Immigration and Border Control - the glaring errors
I feel moved to comment on the fundamental error some governments make in their border control policies and why they will not work. I am primarily referring to the US and UK as these nations seem to be afflicted most by this issue, or at least that is what the media would have us believe.
The current US Administration (carrying on from the 1st Trump administration) seems to think a deterrence only policy is the answer. In this case, the erection and maintenance of a huge wall across the US southern border is the preferred option. In the UK, successive governments have also moved slowly to the right and increasingly embrace a deterrence only policy. Both countries have considered deportation to the country of origin and more recently deportation to a third country: Rwanda has been in the headline of both countries. In the UK legal proceedings stopped the then Conservative government's policy. Currently in the US the courts have drawn the deportation process to a halt whilst cases are considered.
I do not agree with deportation to a country like Rwanda, for two main reasons: there is not sufficient evidence to support the idea of Rwanda being a safe country and, Rwanda is culturally very different to the usual countries of original of migrants and different to the intended destination country; it seems like a moral non-sequitur of a destination. Migrants placed in Rwanda are just as likely to leave that country and try and get into US/UK (or another country) again.
However, it is not the purpose of this piece to criticise specific deterrence based remedies to this issue. It is more to highlight the stupid, one sided, short sighted remedies that US/UK seem to favour. Deterrence only addresses the symptom(s) of the issue and not the cause.
People leaving there own countries usually do so for one or more of four reasons:
They do not feel safe in the country of origin.
They are economic migrants.
They already have family in the destination country who they wish to unite with.
The benefit and welfare systems in the destination countries are favourable.
I appreciate this is a very simplistic outline of the issue, but it will have to suffice for the purposes of the next argument. The basic premise is this:
If the reason for leaving the country of origin is more powerful than the possible negative consequences on arrival at the intended destination, then no amount of deterrence will make the slightest bit of difference to the influx of migrants. If a person thinks they will be harmed or will starve in their country of origin, this dwarfs any danger they may face at their intended destination.
The only solution to the migrant issue is to improve the food security/personal safety/political situations/economic situations in the countries of origin. This is not a new solution. Both the US and the UK (and other countries) used to understand this and both had substantial overseas aid programs. I am not certain of the department in the US that administered this, but in the UK it was the Department for Overseas Development.
I argue that since the slashing of oversea budgets began some 20 years ago, the issue of mass migration has become an exponential problem. I suspect that increasing rather than slashing foreign aid will contribute to easing the problem. Certainly, the billions of dollars and pounds that have been spent on deterrence only policies have been an almost total waste of funds and effort. A rethink is need here.
However, this is not the only factor we need to consider of the migration issue is to be tackled. Increasing pressure needs to be put on governments that do not put the needs of their people first; this is not necessarily just second and third world countries. We as humans need to root out corruption in our own societies first, then assist others to root out corruption in their societies. It isn't sufficient simply to deny assistance to corrupt regimes, but direct action should not be considered without careful planning and thought. Direct action often has unintended consequences.
Finally, global warming is a dire problem. Countries that were once the greenhouses and farms of the planet are becoming barren, baked deserts. This has had serious implications for the food security of the planet. It also contributes to the immigration issue, adding migrants from countries that were previously politically and economically safe. It doesn't matter how pleasant, wealthy and affable a situation is in a given country, if food security becomes an issue then people will vote with their feet and move to a place where survival looks more likely.
(Note: since this was originally published, the UK labour Government has been suggesting giving some asylum seekers £40,000 to give up their asylum claim and go home/elsewhere. Isn't this a bit stupid? Won't this just increase the number of asylum seekers and encourage them to form a queue for their £40,000! Not well thought out at all!)
May your God go with you.