Asylum distribution scandal less about immigration and more about inequality

Photograph: The clock tower of Rochdale town hall from Pixabay (License) (Cropped)

Over the weekend, there were reports of anger at the way those seeking asylum in Britain were being distributed across the country. These people were being sent to the poorest communities, while the richest communities often took not a single person (Lyons & Duncan, 2017).

One town particularly affected was Rochdale, a small town with an outsized history as a progressive beacon. It was the birthplace of the co-operative movement and, against the grain in Britain, supported the Union and the abolition of slavery during the American Civil War (Keegan, 2010; Cash, 2013) - despite the pain of the loss of cotton imports from the Confederacy.

Even in a town with that historical backdrop, there is anger that is framed and understood through the lens of anti-immigration sentiment (Lyons, 2017). But that misses the point, as much of the distracting immigration anger has done so far. The real issue is inequality.

As the figures show, without the funding to match, the burden that comes with caring and including those people seeking asylum is being dropped into the hands of the country's poorest communities (Lyons & Duncan, 2017).

Communities that have already been hit hard by cuts to local government budgets (Butler, 2017) - services have been stretched and funds are scarce. It has been Conservative policy for some time to shift responsibilities away from central government without funding.

All the while, the Right seeks to misdirect the anger at this situation onto 'immigrants' - to those fleeing danger and murder, or the refugees of war. But the figures clearly show the real problem: Britain's wealthiest communities are not pulling their weight or sharing the burdens.

This isn't isolated to asylum. Look at the energy and the environment. Communities, particularly Conservative constituencies, have refused green energy technology, like wind farms, as 'eyesores' blighting their communities (Hennessy, 2012). But where is their outcry against their energy coming from dirty plants in poorer neighbourhoods?

While this unequal distribution of burdens paints Britain in a bad light, . Part of the opposition to the expansion of green energy has been the unequal distribution of its financial benefits (Mason, 2012) and in every community there can be a found positive and charitable support for those seeking asylum from danger.

From Saffiyah Khan, the woman who stood up and peacefully faced a nationalist group when they surrounded a counter-protesting woman (BBC, 2017); to the peaceful and charitable disposition found in communities across the country (Lyons, 2017); there are innumerable examples that Britain has broad shoulders and can make light of its burdens.

But not when all of the burdens are dropped on the poorest communities. Not when the wealthiest communities exempt themselves, sending the unfortunate and desperate somewhere else without even the support funding to match.

It's one rule for conservative Britain and another for everyone else. Like in ancient Athens: "The strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must". That adage is not good enough and should be left buried in the past where it belongs.

Progressives must see the common ground between refugees and the precariat and press for holistic compassionate action

The Calais 'Jungle' is to be broken up, with its ten thousand inhabitants to be dispersed to smaller centres scattered throughout France. Photograph: Calais Jungle on 17 January 2016 by Malachy Browne (License) (Cropped)

Immigration returns to the headlines today, across Europe, as the French Government sets about the final break up of the Calais 'Jungle' camp (Chrisafis et al, 2016). After what is now years of being the last stop for refugees headed for Britain, the camp's inhabitants are to be dispersed in small groups to smaller processing camps scattered right across France.

For Britain's Conservative Government, seeing the Jungle broken up means showing some sort of progress on crude pledges to tackle migration. For the French Socialist Government it means breaking up the most visible of symbols of immigration that Far-Right parties twist into provocation.

The desperation of the French Socialist ministers to avoid provoking the Far Right speaks to the deep trouble progressives are having with the issue of migration. In the UK, the Labour Party became so desperate during the last election campaign that they virtually wholly swallowed anti-immigration rhetoric and produced a commemorative mug to prove it.

The truly progressive position on migration is to take an internationalist view. To see people in a broad, humanitarian way that rejects the sectarian thinking of nationalism - that degrades people by categorising them into those for who we can and cannot care, shutting out the world that lies beyond narrowly defined and jealous borders.

From the internationalist perspective, there are two facts. First, there are a large number of people displaced and facing homelessness and absolute poverty. And second, there is another large number of people who live precariously and see danger in an influx of more poor people on their life chances and opportunities.

For an internationalist, that is the state of things across the whole of Europe, not the unique problem of any one country alone. Whichever administrative division they may be found in, both matter and both must be addressed with care.

One thing that is notable is the absence of any particular effects upon those more well to do and secure. Therein lies an implication that a commonality exists between the two groups, the precariat and the refugees. Both find themselves caught between the hammer and the anvil: extremism and war on the one hand, and an exclusionary economic system on the other.

Embracing the sectarian, nationalist and conservative approach of dividing people, particularly the poor, does nothing but force them into competition with each other for basic dignity. That is inhumane - and doesn't even solve the problems. Instead, it just moves the problems around, pushing them into the shadows or handing them off to someone else.

Progressives must fight the divisive pitting of the precariat against refugees, and dispel the idea that refugees are being cared for at the expense of the precariat. An holistic vision that alleviates the pressure on both groups is essential.

In all of this, respect for the dignity of refugees and the precariat is imperative. Exclusion has bred fear and that has to be fought with hope. The first step in that is compassion - reaching out, listening and offering positive steps that are inclusive and respectful.