Anti-immigration upheaval in the West

The scenes of rowdy men and women starting a riot on the streets, vandalising properties and viciously fighting with police immediately remind viewers of similar events that usually take place in developing countries. But this is happening in United Kingdom (UK) and not in a single city or on a particular day. Every weekend, since 29 July, cities and towns across UK have seen the worst case of clashes between anti-immigrant rightists and police in thirteen years. The law and order breakdown has been exacerbated by the response of anti-racist groups who, espousing the cause of the migrants, have joined police in physically tackling the extremist rightists. The resultant mayhem in city after city in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland has been termed the worst race riot since 2011.

It all started with the ghastly murder of three girls of pre-teen age in a dance class in the seaside city of Southport on July 29. The first news about the heinous crime went viral in social media according to which a Muslim immigrant teenager from the seaside town had carried out the grisly killings by knifing which also injured half a dozen others. Though subsequent report identified the alleged murderer as a Christian immigrant from Rwanda and resident of Cardiff, Wales, the anti-immigrant rightists targeted the Muslims in Southport and vandalised their homes, library, mosque, putting many of those to torch. The social media with hateful news not only kept the anti- migrant Islamophobic frenzy alive, but also brought it to higher pitch, inciting extremists whites to take to the streets to attack their targets. Irresponsible remarks made by tech tycoon like Elon Musk, leaders of extreme rightists like Tim Robinson of British Defence League and extremist politician like Nigel Farage of Reform UK party only served to add fuel to the fire of riotous disturbance all over Great Britain, including Northern Ireland. As if with a sense of vengeance or immense glee Elon Musk posted in his social media X 'race riot in UK is inevitable'. Nigel Farage, on the other hand, fumed saying that those who consider there are too many immigrants and illegal people in UK causing economic woes and disrupting communities should not be considered as 'white extremists'.

The newly installed prime minister, Sir Keir Starmer was caught completely unawares as was his party. He deplored the riots in cities across UK and said with righteous indignation, 'this is not protest, this is organised thuggery'. He warned that the law breakers and disturbance makers would 'face the full force of law'. Soon a special force of 6,000 police was formed to exclusively deal with the white extremists, something unprecedented in recent history. Furthermore, to engender a sense of security among migrants, particularly Muslims, the prime minister promised measures to enable them to have greater voice in local administration. His task was not made easier by the fact that some councillors of his party took an extremist stand and exhorted immigrant population to strike back against the white extremists. According to analysts, the anti-racist demonstration protest and demonstrations in London and other cities by anti-racists have aggravated the situation, polarising the nation.

When Sir Keir Starmer took office after winning a landslide victory in the last general election serious racial disturbances and riots in the streets of UK were further from his mind. The issues in the agenda of his government that claimed priority were kick-starting the sluggish economy , introducing reforms in National Health Service (NHS) and other service providers in the government. Embodying these priorities was the overarching goal of earning the trust of the electorate which had delivered a negative verdict of rejecting the conservative party that played ducks and drakes with public interests. Sir Keir Starmer knew immigration was a simmering problem but did not expect it to explode in his face and so soon in his term as prime minister. He had his own plan to deal with the issue of 'boat people' (carrying illegal migrants) on the basis of which he confidently declared the 'Rwanda Plan' of Rishi Sunak, his predecessor, as 'dead and buried'. Now, with the race riots raging all over UK for about two weeks he has to upend his priority list, bringing immigration on top. It is hardly a grand and glitzy way to begin the term in office by a new government. But then, there could not be a more challenging crucible to test the mettle of a new cabinet than a long standing domestic issue like immigration.

The problem with immigration overwhelming Sir Keir Starmer's government is not unique to UK. It has surfaced in many countries of Europe and America in recent years, with slight local variations .In a nut shell, the anti-immigrant feelings prevailing in all these countries can be described under a few heads. Firstly, many in these countries think there are too many immigrants than warranted by their economy. Following this perception, the anti-immigrants think that unemployment of the unskilled and semi- skilled is due to this excessive number. Those who do not agree to this view point out that when economies of these countries are near full employment the low skilled jobs do not attract white labour and if immigrants were not available to fill up these jobs economic growth would slow down. The second argument against immigrants is that they pose a burden on the social security system and as such is a drain on public exchequer. This view is easily countered by the fact that immigrants do not come to depend on doles and seek and work in jobs even when wages are low, contributing to social insurance fund at the same rate as other employed people. Thirdly, it is argued that immigrants with high skill cause rents of accommodations to rise making it difficult for local people (old residents) to live in decent areas. The answer to this is very simple: this happens because the market for housing is not working efficiently to match rising demand. The fourth argument supporting anti-immigrant feelings and stand is that most of the immigrants do not try to integrate into the culture of their host countries, continuing to cling to their own culture and thereby maintaining their separate identities. Of these non-integrating immigrants the Muslims are pointed out as the most exclusionary and separatists. Not only they eat their own food, speak their own language, their women use veil that cover them from head to foot, a sight that repels many locals. Islamophobia among Europeans and Americans stem not to a small degree from the strident preaching and prayers that demonise people of other faiths. This is the most serious of all arguments that seek to explain dormant anti-immigrant feelings and outbursts against them from time. There is justification for immigrants to retain their culture and religious rituals but not to such an extent that make them appear as reluctant to mingle with local people with different culture and faiths .If the migrants have plans to settle in the host country permanently it is in their interest to be interested in integration with local communities and culture. The fifth argument supporting anti-immigrant sentiments also concerns Muslims because of their record of involvement in terrorist attacks. The examples of Nine Eleven in America, beheading of a teacher and killing of journalists in France on religious ground, mass killing in Madrid in a senseless terror attack and other acts of terrorism have marked the Muslim immigrants as undesirable and suspect. For a good deal of Islamophobia in the West the Muslims have only themselves to blame. The Muslim religious leaders preaching in mosques in Europe and America have not helped to burnish the negative image of Muslims jn the West.

The final argument made against migrants is that there are too many illegal migrants among the local communities and their number is rising. This common factor, experienced by all countries in the West, is the most immediate reason behind the recent anti- immigration feelings and outbursts in many countries including UK. Illegal immigration has become a billion dollar business where human traffickers in countries of origins and destinations form a formidable network (embassy staff including diplomats are part of this) that ropes in hapless migrants who pay through their nose and not infrequently with their lives in their desperate hope to eke out a better life in the El Dorado of the West. The standard response to illegal immigration by Western countries so far has been deportation of those who have crossed the border illegally. The procedure for this is lengthy (paper work for each illegal, court rulings), costly (temporary accommodation in hotels etc.) and sometimes inhuman (Rishi Sunak's Rwanda plan). Nigel Farage of Reform UK party may be a person with toxic ideas but he is right when he says that the business model of human traffickers in Europe hedges risk so successfully that the governments will always find themselves one step behind it. In other words, it will be nearly impossible to outwit and outflank the organised gang of human traffickers that include embassy staff of countries trying to stop illegal immigrants. An alternative plan that promises to have better chance of succeeding is to give financial assistance to countries of potential illegal migrants to undertake projects that offer a chance for a better life in their home country.

Sir Keir Starmer will overcome the current upheaval caused by the ultra rightists, sooner or later. But the problem of unwanted (illegal) and undesirable (who are already settled) immigrants will remain to raise its ugly head in future. Many countries in Europe having similar problem with immigration will be looking at Sir Starmer keenly to see how he tackles the twin problems of illegal entry and social integration of legal immigrants. In navigating in these uncertain waters the British prime minister will find that there is no lodestar to guide him.

[email protected]