One of the most grotesque discussions we are recently hearing from politicians relates to migrants and refugees. Many right-wing racist arguments are openly repugnant and easily dismissed as existing only to divide and rule. That the far-right is not subtle is an understatement, their racism and nativism are evident from the use of the words used to describe refugees and migrants such as the “invasion” of “our” country or referring to refugees and migrants as “vermin”, “swarms” or a “plague”.

These terms are used to describe non-humans, and politicians often describe such people as criminals (e.g., rapists, drug dealers, paedophiles) to justify their persecution and prosecution. Far-right parties talk about allowing people to drown in the seas and to prevent rescue of those from sinking boats, pass laws where boat captains could be legally charged for rescuing people at sea (see Italy for example).

But what we see more and more is that it is not just right-wing governments (and politicians) that jump on the anti-refugee and anti-migrant bandwagon. Why do so-called centrist governments (right or left) fall into this nonsense? Even politicians whose families are children or grandchildren of refugees and migrants seem to be advocating closing the doors behind them; this was clearly the case with Tories such as Priti Patel and Suella Braverman, convenient Black people for racist white politicians to hide their racism behind. 

There is no doubt that countries have historically benefitted from migration and taking in refugees; they still do benefit from migrants and refugees on many levels and that goes way beyond the normal capitalist economic concerns of having more people to exploit. In fact, migrants often cover jobs that others do not want to do (agriculture, care work, cleaning work), our societies rely on their ability to sell their labour; so why are so many governments across political lines falling into this argument? Migrant labour pays taxes and get little in return, so why the hatred? It is of course not only politicians, these discussions in the MSM are ubiquitous.

EU migration and border law allowz labour migration within the EU, but is stringent against those from outside. It is just one more assault on former colonial counties; preventing migration after exploiting the people and their natural resources for so long; oppressing and repressing those living in their former colonies; deliberately under-developing these countries; undermining the formation and growth of trade unions, and destroying their indigenous industries that threaten the colonising country’s economy.

Essentially, EU migration and border law is racist and violates Human Rights Law on many levels. While refugees are theoretically guaranteed the right to enter the EU and receive some basic financial support; economic migrants are far less welcome.

The question is what constitutes a refugee… are economic migrants actually refugees? Is poverty, oppression and repression causing migration and do these people have the right to go elsewhere? Climate change is literally raising the sea level and flooding islands/countries in the Pacific, those in the Atlantic will face the same as well… the global climate disaster and environmental destruction is not caused by these people or these countries, it is capitalism, not population which is responsible. These people are refugees caused by the actions of the advanced capitalist countries; they must be allowed in. If legal routes do not exist, then people will use illegal routes.

Today’s UK government announcement on changes in refugee policy

Over and over again, we hear the argument that we need to cut down on “illegal migration” and make accessing asylum harder. Today, the UK Home secretary, Shabana Mahmood, actually said that “illegal migration” is tearing the UK apart, it is dividing communities […].”

A wonderful expression to blame the victims… it is dividing communities… actually it is the right-wing that is dividing our communities, not the asylum seekers

Let’s be precise, according to the UK government:

A total of 111,084 people claimed asylum in the UK in the year ending June 2025, 14% more than in the year ending June 2024, and 8% more than the previous peak of 103,081 in 2002.

[…] 

the number of people claiming asylum in the UK was particularly high in the early 2000s, peaking at 103,000 in 2002. This was due to a large number of people fleeing persecution from countries with conflicts and political instability, such as Afghanistan, Iraq, and Somalia.

From 2004 to 2020 there were between 22,000 and 46,000 people claiming asylum in the UK each year. However, since the second half of 2021 there has been a notable increase. The latest year is the highest on record (going back to 1979) with almost twice as many (+90%) claimants than in 2021.

One obvious response is the easiest way to cut down on “illegal migration” is to open up more legal routes for migrants so that they do not have to arrive in the country illegally. The fact that this “illegal migration” also includes those asking for refugee status or asylum makes these threats even more serious.

We have a moral and political obligation to protect refugees; no offense, given the role of imperialist countries in creating wars, overturning elected governments, creating and enhancing political divisions, as well as being responsible for climate change that should mean that our governments and societies provide some support for those that get are forced to leave their home due to all these things.

Under EU Convention of Human Rights, financial support for refugees and asylum seekers to help them resettle must be provided. There are additional human rights arguments that can be used to prevent deportation of those denied asylum. Concern was raised about a temporary ban in family reunions for refugees in September 2025, it leaves family members in great danger and also prevents proper settlement.

