Learning to live with irregular migration: towards a more ambitious debate on the politics of ‘the problem’

Abstract

What might be gained by learning to live with ‘the problem’ of irregular migration, rather than attempting to solve it? This article engages two senses of ‘the problem’ at stake: first, the ongoing nature of displacement and migration and second, the contested justice claims that sit behind different policy perspectives. The second sense of the problem (its political dimension) is rarely addressed explicitly in public debate. Yet direct engagement with the political dimension offers the potential to unlock debate from a polarised impasse. To make this argument, I first diagnose debate on irregular migration in terms of three archetypal positions and examine their implicit justice claims. I then argue for a more ambitious debate that pushes contending justice claims to their logical extensions. Debate of this kind requires a more coherent defence of justice claims, whether they are based in communitarian, cosmopolitan, anti-capitalist or hybrid values with respect to citizenship and political community. The article concludes with an illustration of how this approach can generate momentum for less circular, more sustainable and politically achievable policy responses. The argument is made with reference to illustrative examples from Australia and Europe but holds for a variety of contexts where ‘the problem’ is framed in similar ways.

Keywords:

• Irregular migration
• refugee regime
• borders
• citizenship
• migration-development nexus
• migration policy

Acknowledgements

I am especially grateful to Klaus Neumann, Savitri Taylor, Peter Mares, Miriam Ticktin, Kim Huynh, participants in the Workshop ‘Borderscapes, Memory and Forced Migration’ led by Karina Horsti and anonymous reviewers for close readings and comments on earlier drafts.

Notes

1. For example, Zapata-Barrero and Pecoud (2012, 1160) argue that debate on the ethics of international migration has moved to a ‘more realistic and pragmatic discussion of how migration should be governed’ that proceeds from questions of regulation rather than prohibition. In the Australian context, a report from the Australia 21 group that aims to move debate ‘beyond the boats’ also starts from this perspective (Douglas et al. 2014, 13).

2. The same point holds more specifically in regard to Miller’s communitarian defence of border controls which rests on the claim that global inequality is not a matter of justice per se, provided that certain conditions are met with respect to the ability of poorer/less developed states to author their own policies and trajectories (even if they lead to poor outcomes) with relative autonomy (Miller 2008). As Owen points out, the prior question of the constitution of those states and citizenship within them is taken for granted by Miller, as is the equal ability of all peoples to constitute themselves as sovereign in the first place (Owen 2010, 102–103).

3. This kind of inference was prominent in former Australian Foreign Minister Bob Carr’s assessment of Iranian nationals seeking asylum in Australia. That Iranians might be seeking better economic opportunities was taken to imply that they could not simultaneously be victims of persecution. See comments by Bob Carr in ‘Labour closes the gap on coalition with Rudd at helm and new cabinet set to be sworn in’, broadcast on AM, ABC Radio National, July 1 2013; transcript at: http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2013/s3792819.htm.

4. This justification was made by Arthur Sinodinos, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Opposition and former chief of staff to Prime Minister John Howard, on Q&A, broadcast on ABC television, 22 July 2013. http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/past-programs-by-date.htm.

5. In Australia, Manne (2014) presents a variation of this perspective, accusing refugee advocates of not accepting the facts that deterrence policies have saved lives by ‘stopping the boats’.

6. Australia’s estimated spending on offshore management of asylum seekers in financial year 2015–2016 was $AU1.1 billion (Karlsen 2016, 3). The total funds available to the UNHCR in 2016 were $US 3 823 million (UNHCR 2016c). Based on an average exchange rate ($US to $AU) for 2016 of 0.7780, the Australian figure equates to 22.4% of the UNHCR figure.