Policies of Deterrence on Migrants - Dissertation Example

Policies of Deterrence on Migrants Introduction There are different restrictions imposed upon migrants wanting to enter the United Kingdom. These restrictions are in place largely for national security purposes and in order to ensure population control. Some of these policies are termed as the policies of deterrence on migrants. These policies cause various effects when implemented to migrants and various citizens in the UK. This paper shall discuss the effects of the so-called policies of deterrence on migrants entering the United Kingdom. It shall cover migrants in general in the hope of enabling a better understanding of this policy. Discussion In the mid-1990s, the United Kingdom started implementing various immigration laws in order to deter asylum seekers, refugees, and other undocumented migrants from stepping into UK borders. The enormity of these changes implied that the UK was not quite sure and was not quite set in its policies relating to immigration. What made this situation more complicated is the fact that the standards set for migration into UK did not clearly define or draw the lines between the good and the bad migrants or the acceptable and the unacceptable migrants (Watters, p. 65). In other countries, there seem to be a favoured light brought upon those with whom the country has had good or long-standing relations with, and the rest are already considered as ‘undesirable’. “A further tension derives from the fact that with declining birth rates in most industrialized countries, and increasing life expectancy, there is a perceived economic need, often in the face of general hostility, to bolster those of working age to ensure that sufficient revenues are generated to support those entering retirement” (Watters, 2008, p. 65). These are some of the elements present in the United Kingdom which have influenced the policies of deterrence that have been laid out in recent years. The principles and acts of deterrence implemented by the British government since the mid-1990s were mostly passed in order to prevent asylum seekers. The government expanded the monitoring of its borders in order to detect immigrants through several detection measures like dogs, heartbeat detectors, carbon dioxide sticks, and X-ray machines (Watters, 2008, p. 65). In 2002 alone, about 12% lorries were subjected to the above monitoring measures. Through these measures, the government was able to lay down fines and carrier liabilities on companies who were transporting illegal aliens. Reports from 1999 to 2001 revealed that the Parliamentary Home Affairs Office was able to impose fines on carriers for the transport of about 31,000 people who sought entry through land, sea, and air into the United Kingdom (Watters, 2008, p. 65). Another measure which was implemented in the UK was the juxtaposed control measure. This measure imposed immigration controls in the countries which border the United Kingdom, like France and Belgium. Investments made, in favour of France and Belgium, have actually been made in order to help improve border controls for the UK (UK Border Office, 2008, p. 13). These measures were set-up based on reciprocal agreements with these countries. The reciprocal and restrictive patterns of deterring migration into the United Kingdom became possible even before the illegal migrant even set foot in the UK. These deterrence measures have also made it more difficult for illegal migrants to enter the UK through all possible routes and all possible entry points. UK authorities “will be able to stop would-be illegal immigrants even before they set off for the UK (Watters, 2008, p. 66). The reciprocal arrangements have also benefited France and Belgium, since they were also able to limit the number of migrants that set foot into their borders. The principles of deterrence laid out by the United Kingdom are also based on stricter policies for asylum seekers. In the past years, asylum seekers have been welcomed in the United Kingdom and even in other Western nations. However, their motives were not always due to political persecution (and other similar reasons) that they were trying to evade from their home-country (McKay, 2009, p. 54). Consequently, in order to ensure that asylum seekers did not have ulterior economic motives for wanting entry to the United Kingdom “asylum legislation [was]...justified within a ‘threat/defence’ framework, assuming a direct correlation between numbers of asylum applicants and economic pull factors such as welfare benefits and employment, which is presented as a threat to nationals, who are often portrayed as victims at risk...” (McKay, 2009, p. 54). Part of the strict measures implemented under the principles of deterrence is the fact that labour services and even access to social services were largely based on the immigration status of the individual. These policies have given refugees access to social services and job opportunities, whereas the asylum seekers are prevented access to these same services due to their questionable immigration status. In the year 2005, the UK made even stronger strides towards preventing economic migrants from stepping into its borders by coming up with a 5-year strategy for asylum and immigration (McKay, 2009, p. 55). In these measures, the asylum seekers were