Migrant crisis: It’s time to stop the politics of fear and treat these people like human beings

Hearing migrants described in the language of pestilence or invasion is sadly not unusual – but for those words to come from the mouths of the Prime Minister and his Foreign Secretary marks a shift in the politics of fear.

The sight of crowds of frightened refugees gathered at a port more accustomed to holiday-makers has prompted not sympathy but revulsion and anger. As the debate over immigration to Britain reaches a hysterical pitch, the Government seems to be stoking the most reactionary views rather than calming them.

Even the former Cabinet minister Andrew Mitchell balked at the language coming from his Conservative party colleagues. “These are human beings who are in desperate straits and desperate circumstances,” Mitchell told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme. “My colleagues choose their own language, but these are human beings who are in desperate peril.”

The vast majority of the estimated 3,000 people in Calais are refugees from Syria, Eritrea, Sudan and Afghanistan. They have not gathered to “invade”, but because they were willing to risk everything in search of safety.

Last summer I travelled across Europe from Milan to Calais with Emad, a Syrian who already has refugee status in Britain, and his mother Nawal. Theirs is one of 10 migrant stories I told in a book, Finding Home.

After Nawal was threatened by secret police in Damascus, Emad got himself thousands of pounds in debt paying smugglers with connections to Isis to bring her across the Mediterranean on a near-deadly broken fishing boat.

Emad had tried several times to apply for Nawal to join him in Britain legally but was repeatedly turned down; the Home Office argued it had no obligation to help as she was not a dependent. When they reached Calais, they hoped to claim asylum at the UK border but were turned down. Nawal was handed to French border police who, instead of stamping her passport ,which would mean she was their responsibility, deliberately handed it back to her. Just as Italians had knowingly avoided taking her details after her rescue at sea, France knew if it looked the other way, she might become another country’s problem.

After putting thousands more pounds into the hands of smugglers, Nawal eventually made it to the UK squashed between two Kuwaiti men in the hollowed out underneath of an estate car belonging to British gangsters. Today she has refugee status and is living in London happily. It is baffling to her that Britain’s immigration system encouraged her to give money to criminals rather than resettling her legally.

Britain has historically had a proud tradition of providing refuge to those fleeing war and persecution. But the latest figures show that – far from being swamped by the number it helps – the UK is not pulling its weight in Europe. Since the crisis in Syria began in 2011, Britain has taken around 2 per cent of Europe’s Syrian asylum claims. Under a resettlement scheme for Syrian refugees, Britain has accepted just 187 people, according to the latest figures. The remaining 6,700 who have claimed asylum here over the past four years either arrived as visitors or smuggled themselves into the country.

If those numbers sound high, consider that 89,000 Syrians sought asylum in Germany and Sweden took in 62,000. The picture is similar for asylum from other nationalities. In the first quarter of this year the UK took just 4 per cent of all new asylum claims in Europe with 7,335 – a tenth of Germany.

Life for refugees is harder than ever in Britain. A shake-up by the Home Office means that from this week asylum-seekers have taken a cut in the already meagre cash they are allocated for looking after children. A single parent with one child, for example, will now receive just £10 a day to cover both of their living costs, a cut of 24 per cent. Since asylum-seekers are forbidden from working until their claim has been processed, the new policy is expected to push thousands of children further into poverty. While politicians in Britain choose to present the continued attempts to get here from Calais as being about the UK’s “generous” welfare policies, others believe the surge in activity at the port has more to do with French politics.

Hundreds of undocumented migrants were moved from squats in Calais to a single site 7km from the city by local authorities in April this year. Called “the New Jungle”, it sits on a former rubbish dump with no access to power or water. And, as local politicians no doubt intended, it is so unpleasant that the need to move on has become more pressing.

Meanwhile, just offering a helping hand to an undocumented migrant in France can result in fines of more than £20,000 and up to five years in prison, which has discouraged many support networks from giving out food and other essentials.

The idea that migrants are in Britain to sponge off the state does not stand up to scrutiny. Most non-EU nationals who are subject to immigration control are not allowed access to public funds, such as Jobseekers’ Allowance or tax credits.

Far from leeching off Britain, it is widely accepted that migrants have a significant economic benefit. Research at University College London last year estimated that recent non-European migrants made a net contribution of £5bn to the economy between 2001-2011. Migrants from Europe also contributed £20.2bn.

Despite the weight of evidence in favour of migrants, those making their case have to acknowledge that figures do little to calm a debate that has always been more about gut feeling and identity than economics. If we are to take on such emotional responses, encouraging our politicians to talk about asylum-seekers as human beings would be a good place to start.