Research by Hannah Jones finds that the tough rhetoric surrounding immigrations and action by the government – promising to control “swarms” of people, publicising raids and enforcement measures – have led to increasingly vocal activism opposing them.
Something is changing. Desperate people are still arriving on Europe’s borders and on its shores, as they have been for months and years. But the tone of the public’s reaction is shifting fast. We’re starting to hear less about the “threat” posed by these people and more about the “unbearable” sight of a three-year-old boy washed up, dead, on the shore of Turkey, and everything it implies.
European leaders continue to say that taking in more refugees will not solve this crisis, and that the rules of the Schengen zone “must be respected”. But they appear to be out of step with this changing public feeling. Increasing numbers of people across Europe are offering support to displaced people in large and small ways. They are signing online petitions, sending money, visiting the camps in Calais, joining protests, and even offering shelter in their own homes.
Going too far
Two years ago, Britain’s coalition government ramped up its attempts to talk “tough” on migration. As part of a group of researchers, I have been working since then to identify the effects of this tough rhetoric on public opinion and on people’s lives.
Government advisers told us that the British public simply will not listen to facts and figures on immigration; that the public is worried that immigration is a threat, and the government has to be seen to be acting on that threat.But what our research found is that rhetoric about ever-tougher measures to control migration does not reassure people – in fact, whatever people’s position on immigration, such measures can make them more fearful.
People who see migration as a threat told us they see government publicity as pure theatre. It can never be tough enough; there can never be enough fences or guards. People who feel targeted by measures to control immigration, whether they are immigrants or not, feel increasingly unwelcome, excluded, and unable to function normally in their own homes.
We also found that the tough rhetoric and action by the government – promising to control “swarms” of people, publicising raids and enforcement measures – have led to increasingly vocal activism opposing them. The “Go Home” vans and public raids seen in Britain over the summer of 2013 mobilised people to gather both in the streets and online to counter the UK’s Home Office enforcement, and to show solidarity with the people affected.
This drew in people who had not been active in politics before, for example the BritCits group, which was organised to support British citizens with non-EU partners threatened with separation by new immigration rules.
Stirred into action
Now, we are seeing much more vivid pictures of the mass movement of people that bring home just what it means. The focus is back on borders, and not on enforcement on our streets. But this stage of the crisis has stirred a similar impulse to the one we identified in our research. Across Europe, ordinary people are offering their homes, their money, their time, and their support to those in desperate need. It seems that it has taken the unbearable image of Aylan Kurdi – the three-year-old boy who drowned – to have this recognised as a public outcry. But desperate images of people drowning or close to drowning – including other children – have been out there for a some time. The figures for the numbers of people drowned trying to seek shelter in Europe were well known.
There are constant reminders that, compared to the number of displaced people in the world as a whole, the numbers trying to enter the UK are tiny. And people across the UK were responding to this with both feeling and action.
This crisis is not new. For years, people have been dying while crossing borders and seeking sanctuary. They have been living in desperate, destitute conditions in the UK and other “advanced countries” after they are refused asylum. They have been held without charge for indefinite periods in the prison-like conditions of detention centres, unable to return to their country of origin but unable to remain in their “host” country too. And for years, the bulk of the media, most politicians, and a majority of the public have ignored these stories. But whatever it’s taken to get here, this is beginning to feel like a turning point.
On September 1, 20,000 people took to the streets of Vienna to demonstrate their support for refugees, just days after a similar march in Dresden. And on the morning of September 3, a petition on the UK parliament website hit 100,000 signatures, enough to require a parliamentary debate on increasing the number of people granted refuge in the UK. A few hours later, it was at nearly 200,000.
What happens next depends on ordinary people’s empathy and will to action – and on the courage and ethics of our political leaders.
Note: This article was originally published on The Conversation.
Featured image credit: Takver CC BY-SA 2.0
Hannah Jones is Assistant Professor of Sociology at the University of Warwick.
have been out in Leicester for the past three weeks,getting the opinions of the public.It seems that a majority of those we interviewed were not in favour of letting our own homeless,jobless and sick down,in favour of many of the economic migrants and chancers.Wish Hannah Jones could live on the same streets as I do,the insults aimed at the British and our hospitality would be a real eye opener for her.This is Leicester in 2015,a series of ghettoes which certain ethnics have turned into virtual no-go zones for police and white europeans.
Can you explain how you can possibly be considered an impartial academic when you and your institution are so very obviously biased in favour of mass migration?
I find it difficult to understand how ‘liberals’ are so quick to ignore the overwhelming public opposition to mass immigration and to forget how there was NO democratic mandate for them to do what they did.
I find it similarly difficult to understand why ‘socialists’ are so quick to ally themselves with global capital on this issue.
Is it virtue signalling? Wishy washy idealism? Contempt for ordinary people / one’s home country?
