Perhaps understandably in the run-up to the general election, the immigration debate has been gaining a lot of traction. Looking at its increased representation in the media, combined with a recent trip to Liverpool’s International Slavery museum, has led to some conclusions on my part:
Fundamentally, all parties to the debate view immigration, and immigrants, through the lens of market economics and monetary value. This, it seems to me, completely ignores the inherent dignity pertaining to all of humanity and ultimately degrades our very being. Each individual must have their intrinsic worth recognised and not be treated as a mere means to an end.
Unfortunately, I can’t think of any examples of when this principle has formed the basis for political opinions or policy over the past couple of years.
To begin with, it’s obvious that the incendiary rhetoric adopted by the media and politicians concerning immigration is merely fuelling the fear surrounding a socially constructed “other”. A predictable distraction during a time of rampant inequality and brutal austerity measures, ideal for amassing votes prior to a general election. Plainly, no thought at all is given to the lives of the immigrants themselves, or if it is then a decision has been made to sacrifice them for political gain.
But, perhaps more significantly, the notion of dignity plays no role in the debate even by those who profess to speak positively about immigration. For example, the language employed to convey the need for a “healthy” immigration policy include words and phrases like; quotas, skilled workers, contribution to the economy and filling gaps in the job market.
“It’s obvious that the incendiary rhetoric adopted by the media and politicians concerning immigration is merely fuelling the fear surrounding a socially constructed ‘other’.”
To borrow an idea from the Harvard Professor Michael Sandel, we are in danger of evolving from having a market economy to becoming a market society.
A pertinent example of this general disregard for the intrinsic value of each individual can be seen in a recent policy announcement by Theresa May. She supported the idea that all non-EU university students should be forced to leave the UK at the end of their course. If they wish to apply for a job in the UK they would have to do so from abroad. Currently, they can swap their student visa for a work visa if they find a job within four months.
You have to wonder, what kind of message does this new policy send out? Come to the UK, pay exorbitant international fees, raise the performance of our universities and then go home because you’re politically undesirable?
What was tragic, however, is how other politicians criticised the plan. They said it would risk losing an “economically valuable” asset (Liberal Democrats) and it was nonsensical because foreign students bring in “billions in investment” (Labour).
“We are in danger of evolving from having a market economy to becoming a market society.”
No talk of fairness for the individuals concerned, the continuity of relationships or the preservation of a new sense of belonging (in some cases). Certainly no talk about the value of multiculturalism, an idea that has died a swift death recently. And what about the other ways immigrants contribute to society, distinct from financial benefits?
Perhaps unsurprisingly then, the Conservative leadership has now vetoed May’s policy, for primarily economic reasons.
In some ways I guess it was apt that the topic of immigration came up on the way back from the slavery museum. The construction of “the other” and an inability to recognise the inherent dignity belonging to all human beings seems just as relevant now as it was in the 18th century.
Richard Sweetman
Follow Impact on Twitter and Facebook
Image by Stefan Rousseau via PA
