the Government would pay £20,000 per individual who is deported after the first 300 people are sent to Rwanda, and it would also pay a total of up to £150,874 per individual for processing and operational costs over five years. These payments would stop if the individual chooses to leave Rwanda and, in that event, the UK would pay £10,000 per person to help facilitate their departure.
Under the scheme this would mean that Rwanda would receive its last payment in 2033 for any asylum seekers deported in 2028.
The Home Office has paid Rwanda £220 million since April 2022.
It will pay further amounts of £50 million to the country in 2024 to 2025; £50 million in 2025 to 2026; and £50 million in 2026 to 2027.
The report also reveals how much the Home Office has so far spent on legal fees in the courts to defend the Rwanda scheme.
This includes around £2 million in direct staff costs; £2.3 million in legal fees (excluding claimants’ costs); and £15.3 million in set-up costs for escorting people to Rwanda and providing training facilities. The Home Office estimates that escorting costs would total £23.5 million by the end of 2023 to 2024.
Further costs estimated by the Home Office include £1 million per year in staff costs from 2024 to 2025; £11,000 per relocated individual for flights (including chartering and fuel) to travel to Rwanda; and £12.6 million for training escorts in 2024 to 2025 and then £1 million per year in future fixed costs relating to escorting.
There would also be further costs of providing escorts to relocate individuals, with the amount depending on the number of flights required.
One reason behind the huge costs involved in the scheme is that the UK would not be able to use a commercial airline to deport asylum seekers – as none are keen to handle them – and so the Government may have to use a private airport.
The auditors say that these figures are also an underestimate because they have not investigated the costs of the Illegal Migration Act on other Whitehall departments, in particular the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.
Unusually, the National Audit Office has not commented on whether the programme is value for money – despite a request from MPs to this effect.
The NAO says it cannot comment on this as its determination depends on whether the scheme acts as a deterrent to asylum seekers coming to the UK.
Labour's Dame Diana Johnson, chair of the Home Affairs Committee, said: “These are staggering figures. For all its rhetoric about ensuring value for money in the asylum and immigration system, it is unclear how schemes such as Rwanda or Bibby Stockholm achieve that. Huge initial outlay and ongoing costs raise serious questions about how this can be cost-effective, even compared to high hotel accommodation costs.
“What we are left with is a very expensive programme the Government hopes may offer a deterrent to those seeking to cross the Channel in small boats. Yet, there is little evidence for this either. Unless the Government deals with the realities of the situation and focuses its energy and the public’s money on fixing the real issues in the asylum and immigration system, it will achieve nothing."
The Public Accounts Committee has announced it will launch an inquiry into the huge costs of the Rwanda scheme and the costs of providing accommodation for asylum seekers in the UK.
Labour's Dame Meg Hillier MP, the committee's chair, said: “Both our committee and the Home Affairs Committee have long called for a clear accounting of the likely costs of the UK-Rwanda partnership, as one of the Government’s most high-profile policies. We thank the National Audit Office for its service to the taxpayer in laying out the facts proceeding from its investigation.
“It is frustrating that proper transparency has been hindered by these figures not simply being made available to Parliament on request. Our new inquiry will both scrutinise the overall issue of asylum accommodation, as well as seek answers to the questions that now remain on the Rwanda scheme.
"Whether it’s value for money or not rests on whether the scheme achieves its aim of acting as a deterrent. The Home Office is on record in front of our committee that no evidence exists that it will do so.”
Government itself has ensured that it is dysfuntional:
What is further remarkable is that the inspector of BorderForce is the only ‘services’ inspector who does not have the right to publish his own reports – for an immigration obsessed government, well, That is clearly a desire to control the narrative and how…... Read more
Identity Politics has turned the Conservatives on themselves
Rather remarkably. we are now told that while the Prime Minister thinks Lee Anderson’s recent comments were “wrong” he “does not believe he is racist”. So why cannot Sunak say he has suspended the whip on the basis of religious hatred then? He is a complete prisoner of Conservative factionalism and so meanwhile has done... Read more
‘Untold Damage to the UK’s Reputation’: Parliament’s Joint Committee on Human Rights Slams the Rwanda Bill
Parliament’s most senior human rights committee condemns today the Government’s Rwanda Bill as “fundamentally incompatible with the UK’s human rights obligations.”
The Joint Committee on Human Rights – composed of MPs and peers – effectively rejects the bill in its entirety proposing no amendments after a line-by-line examination of all the clauses.
The report is published on the day the House of Lords starts its detailed examination of the bill which is expected to give a very rough ride to the government and the Prime Minister for introducing it as an emergency measure.
The Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill facilitates the removal of asylum seekers to Rwanda. It was proposed by Rishi Sunak after the Supreme Court rejected Rwanda as a safe country and the European Court of Human Rights stopped a flight going to Rwanda last year.
