Illegal immigration is a subject that can be counted on to press the buttons of many people in many different societies. It’s easy to characterise concern over illegal immigration as a concern of the political right, but is it really that simple?
In late 2022, 55% of Britons polled held a negative view of those attempting to enter the UK by crossing the English Channel in small boats, with just 19% having a positive view of these people.1 Early in 2024, a US poll found more than 80% of Americans polled considered illegal immigration to be a serious or very serious problem.2
So if concerns over illegal immigration are so widespread, is it fair for those who support such migration to identify those who oppose it as being small-minded and selfish? If we believe in the power of democracy, shouldn’t the wishes of the majority of the people be respected?
I believe there’s an argument that immigration undermines democracy. Perhaps not a great argument, but I’m going to share it all the same.
Two broad brush strokes first, immigration can weaken democracy both in the home countries of immigrants and in the destination countries, though arguably it applies mainly to illegal immigration in the latter case.
But how do we define legal and illegal immigration?
Legal immigration seems straightforward enough, it’s when people are invited to come and live in a country.
Illegal immigration applies pretty much to everyone else who didn’t get an invite and have made their own way to the destination country.
Of course, someone who could be classed as an illegal immigrant could potentially also be classed as a legal asylum seeker. Countries that are signed up to the 1951 Refugee Convention and/or the 1967 Protocol recognise that they are obliged to offer various rights and protections to those who qualify for refugee status. Those agreements also place obligations on those refugees.
A simplified definition of a refugee is someone who may, for various reasons, be unable to return to their former home country for fear of facing persecution.3
It’s also a common misrepresentation that refugees are obliged to apply for asylum in the first safe country that they arrive in. Some see refugees that fail to do this and pass on to other more desirable countries as contributing to their status as illegal immigrants. However, neither the Convention or Protocol specify such a requirement. Refugees are free to seek asylum in any country that they’re able to reach. The confusion will be down to other international agreements, such as the Safe Third Country Agreement between the US and Canada, and legislation within the EU, which include first country of entry clauses.
The big question though with immigrants that seek asylum is are they really refugees or are they economic migrants who just want the opportunity to work in a country where salaries are higher? It’s the issue of economic migration that muddies the waters. While we have obligations to assist refugees, economic migrants don’t have the same rights. Some of these will self-identify as economic migrants by not applying for asylum, but there may still be economic migrants among the asylum seekers.
You and I can’t choose which country we live in without first gaining the permission of that country and that’s often far from straightforward. Unless you’re a citizen of an EU country or some other region where countries have agreed on free movement of people, you’ll likely find the option to live in another country is entirely dependent on you having sufficient wealth and that often means a lot of wealth.
I’m sure you can empathise with the desire of immigrants to be able to live and work in countries with higher wages, but should they be free to enjoy privileges that you and I don’t?
We’ll come back to this, but first…
Undermining Democracy In Home Countries
So why could we say that immigration undermines democracy in the home countries of immigrants? It weakens their societies.
We know that legal immigrants are invited, perhaps after applying, to live in their new home country. Why do countries do that? Occasionally in response to a catastrophe elsewhere that has displaced large numbers of people. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine saw large numbers of Ukrainians granted asylum across Europe and the civil war in Syria also saw many Syrians granted asylum in some European countries.
In the absence of a dreadful catastrophe, legal immigration is quite mercenary in its motives. It’s generally the act of richer countries poaching some of the most desirable citizens from other, usually poorer, countries. It’s a quick and easy way to get more skilled workers into an economy without the lead times of them having to train first. Additionally, there’s no expense lost on training them as those costs have already been paid, often by the citizens of the original countries that the immigrants leave behind.
It tends to remove some of the most educated members of society, the ones most likely to make a positive difference, so that the new country can benefit from their skills and abilities.
Obviously, that weakens the home society and weaker societies are softer targets for would-be autocrats to take over and to keep under their control in the long-term.
It’s not just the loss of those who are cherry-picked that weakens the home country. Every person who leaves to seek asylum is making it easier for an autocrat to crush any hope of democracy.
