Calais: Statistics and facts matter. So do people.

Statistics and facts matter. So do people.

The Huffington Post published a brilliant article at the end of last month by Robin Lustig titled “Is It Time for Some Facts about Those Migrants?” (You can read it here). In it Mr. Lustig attempts to dispel some of the anti-asylum seeker rhetoric through a very simple tactic: the use of facts. This can be shocking to those who wish to postulate based solely on some populist rhetoric based in the fear of Britain no longer being Great. In this post I want to provide a brief overview of the arguments presented in the article as well as expand on them to include the reasons why much of the reasoning we hear to why we shouldn’t help others is dangerous and based in a false notion of us and them. 

The following points provide a run-down of the major facts presented in Mr. Lustig’s article:

The statistics used dispel much of the belief that the UK does so much internationally and that there is an open door policy where migrants come to the UK and drain resources that should be for deserving Brits. The points are important, and they should be learnt by anyone who wishes to debate either for or against migration. However, there is something more sinister than the presentation of fact based arguments: the way we discuss those who have been displaced.

David Cameron, the leading politician of our nation, a representative of the United Kingdom on the world stage, and a man with the mandate to rule those great islands, recently referred to the migrants at Calais as a “swarm“. Something that he has been rightly criticised for due to its dehumanising connotations. I intend to give Cameron the benefit of the doubt on this and assume it wasn’t intended to be derogatory, but, discussing those who are attempting to enter the UK as a ‘swarm’, nefarious intentions aside, is counterproductive to a real understanding of the situation. This lack of understanding is not only because history has taught us that when political language describes places a group of people as different to the major demographics (‘othering’) tensions have the possibility to rise to terrifying and catastrophic levels.

The use of swarm is just one representation of why the continued language use surrounding asylum, and migration in general, is worrying.

A swarm can be defined as:

The second and fourth definitions are very specific, and natural occurrences, there is nothing natural about people fleeing for their lives in the 21st Century and unless Cameron is an avid entomologist or geologist, reasonable doubt dictates that he wasn’t aware of these definitions. The first and third are far more likely to be the intended meaning just by way of popular usage. However, if we give Cameron the benefit of the doubt (not something those of a certain political persuasion do too often) and assume that he wasn’t referring to a group of individual humans with individual needs, minds, knowledge and consciousness in the same terms as “insects or other small organisms” then we are left with the third definition: “an aggregation of persons or animals”. Taking this definition also removes the assumption that Cameron was attempting to be nefarious.

If describing those in Calais as an aggregation was the intended meaning (and much leniency has been given to argue it was), then it doesn’t appear too nefarious on the surface, the migrants waiting in Calais have become a group, in numerical terms, of people who due to some turmoil are moving, it is the in a mass part of the definition, where the term becomes dangerous.

The idea that the migrants in Calais are moving in a mass inherently assumes that they are moving as one. This assumption removes the individual stories of those in the group, the personal reasons for wanting (although could it ever be argued that anyone would want to start such an undertaking?!) to migrate, every horror seen, and the pain of every tragedy experienced of those in the collective. Lustig touches on this when he writes:

Using a collective noun of any sort for those currently situated in Calais also presents a very clear way in which many in the UK see migrants of all types. From those of an anti-EU persuasion it is not uncommon to hear complaints about the number of Eastern Europeans “taking our jobs” which threatens the personal development of those born within our isles, or to see Islamaphobes (here’s looking at you Britain First and the EDL) stating in a matter of fact way that Muslims wish to introduce Sharia Law and do away with centuries of British law making, or experience wide exclamations that homosexual marriage will threaten the sanctity of heterosexual ones… or *insert any group of people and a non-factual perceived threat to you the majority to incite fear and hatred*.

Prejudice and the politics of fear in today’s world is built on two central pillars: Firstly, you have to be afraid, if you are not afraid then you can’t be angry at people you are meant to dislike; and secondly, there must be the hetereogenisation of those you are meant to be afraid of. We must believe that all of those people who fall into the group of the ‘other’ due to a singular defining characteristic must be the same because they all share that characteristic. This characteristic can be nationality, religion, sexual orientation, race, eye colour or level of education, even political persuasion. It doesn’t matter what, but it must not be dominant in society. By grouping everyone who share that singular characteristic together, you can fear them as a collective and remove the individual from the equation.

Right now, that characteristic is that these people all happen to be in Calais and seeking asylum seekers at the same time. The fear is that they will flood the UK and native Brits will be negatively impacted.