The bill strips out virtually all protection for asylum seekers and immigrants who arrive illegally in the UK in boats across the Channel under the UK’s own Human Rights Act. It severely limits the courts to hear appeals against deportation, allows ministers and civil servants to ignore directions from the European Court of Human Rights and orders the courts to treat Rwanda as a safe country under a new treaty with the UK.
The committee is “particularly alarmed” at the disapplication of part of the Act that allows authorities to ignore human rights granted under the European Convention of Human Rights which the UK is a signatory.
Chair of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, Joanna Cherry QC MP said:
“This Bill is designed to remove vital safeguards against persecution and human rights abuses, including the fundamental right to access a court. Hostility to human rights is at its heart and no amendments can salvage it.
“This isn’t just about the rights and wrongs of the Rwanda policy itself. By taking this approach, the Bill risks untold damage to the UK’s reputation as a proponent of human rights internationally.
“Human rights aren’t inconvenient barriers that must be overcome to reach policy goals, they are fundamental protections that ensure individuals are not harmed by Government action. If a policy is sound it should be able to withstand judicial scrutiny, not run away from it.”
The report is backed by the majority of the committee’s members who include Baroness Kennedy, Baroness Lawrence, Bell Ribeiro-Addy, Labour MP for Streatham and Lord Alton.
Still, three of the committee’s Conservative members rejected the report’s findings by voting against clauses in the report. They are Jill Mortimer, MP for Hartlepool, who won the “Red Wall” seat in a by-election during Boris Johnson’s premiership; Lord Murray of Blidworth, a former Home Office minister and Baroness Meyer, the widow of Sir Christopher Meyer, the former British Ambassador to the United States. But they did not go as far as producing their own minority report to contradict the main report’s findings.
The committee is sceptical of the claims by the government that Rwanda is safe and that in practice asylum seekers sent there will be protected even if their claims to be allowed to enter the UK are rejected. The bill says they will be safe there but the committee and the Lords committee that examined international treaties could not find the mechanism to protect them.
The report is most scathing about the damage to Britain’s standing and reputation by passing the law saying it is “in jeopardy”.
“If the UK enacts legislation that fails to respect its own international human rights commitments it will seriously harm its ability to influence other nations to respect the international legal order.”
It also raises the issue of whether the action by the government over Rwanda undermines the Good Friday agreement and the Windsor agreement in Northern Ireland. This has been raised by the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission which says the agreement says Northern Ireland has to follow the European Convention on Human Rights and immigrants must have access to the courts.
The Government denies the agreement is so far-reaching. The committee is not satisfied and asks for ministers to lay a report before Parliament on this before the bill reaches the Report stage in the Lords.
A Theory of Everyone: Who We Are, How We Got Here, and Where We’re Going – review
In A Theory of Everyone: Who We Are, How We Got Here, and Where We’re Going, Michael Muthukrishna contends that the core issue affecting Western societies is increasing energy scarcity, leading to economic struggles, political disillusionment, and global instability. Though the public policy solutions Muthukrishna proposes – like better immigration systems and start-up cities – are outlined only vaguely, the book offers fresh ideas in an engaging writing style, according to James Sewry.
A Theory of Everyone: Who We Are, How We Got Here, and Where We’re Going. Michael Muthukrishna. Basic Books. London. 2023.
Find this book: 
A Theory of Everyone by Michael Muthukrishna, Associate Professor of Economic Psychology at LSE, is a bold and ambitious book. It argues that the underlying cause of the present malaise of western societies is increasing energy scarcity. There is no doubt that the malaise is real. Since the global financial crisis, the UK has struggled to achieve economic and productivity growth; living standards are stagnant; inflation recently reached almost double figures; and the cost of energy spiked. As faith in politics and institutions is eroded, voters are drawn towards populism. Social media polarises us. The global order seems precarious: wars rage in Ukraine and the Middle East. In the words of Muthukrishna, “we can feel in our bones that the world is breaking – that something is wrong”.
The global order seems precarious: wars rage in Ukraine and the Middle East. In the words of Muthukrishna, ‘we can feel in our bones that the world is breaking – that something is wrong’.
The ultimate cause of all these different problems, Muthukrishna argues, is the lack of excess energy. Tapping into the energy contained within fossil fuels has driven society’s development since the Industrial Revolution, precipitating prosperity and increasing standards of living. Until relatively recently, energy seemed abundant. But fossil fuels are running out. The energy return on investment (EROI) that they offer is diminishing. For every single barrel of oil discovered in 1999 one could find at least another 1,000, but by 2010, this number had reduced to five. As Muthukrishna contends, we came to take energy for granted and stopped thinking about it. But as it becomes more expensive and more effort is spent on its extraction, life becomes harder. This matters because, as the availability of excess energy reduces, the “space of the possible”, that is, what humans are collectively able to achieve, shrinks with it. Humanity’s pressing challenge, therefore, is how to arrive at the “next level of abundance that leads to a better life for everyone”. Otherwise, according to Muthukrishna, the future will be bleak, with humanity beset by conflict over dwindling energy and resources.