If we were living in an autocratic society and we knew we could either stand up for our rights at home and risk imprisonment or death, or we could seek a new home in a democratic country, which do you think we’d choose? Particularly if we had families to care for.
The irony is that the kind of people who have the courage and strength to undertake often long and dangerous journeys to seek asylum in other countries are the ones with the courage and strength that autocratic leaders most fear.
Undermining Democracy In Destination Countries
Immigrants are an easy target. They always have been and probably always will be. They’re a favoured target of extremist politicians who know they’re a quick and easy way to rouse a strong emotional response from the people.
Get the people angry and give them a target to vent that anger on and they’ll accept laws that would make their hair stand on end on any other day. Laws even that restrict them, because that’s the price to pay to put those immigrants in their place. Laws that can be used just as easily to target dissenting citizens. Autocrats see enemies everywhere, whether they’re really there or not, and they never limit themselves to persecuting just one group of people.
So, could we argue that there are grounds for democratic governments to take stronger action against immigration to remove the fuel of discontent that can be used by some to remove democratic protections from a society?
Particularly when, as we’ve seen, there are significant parts of society with concerns over immigration. Democracy is government by the people, so shouldn’t the people’s concerns today supersede agreements made generations ago?
Is that a controversial question to ask? I’m not sure. Don’t worry, I’m sure we can agree this is controversial, though.
Should asylum seekers have an obligation to stay in their home country and fight for the freedoms they seek elsewhere?
Let’s take Afghanistan as an example. In 2021, when Western nations withdrew their military forces, the Taliban overran the country and took power in a crazy short period of time.
In 2021, the Afghan population was estimated at 40.1 million people. Estimates for the number of Taliban fighters vary from as few as 55,000 up to about 200,000.4 Taking the high estimate, the whole country of Afghanistan was forcefully taken by less than 0.5% of the population. What were the other 99.5 and a bit per cent of Afghans doing?
Is it unreasonable to expect them to help themselves?
Actually, I’ve asked a question that isn’t just controversial, it’s also unfair. We don’t know how many Afghans supported the Taliban or were even indifferent. Looking through a Western democracy-tinted lens, we might assume that the whole female Afghan population would oppose them for the restrictions they place on women, but we can’t say that.
I remember a Facebook post from many years ago where a fella asked where he could find a good male assistant to work in his office. Open the gates of hell to unleash the hounds of cancel upon his poor, sorry sexist butt. I can imagine that last sentence might suggest at least some of my sympathies lie with him. They don’t, once I read his response to the outrage to his sexism, I found myself convinced he was a vain, self-centred, narcissistic dick. I’m a little ashamed to say I sat back and enjoyed the trolling.
So, his reasoning for not being prepared to hire a woman to work with him was because he was a good Christian man and he didn’t want to employ a woman out of respect for his wife. It would be disrespectful to her to be spending time alone with another woman.
Let me read between the lines and rephrase what he said to be more easily understood.
I am God’s gift to women. Women cannot help but throw themselves at me. Because this gift was God-given, I feel it is wrong for me not to share it when women beg me for my seed. Hence it’s best that I don’t hire a woman so that I don’t cheat on disrespect my wife with one of these godless harlot whores.
Wow, whatta guy! And what about the lucky “respected” woman, hey?
My memory of his Facebook profile image may be a little hazy after all these years, but still, think more Hugh Jackman in Movie 435, than Hugh Jackman in The Prestige.
Anyway, as you can imagine, this thread didn’t die quickly. I don’t recall which US state he was in, but he seemed genuinely convinced there was some bye-law that meant he was legally obliged to sleep with his employees (actually, in view of that, we’d have to say his intention to hire a man was surprisingly broad-minded).6
The thing is though, throughout his many replies, he kept insisting on how much he loved and respected his wife. Really?
And that’s when another good Christian man joined the conversation and pointed out that good Christian man #1 could just say “no” when asked to share his seed outside of wedlock. He could do it politely and admit he’s very flattered, but make it clear that he took vows to be faithful to his wife and those vows are too important to him. Simple and quite obvious when spelt out like that, don’t you think?
Except that’s not what our second good Christian man said.