Lustig does not go far enough in dispelling this collectivism, he does not go far enough in dividing the collective into the sum of its parts, despite the efforts as quoted above. Lustig provides a handful of reasons to why 3,000 people want to get into the UK, but not why people are individually migrating in the first place. If we want to remove this herding mentality that is often perpetuated (Daily Mail I’m now looking at you) then we first need to understand why people are in that position, who would choose to risk life and limb for a new life. I would start by asking a simple question that is anything but simple: “What would you have to be fleeing from to leave your friends, family, possessions, and livelihood behind to embark on a journey where the destination is death at worst and social exclusion at best?”

The reason that answering this question is important is because there is no answer that can be provided that won’t involve necessity; humans are inherently rational when it comes to self-preservation. Walter Bradford Cannon wrote about the fight or flight response in 1932, this is still accepted as the basis of our survival instinct. When the conditions in your home country are so severe thatflight is your only option. When the rational survival tactic is to flee and fleeing includes taking a journey that may include rickety boats across the Mediterranean, attempting to beat a high speed train beneath the English Channel, climbing upon the underneath of a lorry, travelling for days, weeks, and even months (years also aren’t unreasonable) without the security of knowing you will receive food, drink or shelter during the trip or at your final destination, can there be doubt that necessity wasn’t involved?

Once we understand the necessity of people’s actions, we can begin to humanise.

Much of this negative type of discourse surrounding migrants and asylum seekers, not only in the UK but elsewhere in Europe as evidenced by the number of “anti-everyone else” (Geert Wilders of the Dutch PVV, here’s a shout out to a person of whom the BBC asked whether or not he was Europe’s Most Dangerous Man) nationalist parties and those employing right wing populist politics coming to the fore, depends on those migrating being spoken about in generic statements and mass groupings. At a rational level this ignores a myriad of ethnic, cultural, national, religious, political and social histories and characteristics furthermore, it (where or not people are aware of this) is situated in the belief that their humanity is not of the individual, instead it is the humanity of us and of them. A humanity based on where we/they were born.

If you (although I would strongly recommend not to) read the comments section on any newspaper article remotely surrounding the topic of any form of migration it is easy to see the same arguments repeated over, and over, with the only difference between the person saying them and the reason they believe this to be true. These arguments can feel like a mantra based upon a lack of compassion, justified with an unfair rationale.

I would like to address the mantras and, with the individual in mind, counter them.

Lustig closes his article with the following:

I agree with these conclusions. But again it does not go far enough.

Changing public discourse around migration is key. We need to stop discussing total numbers, economic contribution, and move to create an understanding that the problem is not waves or swarms of people wanting to come into the UK, but individuals seeking sanctuary away from social unrest, war, and persecution. Individual cases need to be heard, no country can take in each and every displaced person. That would be a socialist dream but a logistical nightmare. Instead countries need to understand that their role in the global community. It is a community of ever increasing linkages and providing asylum or refuge should become another.

Instilling fair and equal quotas between countries will allow the most desperate cases to be dealt with first and ensure that all countries that gain so positively through international trade, migrant labour and advancements in globalisation also give back. The quotas and the requirements need to be set internationally at the EU level. This is not to take sovereignty away from individual countries but to ensure that each case it dealt with in the same manner and human rights are placed as priority number 1.

It may seem counter-intuitive to the general tone of this post to say that each case needs to be assessed for some form of worth, but there is no way that everyone can be assisted in one go. Even those of us on the political left need to be pragmatic and rational about the undertaking at hand. Proper facilities to care for those migrants need to be created, each person may be an individual, but there are basic human rights that we all need. These facilities should be placed at the main points of entry. Here those arrivals registered and their application for asylum can be submitted. At this point a preference can be given to where the preferred destination country can be provided and applications can be assessed on linguistic ability, familial linkages and established communities and support networks. This will help with ensuring integration into the new society and ensure that lives are rebuilt. These facilities and their administrative as well as the humanitarian capabilities will then ensure that the processing of applications is effective and more efficient whilst ensuring that those with an alternative final destination do not continue to risk their lives through dangerous modes of travel to get there. Individuals are then considered. The budget for these activities should not be funded solely by the nation where the point of entry happens to fall, but the EU as a whole. Economically, the EU is the largest economic block in the world (Source). The creation of facilities for those who have arrived, must also be complemented by increased and continuous efforts to stop people from exploiting others by taking them on dangerous journeys, such as those tragedies seen in the Mediterranean in the recent months. How you help those who genuinely have a right to asylum but are not yet in transit however is for a greater mind than mine.

To conclude, by adopting a public discourse where we discuss those in Calais (and other parts of the world) as individuals we can humanise those people. By understanding that those people are individuals we can stop seeing the tragedy that is unfolding in Calais as an inconvenience but as a desperate cry for help. Help that is clearly desperately needed, because I ask again, “What would you have to be fleeing from to leave your friends, family, possessions, and livelihood behind to embark on a journey where the destination is death at worst and social exclusion at best?”