In the proposed new asylum policy that began to be rolled out today in Britain, 2.5 years is the length of time that asylum seekers will be allowed to stay in the country initially and they will need to reapply for asylum status again in 2.5 years. They will also be returned to their previous countries after the situation leading to their being refugees becomes “safe” for their return.

Those asylum seekers that arrive “illegally” in small boats or in trucks arriving from the European continent, will need to wait 20 years to be able before being able to obtain the right to settle permanent. Finally, the guarantee of housing and support accorded to asylum seekers will no longer be automatic. For those who are legally allowed to work, these benefits will be removed.

One obvious question is why all asylum seekers aren’t allowed to seek work, surviving on the very low amount of support is extremely difficult and people will work off the books simply to have a better life, be able to access better housing, for some people this violates the law. Rather than force people to live on so little and to force disabled people into work or insist that those caring for their children or doing support and assistance for their family members with impairments work without provision of sufficient childcare or social support and assistance (aka as social care)? 

Again, this is not to suggest forcing anyone into work as they may be unable to do so due to impairments and due to caring responsibilities; but others may welcome the chance to do so. The level of support is woeful, try to imagine living on this… calling it a “golden ticket” is sickening.

Currently, support includes the right to somewhere to live, as well as a weekly payment of £49.18 per person in each household to cover costs of items such as food, clothing and toiletries. If the accommodation provides meals, each person gets £9.95 per week instead. There are small increases for pregnant women and young children.

Under Ms Mahmood’s plans, those who can work, have assets, fail to comply with removal directions, engage in criminality, disrupt accommodation settings or work illegally could have their support removed, the Home Office said.

Rising Fascism and Far-Right Nonsense

One extremely worrying phenomenon is the quasi-normalisation of a really ugly and rather bizarre argument that has support among Christian fascists blending racism and ethno-nationalism into attacks on racialised people especially migrants and refugees.

The extension of these attacks on migrants and refugees (and it is only a small step to the right from centrist positions) is the Great Replacement Theory (GRT) where migrants and refugees (especially racialised non-Christian people) are seen to be a threat, specifically to white Christian men, whose political and economic power as well as their “culture” are being undermined and replaced by that of these “foreigners.” This is not that new a spin on an old argument.

Historically and currently, these views also are part of ethno-nationalism racialisation; hence following a different religion to Christianity. These arguments were utilised historically against Jews in Europe (not only the Nazis) and certainly today it is used against Muslims. But it is not specific to only Abrahamic religions, it also holds for followers of other “Asian” religions.

Understanding that Orientalism as a justification for racism, colonialist expansion and economic exploitation of “Asian” populations and natural resources, led to the combination of racialism and ethnicity as “other”; which treats people as different, childish, and backward, while seeing their cultures as reflecting that is fundamental to justify colonialism.

Even in nation states/countries where there is not an established religion, we find this perspective and looking at both European and US history that has been the justification for interventions of this type through US history. We see this perspective generally from the ruling class and not only from the far-right, but it is also often part of colonialist mentality that justified colonialism. But the reality is that these divide and rule racialised politics which are employed to create hatred and suspicion about “the other”.

The fact that this argument is applied to “foreigners” (refugees and migrants) does not in any way mean that supporters of the GRT conspiracy argument believe that the inequality and oppression of racialised people born in their country or holding the same passport as themselves (not all states have birthright citizenship) is a problem. The creation of “others” means we are allowing the objectification of human subjects; no longer people means that they have no humanity and hence are no longer protected from the worst of us.

Racialisation enables both oppression (economic, social and political inequality) as well as, exclusion from specific employment and super-exploitation of these people as workers in segregated labour markets. For many of the believers in the GRT, people living in the land that later became the US before their white ancestors lived there are also inferior and genocide and slavery were “appropriate solutions” to their existence.

Eugenics and sterilisation abuse are closely united due to the relationship of the early birth control movement and the eugenics movement (this was the case in Britain and the US) and was used against disabled women, racialised people, and women who deviated from social norms in the beginning of the 20th century before the Nazis used it against disabled people, Roma and Sinti and Jews.

People who should know better who have had this used against their ancestors in the not- so distant past, now spout about the dangers of this latest wave of migrants and refugees. We cannot allow this to continue; the problem is the laws, the problem is borders, no person is illegal. 

Art Book Review Books Capitalism China Climate Emergency Conservative Government Conservative Party COVID-19 EcoSocialism Elections Europe Fascism Film Film Review France Gaza Imperialism Israel Italy Keir Starmer Labour Party Long Read Marxism Marxist Theory Palestine pandemic Protest Russia Solidarity Statement Trade Unionism Ukraine United States of America War