Tapping into the energy contained within fossil fuels has driven society’s development since the Industrial Revolution, precipitating prosperity and increasing standards of living. Until relatively recently, energy seemed abundant.
To provide an approach to this enormously challenging future, A Theory of Everyone is divided into two parts. The first explains “who we are” and “how we got here”, detailing what the author proposes as the four “laws of life” which underpin human development: energy, innovation, cooperation and evolution. This layout is justified on the grounds that “the forces that shape our thinking, our economies, and our societies have become invisible to us”, and that in order to solve problems, we must first understand them. Part two then considers practical policy solutions that might begin to address our current predicament: “how this comprehensive theory of everyone can lead to practical policy applications.”
What distinguishes us is our capacity for social learning and imitation which has enabled each generation of humans to add to the stock of knowledge which is then acquired and marginally improved upon by each subsequent generation.
Given the scale and ambition of the book, it is perhaps unsurprising that the reader is left feeling disappointed by its suggestions for public policy. Muthukrishna essentially offers the following ideas: better designed immigration, educational and tax systems; start-up cities; programmable politics; the curation of free speech and genuine meritocracy; and improving the internet and social media. Taken by themselves, many of these ideas are sound, and if there were sufficient political will, ought to be implemented as soon as practically possible. There are also many powerful insights within the book that might help shift some common understandings, such as the assumption, which Muthukrishna powerfully counters, that what differentiates us as a species is our innate intelligence and ability to reason. Instead, what distinguishes us is our capacity for social learning and imitation which has enabled each generation of humans to add to the stock of knowledge which is then acquired and marginally improved upon by each subsequent generation. Our intelligence is therefore more the result of this evolving cultural “download” than it is thanks to raw ability.
It is difficult to see how the book’s policy ideas sufficiently match the scale of the challenges the author outlines.
However, some of these practical applications are frustratingly light on detail. For example, his proposals for “start-up cities” and “programme politics” in his chapter on governance in the twenty-first century are both sketched out only vaguely, with little sense of how they might be realised. Where ideas are fleshed out, they are sometimes caveated with qualifiers such as “this approach is one of many and may not even be the best approach”. On occasion the author struggles to move beyond platitudes, as in his very brief discussion of artificial intelligence: “More progress is needed to know the true limits of what machines can achieve and our role in all of this. The tides of progress can only be held back for so long.” It is difficult to see how the book’s policy ideas sufficiently match the scale of the challenges the author outlines.
Muthukrishna does not seem to appreciate, or at least makes no room for, the fact that a number of his fundamental assumptions, such as a belief in the underlying virtue of capitalism and economic growth, might not be universally shared. Others would want to see climate change given more thorough treatment.
These flaws do not mean that the book is without merit. A recognition of the world’s complexity and the author’s commitment to truth and the scientific method means he is robustly unafraid to court controversy. He lauds unfettered free speech, expresses scepticism towards affirmative action, and explores sex-based differences in intelligence, while on immigration he contends that new migrants bring “with them cultural values both desirable and less desirable”. Muthukrishna is arguably right not to shy away from these controversial areas for, as he argues, “we can only arrive at the truth in a diverse environment of different backgrounds, considering all hypotheses and ideas – both those we like and those we don’t.”
Muthukrishna is arguably right not to shy away from […] controversial areas for, as he argues, ‘we can only arrive at the truth in a diverse environment of different backgrounds, considering all hypotheses and ideas’
The book is also written in an engaging and accessible manner, and whilst it might fail to attain the heights it purports to reach, in its fresh thinking it is a welcome addition to the basket of literature that helps contemporary politicians, policymakers, and anyone with an interest in the direction of humanity grapple with the complexity of today’s challenges.
This post gives the views of the author, and not the position of the LSE Review of Books blog, or of the London School of Economics and Political Science. The LSE RB blog may receive a small commission if you choose to make a purchase through the above Amazon affiliate link. This is entirely independent of the coverage of the book on LSE Review of Books.
Image Credit: blvdone on Shutterstock.
‘The UK’s Immigration System is Islamophobic and Racist. Expanding Prevent into it Will Re-traumatise Refugees’
Migration is not an isolated issue. It is intertwined with political party agendas, geopolitics, conflict or global labour demands, while systems of oppression like homophobia, racism or sexism form the basis of who is considered to be welcome in the West. The exclusionary and discriminatory nature of migration policies is often overlooked.