“Amen brother, you’re a good Christian man showing such respect to your wife. I’ve been married for 30 years and if another woman speaks to me, I punch her in her Godless face and tell her ‘hornbag, our good Lord will ensure you burn for eternity in the deepest pit of hell for your sinful behavior’. In fact, I’ve just left Walmart and one of Satan’s hookers had the nerve to say to me ‘that will be 58 dollars and 32 cents please’. I trust the memory of her broken nose will ensure she thinks long and hard the next time she finds herself driven to tease and tempt another good Christian man with such disgusting and filthy pornographic discourse.”
And so we arrive at the real reason for this deviation, in all forms of the word.
Enter stage right, a good Christian woman.
“I want to say how much I admire you both for so resolutely defending the patriarchy and ensuring that we demonic good Christian biggus dickus7 teasing Jezebel sluts are kept in check as we should forever be. Long live the patriarchy and slow and painful death to the non-believers. Oh yes, and the sodomites. Death, slow and painful, that is, not long life. (edited)”
Now, this was some years ago, so it’s possible I’ve paraphrased just a gnat’s chuff. Actually, it’s almost certain I’ve completely rewritten the words used, but what struck me was how a Christian woman came in and defended the actions of Christian men intended to make their life easier at the expense of women.
Anyway, the point is that the Taliban could enjoy much greater support from the Afghan people than we’d imagine possible, even from Afghan women. In that context, it may be very easy for people to feel isolated and scared and believe the dangers of seeking asylum in another country is favourable to standing up for their rights at home.
I’d like to think I’d stand up for my rights in such a situation, but would I really? Would Mrs Forclift want me to? Do you know that you would have that courage if you found yourself in a similar situation?
In an ideal world, I think democratic societies do have a duty of care to other societies, even if only for selfish reasons. A world filled with autocracies makes it harder for democracies to exist and prosper.
But, we’re not living in an ideal world.
How Do You Solve A Problem Like Illegal Immigration
Duck knows!
Illegal immigration is a bit of an impossible problem, all the more so because most politicians are more concerned with using it to score hits on their opponents than really trying to solve the problem.
We often see claims that those on the left want to open the borders to everyone, while those on the right want to close the borders to everyone. Let me briefly sidetrack as there’s a notable irony in that view, with right-leaning, conservative parties generally described as being the parties of business. The parties that put the interests of business people and entrepreneurs first because they power the economy.
Who do you think benefits from economic migrants? Yeah, business owners. For decades businesses in Western democracies have been moving jobs to countries around the world where employees are cheaper to employ.
Economic migrants bring these cheaper employees into the local economy bringing many of the advantages of offshoring their workforce to businesses that can’t employ people overseas. If businesses didn’t employ illegal immigrants, that would remove a big incentive for undocumented migrants to travel to and to stay in countries illegally.
Those benefits for business may go some way to explaining why in many countries, the right-wing parties of business talk a strong talk about stopping immigration, but are incapable of building walls or stopping small boats.
Back to the track, I keep repeating people are people, because it’s true. If we look neutrally at the people of any society, whether their political views align to the left, right or centre, as long as they don’t hold racist beliefs their views on immigration will be largely the same.
We see the benefits that highly skilled immigrants can bring to our societies, especially when other people have paid to train them.
We also have the compassion to know we should help those immigrants who are at genuine risk of persecution in their home country.
And we respect the rule of law and expect others to respect it too, so we may empathise with the desires of economic migrants for a better life, but empathy doesn’t excuse breaking the law.
Remember your group of 100 people? Do you think many, if any, of those would feel any differently?
Immigration is made out to be a deeply divisive issue, but it really isn’t.
The huge changes in the world since 1951 mean it’s time to let go of a treaty formed to deal with issues created by a global war that killed 75 million people. We’re almost four generations down the road and heading towards a whole new set of problems, many that could never have been imagined in the middle of the last century.
In 1951, the vast majority of people living in what are generally termed developing nations would have been quite oblivious to the lifestyles of modern Western democracies. There was nothing to sew the seeds of desire for a more prosperous life in other countries. Even if there was, long-distance travel was the preserve of the wealthy.