not allowed access to the legal labour market, and they were only allowed access to employment after they became refugees. Through this measure, the asylum seekers were encouraged to participate in community volunteer work and to consequently become more fruitful and productive members of the community (McKay, 2009, p. 55). The government authorities were prompted to assess later if they deserved to be promoted to refugee status. If so, they were now allowed to work legally. Refugees were usually given 5 years to stay in UK, after which, renewal became possible. However, permanent residence was only offered to those who, after 5 years in the UK, were eligible to receive the benefits and the protection of the UK laws (McKay, 2009, p. 55). The principles of deterrence laid out above makes a sharp distinction between those seeking asylum and those who are refugees. The UK authorities choose to be wary of the motives of asylum seekers, hence, the principles of deterrence were imposed heavily on them in case they were seeking asylum for economic purposes. On the part of the UK, the principles of deterrence help ensure that the people and the residents it welcomes into its borders eventually turn out to be fruitful constituents and not drains and drags on the nation’s economy and resources. Another important immigration provision imposed by the United Kingdom is the fact that those who are fiancé(e), spouses, children, unmarried and same sex partners of migrants to the UK; and dependent and unmarried children of UK migrants are allowed entry into the United Kingdom. However, for parents, grandparents and other relatives of UK migrants, there are more restrictions involving their entry into the UK (McKay, 2009, p. 55). They must be wholly dependent on the UK migrant for their support and there must be no other people in their home-country to support them. Again, this principle revolves around the concept of deterrence, which emphasizes UK’s right to limit entrants into its borders and to allow only those who would not prove detrimental to the country’s interests. In order to further ensure that the fiancé(e)s, spouse, partner, or children would be productive members of UK society, the Points system is made to apply to them. This system allows each prospective migrant to earn points for being able to speak English, for being previously employed, and for possibly being employed in the UK (McKay, 2009, p. 56). Totalling of points would help determine eligibility of entry into the UK. Again, through this process, the principle of deterrence helps ensure that the prospective migrant would be able to contribute to the productivity of the country. Another one of the measures implemented by the UK Border Office (2008, p. 18) is the roll out of ID cards to foreign nationals. This ID card is a clear and imposing effort by the UK in order to ensure that those who are seeking employment or who want to study in the UK are properly identified. For schools and universities, it is easier for them to determine if their foreign students are legal migrants or legal residents in the UK; public agencies and workplaces can also easily identify who can legally work within the UK borders. The IDs are meant to “assist enforcement to detect people who are in the country illegally or who are abusing the system through identity fraud” (UK Border Office, 2008, p. 18). The ID card also contains pertinent information about the holder’s status and what he is or is not entitled to within the UK borders. Through these measures, potential illegal migrants who seek employment in the UK would be denied the privilege. UK’s deterrence policies as implemented by the UK Border Force under the authority of the UK Border Office have also managed to post officers overseas. Their purpose, in this measure, is to stop thousands of illegal migrants from ever gaining entry into the UK by helping the different airlines and immigration authorities in neutralizing local threats (UK Border Office, 2008, p. 13). This office was able to implement 24/7 global intelligence services in order to prevent smuggling and organised trafficking organizations that seek to establish their wiles and guiles in the country and to cause more problems to its citizenry. In this instance, the principles of deterrence focus on preventing criminal elements from entering UK borders. And the UK Border Office was able to report favourably in this regard when it was able to prevent about 200,000 passengers with suspicious papers from travelling into UK territory. These numbers are relevant considering that in just about the same period, there was a 60% drop in the number of people arriving in the UK with illegal and suspicious papers (UK Border Office, 2008, p. 13). The principles of deterrence seek to establish a difficult balance between inadequate migration controls and blanket control measures which seek to “protect from security threats in creating the risk of deterring ‘wanted’ migrants who make important contributions to economic growth” (Hampshire, n.d., p. 2). The principles of deterrence have the unenviable task of determining, through clear and equitable standards, if a migrant would be able to contribute well to the country’s economy, or if he would only serve to make things more onerous for the country involved. Analysts emphasize that the