This migration crisis has brought out the eternal political/governing battle amongst European politicians of the Tin Man versus the Scarecrow from the Wizard of Oz. (The Tin Man had a brain, but had no heart; the Scarecrow had no brain, but had a heart). Below, I simplify this analysis by comparing the two extreme forms of governing; but in reality, there is a middle way of governing.
The political/governing battle in Europe regarding the migrant issue follows the same concept. Should Europe/European countries be like the Scarecrow and govern with the heart, and let ANY and ALL people “follow the yellow brick road” and come to Europe (whether it is millions, tens of millions, hundreds of millions, or even billions of people), regardless of reason. The Scarecrow will build them homes, educate them, feed them, provide medical care, etc…regardless of cost, as money is not an actual issue in Oz. And being that the Scarecrow has no brain, he does not have the ability to analyze possible consequences of such actions.
Alternatively, should Europe/European countries govern like the Tin Man, and analyze the issues at hand BEFORE making the commitment to take on millions of migrants. For instance: the costs of shelter, food, education, healthcare, roads, security, etc…; overcrowded cities; additional water and air pollution; decreasing farmland and forests to build more homes; security concerns; job losses to European citizens and replaced with cheaper foreign labor; cultural clashes amongst migrants with current citizens; cultural clashes amongst different migrant groups themselves; downturn in economies preventing them of fulfilling promises; introduction of individual terrorists within migrant groups; introduction of cultural practices that are incompatible with European values (ex. FGM, polygamy, forced marriage, etc…); potential riots if the European dream is unfulfilled; is there a plan (and political will) to return hundreds of thousands of people who are not “refugees”; homelessness; encouraging human trafficking; will the low birth rate amongst ethnic Europeans and the high birth rate amongst certain other ethnic groups cause ethnic Europeans to become minorities within Europe by the 22nd century; will certain human rights important to Europe (ex. ECHR) be watered down or repealed as its principles may not necessarily be that important to a new demographic; etc… Some of these issues are actual issues, and some are mere speculation and unrealistic; nevertheless, they are issues that need to be analyzed and discussed with the British (and European) public.
You may or may not know that fools run everything in this world, refugees coming into all these countries will be catastrophic to these countries. These refugees will intermarry with the people of these countries, and the people will become different people than what they are now. So I purpose that we no longer call Germans, Germans, but Gersyrians, and because of the Mexicans coming to America we should no longer call ourselves Americans, but Amermexes. The destruction of civilization is coming to the planet Earth, try and get ready for it.
“But whatever it’s taken to get here, this is beginning to feel like a turning point.”
I do not think it is a turning point. It is more like a wave, whipped up by emotional media, and which will quickly dissipate. This “sympathy” will do nothing to mitigate the suffering, and in many ways make it worse giving false hope to people in countries such as Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia that Europe will, or can, absorb unlimited number of migrants. How long will people who feel so self-righteous today by offering to share their homes with “refugees” be willing to share with people from a totally different culture and a very different, intolerant and intransigent “faith”?
What is needed is hard thinking, and determined action to deal with the source of the problem – i.e. a form of Islamism that is determined to impose its will on others.
Iain, I totally agree with your thoughts on this matter. It most certainly is not going to go away – it is one that has to be addressed for its variety of causations, preventions and European objectives.
Yes, Iraq was most certainly the starting point that created this massive wave of instability in the region. This has always been stated and agreed.
I also agree that the news media, in particular the news papers, have tried to have it both ways. When it came to politicians highlighting the terrorist threat made by the so-called ISIL, who threatened to send terrorist to our Countries in the form of refugees, the newspapers put this on their front pages… and sold many papers. Now, the newspapers have forgotten about this relationships between “the ISIL treat and refugees”, and have taken an emotional approach to refugees rather than also emphasising that we also need to use our MINDS – not simply our Compassionate HEARTS – to Assess RISK!!!
The news media is POWERFUL – and it has shown a One-sided version to the Voices of the British public, I would suggest.
Let us not forget, the so-called ISIL had threatened to bring terrorism into the UK, and other European Countries, via the refugees. Thus, while the news media continues to ONLY show and give Voice to Compassion from the Heart, I am in no doubt that there are vast Minds out there who clearly remember the threat by ISIL, and understands the VITAL need to manage RISK with Compassion on such grounds.
Frankly, I think the news media have been irresponsible in the area of highlighting Balanced Voices – using a picture of a Young boy to sell newspapers and to harness Compassion is one thing, but there many others who will share compassion WHILE using intelligence to manage RISK. THIS IS HOW WE PROTECT BRITISH PEOPLE.
It’s a tough balance, but we have to remain focused on assessing RISK at all times.
You’ll always get comments from left wing liberals claiming that people want to take in unknown foreigners who follow a religion which is being used as an excuse to kill any non believer and take the world back to medieval times, because they can’t see the truth of what is happening through their crocodile right on pc tears.