At the Migrants’ Rights Network, we believe border regimes and immigration systems have their roots in racism and Islamophobia. Now, as Prevent could be forcibly imposed into immigration and asylum processes, migration advocacy organisations and Muslim organisations must wake up to Islamophobia’s grip on UK border regimes.
Prevent is used as a form of surveillance. At present, the Prevent Duty requires particular public-facing authorities such as education, health, local authorities, police and criminal justice agencies to ‘prevent’ people from being “drawn into terrorism.” It is a fundamentally flawed and discriminatory mechanism that leads to thousands of people (mainly Muslims) being treated with suspicion on the basis they are assumed to be more likely to commit a ‘crime’ such as terrorism.
In December 2023, the Home Office published an Independent Review of Prevent’s report and the Government’s response by William Shawcross (Independent Reviewer of Prevent) in which he recommended the Government explore extending Prevent into the immigration and asylum system. The expansion of the Prevent Duty into the UK immigration system would further embed racism and Islamophobia in borders.
This is based on the migration status of individuals who committed alleged terror attacks in the UK over the last few years. Specifically, he states that people who are fleeing conflict zones or “from parts of the world where extremist ideologies have a strong presence are more likely to be susceptible to radicalisation… especially if they are deeply disappointed by their reception in the UK”.
There is explicit emphasis on ‘Islamist’ extremism in the Review, and little to no reference of countries with high rates of White Supremacy or far-right activity, such as Ukraine. This highlights the increasing trend for migration to be viewed through the lens of national security, in particular, migration from Muslim-majority countries because Muslims are viewed through the Islamophobic assumption of their proximity to terrorism. It also seeks to effectively punish people for the barriers within the UK immigration system and how they are treated.
The UK’s immigration measures already disproportionately impact racialised and Muslim communities. Muslims are most impacted by deprivation of citizenship powers, seven out of ten irregular arrivals to the UK are from Muslim-majority countries (and Eritrea) as a result of a lack of safe routes to seek protection in the UK, and Muslims bear the brunt of racist ‘integration’ narratives and internalised border controls, such as right to work checks.
In the Review, Shawcross claims that Prevent is “not doing enough to counter non-violent Islamist extremism” and goes on to say it represents the primary terrorist threat to the UK. However, Muslims are arguably persistently perceived as a ‘threat’ and treated with suspicion around their loyalty to so-called ‘British values’.
Deprivation of citizenship powers has been used to strip British citizens of citizenship on the grounds of national security, after being accused of suspected terrorist activities. Evidence shows subjects of citizenship deprivation on national security grounds have been almost exclusively Muslim and from a Middle Eastern, South or West Asian or North African background.
We also see this construction of Muslims as a ‘threat’ in the way ‘single male asylum seekers’ are presented in British media and political discourse. Orientalist stereotypes of men (specifically men of Colour and Muslim men) paint them as ‘violent, threatening and backward’, as well as oppressive towards women and girls. While an intersectional approach to migration advocacy is largely absent, how constructs of masculinity impact male migrants is completely non-existent.
At the Migrants’ Rights Network, we are unpacking how these stereotypes (and other systems of oppression) intersect to shape immigration policies through our Who is Welcome campaign.
The Prevent Review draws on ingrained stereotypes about people from Muslim communities.
One pervasive idea in the Review is that ‘Islamism’ is at odds with the West because it doesn’t believe in the separation of religion and state, liberal values or democracy. This is a well-established Islamophobic trope because Islam is characterised as the antithesis to British (i.e. ‘liberal’) values and feeds into the ‘clash of civilisations’ idea.
This draws on a long history of Orientalist stereotypes’ - an idea that was laid out in Louise Casey’s 2016 review on “opportunity and integration” which links Islam to those who “are keen to take religion backwards and away from 21st Century British values and laws on issues such as gender equality and sexual orientation; creating segregation and pulling communities apart.”
Shawcross goes on to claim the ‘Islamist endeavour is an imperialist one’. This is an unusual and bold claim, particularly given the West’s long interventionist and colonial history in Muslim-majority regions. Iraq, Sudan, Syria and Afghanistan are just a few of the countries that continue to bear the brunt of continuous colonisation, imperialist exploits and Western intervention, and where many of the refugees arrive from. They are also some of those who face the sharpest end of the hostile environment in the UK.
Numerous ideas set out in the Review all stem from the idea of Muslims as a ‘threat’. It seeks to use ingrained stereotypes to justify greater surveillance powers against them. Expanding Prevent into the immigration and asylum system will ultimately further embed hostile treatment towards racialised migrants. For those of us seeking to achieve liberation and justice for migrants, we must be vigilant to the threat that Prevent poses to migrant and migrated communities, especially those with Muslim backgrounds.