immigration laws and policies actually refer to risks of management in addressing first-order risks posed by some types of migration, and also second-order risks seen in unintended control policies (Hampshire, n.d, p. 2). Unintentionally, the principles of deterrence can sometimes serve to control and prevent ‘wanted’ migration. In the current age of globalization where there are so many potential talents which can be tapped from other countries, the strict application of the principles of deterrence also make it a more difficult and restrictive task for ‘wanted’ migrants to seek entry into the UK. Another effect of the principles of deterrence implemented by the UK is that “increases in security at major ports displace migration to smaller, less well-policed ports...” (Hampshire, n.d., p. 2). The strict implementation of entry measures into the UK also prompts many migrants into seeking illegal modes of entry. As a result, this can increase illegal migration and empower the activities of criminal groups and organizations which seek illegal entry into the UK. This is very much common in border patrols that are ordered to prevent the entry of goods and people into the UK borders because of the security threats they represent. However, this border control must also ensure that the flow of goods, services, and people is smooth. The principles of deterrence as applied in this situation can very much depend on how the authorities implement the letter and even the spirit of the law. A largely restrictive imposition of the law can “discourage or slow movements of people and goods in the name of security-imposed transaction costs on cross-border movements and therefore risk limiting the economic benefits of migration” (Hampshire, n.d., pp. 2-3). Based on the discussion in this paragraph, the principles of deterrence can bring both a negative effect (preventing ‘wanted’ migration and disrupting the smooth flow of goods and people) and it can also bring a positive effect by ensuring the national security and safety of the country. In the aftermath of various political and terrorist conflicts, many political refugees and asylum seekers surfaced. These political refugees and asylum seekers, more often than not, came from war-torn countries like Iraq, Afghanistan, and neighbouring affected areas. However, the risk of harbouring terrorists and other subversives is an ever-lingering thought in the minds of government authorities in different parts of the world. And so many nations have sought to establish more stringent measures in order to monitor the entry of these asylum seekers and refugees. With these stringent measures in place, criminal organizations came up with ways in order to smuggle in these illegal aliens into the UK and other Western nations. Thousands and even millions of dollars were paid to criminal elements by hopeful migrants; many of them having been promised employment and a new life in their new country (Guild & Minderhaud, 2006, p. 60). However, most of the time, these migrants ended up being forced into involuntary servitude in sweat shops and other menial jobs in the UK. These migrants were bound to these criminal organizations because of limited finances or because of their status as illegal aliens. The principles of deterrence function by preventing the above scenario. Through, the ID card system, illegal aliens are identified; and through tough inspection measures implemented at all points of entry into the UK, the rise of criminal elements in the UK is prevented. The principles of deterrence are also imposed in order to help control the number of people seeking asylum in the UK. This imposition is also seen in other parts of Europe and the “dominant motive for the adoption of these policies is the desire to restrict the entry of asylum seekers into the region” (Harvey, 2000, p. 97). If a refugee is not allowed in one area of Europe, then he is not allowed in other parts as well. Many authorities in the UK and in Europe justify their position by pointing out that such restrictions are being implemented in the name of good governance. And because of these policies, the UK and many parts of Europe have become restrictive and unfavourable countries for asylum seekers (Harvey, 2000, p. 97). Many governments in Europe and the UK itself have become wary of asylum seekers. Many of the EU nations have come to realize early on that once they allowed asylum seekers into their borders, they will have trouble or difficulty in getting rid of such people. The principle that they have laid out regarding these asylum seekers has been based, at one point, on the 1951 Convention which points out a refugee’s fear of being persecuted in his mother country. And the interpretation of this ‘fear of persecution’ has been done in a variety of ways by the European Union and its member nations (Harvey, 2000, p. 97). While considering the above discussion, it can be interpreted that the EU, through the principles of deterrence, wants to limit in as much as it can, the number of migrants and asylum seekers into their territory. However, by their actions, this principle of deterrence has created the act of ‘asylum shopping’ as far as refugees and asylum seekers are concerned. Asylum seekers and refugees are sometimes being passed over from one country to another, and the burden of taking in