Fast forward to today. Even in the developing world, smartphones are widespread and who isn’t going to dream about a life in one of the rich societies portrayed in so many TV shows and films? Very few films and shows focus on the poor end of society, we’re much more likely to see shows about the rich and their glamorous lifestyles or, in the event of glamour failure, the average working person. To someone in the developing world, the lifestyle of the average Westerner may look hugely affluent.
The idea of economic migrants just wasn’t on the radar in 1951 or at the time of the 1967 Protocol, back when the world’s population still hadn’t hit 3.5 billion people. There’s more than 8 billion of us today and we could count close to 10 billion in 2050.
We know that the world is becoming less democratic and increasing numbers of people are living without the basic human rights we all deserve. Unless the slide towards autocracies reverses, an increasing population is obviously going to lead to ever more people living without those human rights. At the same time, a larger population is going to lead to more economic migrants.
The reality is that the treaty and protocol of last century are simply out of date in this century, and there’s no easy way to update them for our very different world today.
I simplified the description of a refugee earlier, but let’s see how the 1951 Convention described them, specifying them as someone who “owing to well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of [their] nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail [themself] of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of [their] former habitual residence, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it.”
From that, we can see that just living in a country without full democratic rights isn’t necessarily enough on its own to qualify for refugee status. It may be possible to live in an autocratic country, even under a government like the Taliban’s in Afghanistan, without such fears. In fact between 2020 and 2022, 26% of asylum applications from Afghans in the UK failed.
But how can countries easily establish which applications are truly legitimate and in a timely manner, especially as the number of immigrants is likely to increase?
Several countries have sent asylum seekers to other countries to process their applications and to home them if successful. The UK government is trying to run a five-year trial with Rwanda right now, but has been blocked several times by the courts. The idea is to put economic migrants off travelling to the UK as they’ll end up with asylum in a less affluent country.
Is that a good idea? Have you any thoughts?
Let me complicate your thoughts a little more. The term economic migrant isn’t necessarily a fair term to use. When we talk of people wanting to move for a better life, I think our first thought is of their desire to upgrade their Android to an iPhone. In many cases though, they may want to upgrade from no healthcare for their children to some form of healthcare for their children, so their kids don’t die from things Westerners don’t even think about. A short blog post from the International Organisation for Migration does a good job of showing how the line between refugees and economic migrants can be very blurred.8
I found myself agreeing with the idealistic sentiment of the post completely, but I’m still using the term economic migrant because we’re living in a real imperfect world and it is understood by many, even if that understanding isn’t comprehensive.
Every time we take a flight we have to sit through the cabin crew giving us the mimed safety procedures talk. Part of that shows us how the oxygen masks fall from above our seats and if they do, we’re told to put on our own mask first before helping anyone else.
We can’t help those around us if we’re unconscious.
Is there an argument that our democratic societies should follow similar advice and resolve our own problems first, before being able to take in and help others?
Personally, I’ve no idea how to answer that question or any of the others I’ve posed above. Immigration is a hugely complex issue that’s probably going to require a hugely complex solution.
But we’re not going to move towards any kind of solution as long as politicians of all sides take advantage of the divisiveness of the subject to attack their opponents and their followers, instead of working together to find an answer.
And the longer they go on using the issue to divide us, the greater the damage those politicians do our societies in the process.
- https://yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/44361-channel-crossings-rise-where-do-britons-stand-asyl ↩︎
- https://www.monmouth.edu/polling-institute/reports/monmouthpoll_us_022624/ ↩︎
- The UNHCR can offer more information on the subject – https://www.unhcr.org/about-unhcr/who-we-are/1951-refugee-convention ↩︎
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_Taliban_offensive ↩︎
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pj2eQZ3NrCY – if you ever think life’s unfair, know that you’re not alone, I mean how could Kate Winslet not even have received an Academy Award nomination for this? ↩︎
- Considering it’s illegal for an unmarried woman to go parachuting on Sundays in Florida, perhaps he knew something others didn’t – https://www.onelegal.com/blog/funny-us-laws-that-might-surprise-you/ ↩︎
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kx_G2a2hL6U ↩︎
- https://weblog.iom.int/false-dichotomy-between-economic-migrants-and-refugees ↩︎