Migration migraine

In a famous passage of Genesis, God tells Abram to "go from your country and your kindred and your father's house to the land that I will show you". At the mature age of 75, Abram undertakes the treacherous journey to the land of Canaan, where he is briskly bundled into an immigration centre and threatened with deportation to Rwanda.¹

Of course, that is not the real story you would read in the pages of the Book of GenesisThe first book of the Hebrew Bible and the Christian Old Testament. , but it is what the biblical figure might face trying to cross the UK border in 2022. 

The country is facing more debates over a "crisis" of asylum seekersPeople who have left their countries due to danger and are seeking refuge elsewhere. , as figures show that 40,000 people have crossed the English channel in boats so far this year.

Amid the controversy, home secretary Suella Braverman has been criticised this week for describing the arrival of asylum seekers in the UK as an "invasion on our southern coast".

"Let's stop pretending they are all refugees in distress; the whole country knows that is not true," she announced in the House of CommonsThe democratically elected house of the UK Parliament. It consists of 650 Members of Parliament. , angering many of her fellow Members of ParliamentA Member of Parliament (or MP) is somebody who has been elected - chosen by the people - to represent their part of the country in Parliament. This is where politicians debate and make laws..

Braverman's controversial comments are not the only major migration-related news story. On Sunday, a British pensioner threw petrol bombs at an immigration centre in DoverA town on the southeast coast of England. .

Meanwhile, experts have been warning of a "breach of humane conditions" at another immigration centre in KentA county in south east England. , where asylum seekers were supposedly subject to gross mistreatment.²

The problem goes far beyond British politics. Natural disasters, war and discrimination are driving a continuous global refugee crisis from countries such as Afghanistan, Syria, Ukraine, Somalia and the Central African Republic.

Some argue that the global migration system could be fixed with more restrictions, and that refugees and asylum seekers should be refused unless they are skilled and bring societal benefits.

Others point out that migration is a phenomenon as old as humanity, and that it has rarely been restricted before modernity. To many of them, a broken system is not the problem, but modern people's prejudice towards migrants.

If there is any agreement, it is that even if the system has not yet cracked, it will soon. Experts predict that 1.2 billion people could be displaced by 2050 due to the climate crisis³, meaning that the question of migration will only become more urgent.

Yes: The case study of the United Kingdom makes it clear that the global migration system is broken. Countries do not have the capacity to take on tens or hundreds of thousands of people, possibly even millions, at a time of economic crisis.

No: The system is not broken, but successive global governments have done everything they can to stoke fear about immigration. Refugees, asylum seekers and immigrants are scapegoats for governments to blame for their own policy mistakes.

Or... The system is under strain, but we need to put a human response first. When we turn down asylum seekers, we leave them to face an uncertain future. We should not be framing it in terms of a "broken system", but in terms of moral choices.