We can't keep pretending refugees and economic migrants don’t exist – it’s a recipe for a human rights crisis

Much has been made over the past week about the UK’s decision to implement a points-based immigration system. Opponents argue the new law deliberately deter low-income workers and refugees, following a worrying tradition in UK immigration policy. The law also keeps refugees and asylum seekers out of the public eye, with almost all Syrian refugees being housed away from London and the South East, often in substandard accommodation, and 58 per cent of those in the UK’s immigration detention centres being an asylum seeker.

This trend of discouraging and distancing politically controversial forms of immigration and asylum is not unique to the UK, but rather fits with an emerging global pattern. The EU has sought to prevent refugees from entering the region altogether and has been unwilling or unable to find effective policies for the resettlement of refugees. Australia has sought to “offshore” this issue, with immigrants and refugees being detained in camps in Nauru and Manus Island, often in harsh conditions which have been described as illegal according to international law.

In the US, the American Civil Liberties Union has highlighted the harassment of immigrants and refugees by ICE and the US border force, while the ongoing coronavirus pandemic has seen the Trump administration seek to suspend all immigration and automatically reject all claims for asylum.

While certainly disquieting, this trend is hardly surprising given the political controversy of the topic. While attitudes to immigration have generally not changed in Europe, far-right parties have proven adept at capitalising on the issue when it rises to prominence – immigration also played a key role in the Brexit referendum and the US presidential election.

What this amounts to, among other things, is a danger for the protection of human rights. The right to seek asylum, identified in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and enshrined in International Law at the 1951 Refugee Convention and subsequent agreements, is universal and is intended to protect those fleeing warzones or those who are otherwise displaced. Those fleeing violence and persecution have a right to protection – protection which is denied to them when they are placed in offshore camps or have their pleas for asylum automatically rejected.

This issue is likely to get worse in the coming years as we are forced to deal with the effects of climate breakdown. Although there is no way to accurately estimate the number of people at risk of becoming climate refugees, we will likely see large numbers of people displaced in the coming decades. The effects of climate breakdown will disproportionately impact the Global South. If policies aimed at keeping refugees out of western countries remain pervasive, then any ecological disaster will quickly become a humanitarian one, as climate refugees from the Global South are denied assistance from the Global North.

There are also major economic downsides to these policies which should not be ignored. Trump’s promise to suspend all immigration into the US was justified by the president’s desire to protect US jobs, but the increasing prevalence of policies aimed at ending the free movement of people will likely have negative impacts on workers across the world. Although some media reports have suggested that the integrated global economy is on its way out due to coronavirus, globalisation is still likely to survive coronavirus in some form.

In particular, capital will still be able to flow around the world, supported by easy international transactions and a western consumer class hooked on a lifestyle fuelled by cheap labour in the developing world. Indeed, reduced tourism coupled with government bailouts for struggling airlines could make it easier to transfer materials by air, owing to the abundance of subsidised empty airplanes.

This free movement of capital necessitates the free movement of people, particularly the low-income workers the new UK immigration bill seems designed to keep out. This is because if people aren’t able to move freely between countries, workers will be unable to respond if firms quickly relocate their factories from one country to another or impose wage cuts or unfit working conditions. This has been evidenced already as global brands have easily switched production between free trade zones in south east Asian countries. It also threatens the livelihoods and conditions of low-income workers in the Global North.

Recent years have seen a regression in the working conditions of low-income workers in western countries, evidenced by criticism of working conditions at Amazon and Sports Direct. While it could be argued that low-income immigration may exacerbate these issues, by introducing workers more willing to work in such conditions, restricting freedom of movement is hardly the solution to this problem. If workers are unable to move away in search of better opportunities, then firms like Amazon will be able to suppress wages and worsen conditions without facing real competition for their workers.

If governments keep refusing to deal with these issues properly and humanely, then the impact on human rights, the climate and the economy will only get worse.