these potential migrants has also been shifted from one country to another (Harvey, 2000, p. 106). Understandably, the principles of deterrence and other restrictions on immigration into the UK are being imposed because of UK’s desire to manage its migration agenda (Spencer, 2003, p. 21). Through the principles of deterrence, the UK has managed to achieve manageable numbers in its population. It is important to note that more migrants into the country actually mean more people competing for resources, jobs, housing space, and social services in the UK. And so, through these principles of deterrence, better control and management of resources has been made possible. The principles of deterrence also allow the government to invest in better management migration and to refine its policies in order to achieve the best results (Spencer, 2003, p. 22). It is possible to set-up fairer and more objective migration policies and restrictions when these principles are in place. Although, the principles seem to be unfair and unfounded in some instances, they still serve to be the best standards or basis for entry into the UK. Their restrictive requirements seem to limit any chance for genuine asylum seekers to get through; however, more importantly, these principles successfully deter illegal asylum seekers, potential terrorists, economic refugees, and similar personages. Through the principles of deterrence, it is also possible to allow a better distribution of work opportunities to citizens of the UK. In the UK, “tensions over migrants’ access to public services and benefits cannot be resolved without a fundamental rethinking of the rationale for providing—or denying—services to different categories of people” (Spencer, 2003, p. 23). Migrants allowed entry into the UK are those who can contribute their skills and knowledge into the economy. The competition with UK citizens would only serve to improve the standards seen in the work capabilities and job skills already present in the United Kingdom. These skilled migrants would not unfairly compete with UK citizens for social services because they are already doing their fair share as far as the UK economy is concerned. The principles of deterrence have been set up by the UK and by other Western nations in order to control their immigrant population and to allow a modicum of control on the nation’s economy. “On the cost side of the equation, large scale immigration can put pressure on economic and social infrastructure, notably housing, transport, benefit payments, schools, and hospitals and the natural environment” (Parliament, House of Lords, p. 418). In some instances, these principles are also set-up in order to prevent deeper problems in the country’s economy. These deeper problems often prevent potential investors from investing on these economies because of the presence and because of the impact of these unproductive migrants. In general, the principles of deterrence, as set up by the United Kingdom, help prevent the entry of illegal aliens into its borders. More importantly, it helps prevent the entry of unproductive and burdensome migrants into the UK. These principles of deterrence help weed out those who can and those who cannot contribute anything into the UK economy. Economic asylum seekers are prevented from increasing their economic ventures in the UK, while the genuine asylum seekers are given refuge within in its borders. The principles of deterrence also help prevent the proliferation of criminal organizations who smuggle in illegal migrants into the country. These principles allow the UK to strictly monitor its borders and to engage in cooperative and reciprocal border protection with its neighbours. Through the principles of deterrence, the number of illegal aliens allowed into the UK dropped to 60%. Consequently, on a larger and more profound scale, the principles of deterrence have allowed the citizens of UK to enjoy their jobs, their resources, and their environment without having to compete with illegal migrants. Works Cited A Strong New Force at the Border, August, 2008, UK Border Office, viewed 27 November 2009 from http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/sitecontent/documents/managingourborders/astrongnewforceattheborder/strongnewforce.pdf?view=Binary Great Britain Parliament, 2008, House of Lords, Economic Impact of Immigration: 1st Report of Session 2007-08, Volume 2, London: The Parliamentary Book Shop. Guild, E. & Minderhoud, P., 2006, Immigration and criminal law in the European Union: the legal measures and Social Consequences of Criminal Law in Member States, The Netherlands: Brill Academic Publishers Hampshire, J., Regulating Migration Risks: The Emergence of Risk-Based Border Controls in the UK, London School of Economics and Political Science, viewed 27 November 2009 from http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/MSU/papers/LMRG-Hampshire-paper.pdf Harvey, C., 2000, Seeking asylum in the UK: problems and prospects, Hampshire: Reed Elsevier McKay, S., 2009, Refugees, recent migrants and employment: challenging barriers and exploring pathways, London: Routledge Spencer, S., 2003, The politics of migration: managing opportunity, conflict and change, Massachusetts: Wiley-Blackwell Watters, C., 2008, Refugee children: towards the next horizon, London: Routledge   Read More