Migrant crossings continue to stoke discussion surrounding the obligations of state governments

Migration is a recurring issue in the media. Although migrants only make up 3% of the global population, merely mentioning them has the potential to influence states and society as a whole. Populist politicians frequently exploit the refugee crisis in order to create an environment of fear and hatred, and later propose themselves as the only viable solution to the “issue”. But to what extent is the rejection of migrants at borders ethical, and justifiable? Do states have inherent moral and legal obligations to accept migrants?

Brexit has reignited the long-term anti-immigration sentiment in Britain. According to an IPSOS Mori poll conducted in 2014, nearly 50% of participants considered immigration the most critical issue in the UK. To a large extent, politicians add to immigration-fuelled Euroscepticism, by labelling them as “terrorists” and “thieves”. This populist and exploitative rhetoric of politicians actively blurs the distinction between illegal and legal migrants in order to further their own political agendas. Thus, by villainising migrants, many politicians forced a narrative that produced  an ultimatum:  choice between “us” and “them”. This idea simplifies the complexity of the issue at hand, while the segregation augments the xenophobic and racist sentiment surrounding this issue.

The media also exploited these negative emotions: 46% of articles on migration in 2015 framed migration as a threat and portrayed migrants as “villains”. In contrast, only 27% of the articles on migration considered the migrant perspective, demonstrating unchecked media bias. To a large extent, migrants were portrayed as economic and security risks, and were framed as “dangerous criminals”. The generalisation, emotional manipulation and stigma portraying refugees and migrants distract from the potential benefits they bring to the states that accept them.

The state has an obligation to act for the “greater good” of the people, and migrants are a potential solution for the declining working population of the UK.  The importance of migrants became evident after Brexit, where there is now a labour shortage due to a lack of workers. For instance, the 100,000 shortage of HGV drivers is placing strains on companies and the economy as a whole. The misconception that European migrants “hurt the economy” was one of the pivotal arguments used by pro-Brexit individuals – however, it is simply false. In fact, the average European migrant contributed 78,000 pounds more than they use from benefits and public services. This statistic is significant  when compared to the average UK citizen’s lifetime contribution in 2016.

In addition to this, states and governments have a legal obligation to let in refugees. According to Article 14 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, “everyone has the right to seek and enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.” It could be argued that the UDHR acts as a moral backbone, and states therefore have a moral obligation to provide asylum to refugees.

The barbed wire fence Hungary constructed along its border with Serbia

During the 2016 Syrian refugee crisis, Hungary refused to accept refugees. As a result, Hungary was met with sanctions, and there were even calls for the state to be suspended within the EU. However, Prime Minister Orban Viktor justified the decision by stating that the politicians simply want a “Hungarian Hungary”, and not one “tainted” by other cultures. Thus, this raises the question of whether migrants are a “cultural threat” to the population. Taking the most refugees per capita, Sweden solved these cultural hurdle issue migration presents through education. In order to help refugees assimilate into society, the Swedish government funded language training in addition to labour market integration training. In addition to this, refugees are provided with healthcare, housing and stipends to ensure that they do not have to resort to crime. refugees do not turn to illegal activity due to desperation.

To put it simply, migration only becomes an issue when people refuse to be open-minded, and states do not offer migrants the minimal support they need. Even in the case of Brexit, despite migrant workers being offered working visas, many felt unwelcome due to the referendum, leading to a shortage of workers. The acceptance of migrants is an ethical, and legal duty of states. Rather than considering how that 3% of the world's population might be a problem, we should instead consider how the 190 million migrants around the world are in reality the dynamic solution to our socio-economic problems.