Current Affairs

There are 447.2 million inhabitants living in the European Union, 23.7 million non European Union citizens and there were 37.5 million people born outside the European Union, respectively 5.3 percent of the European Unions population and 8.4 percent of all European Union inhabitants. The European Union argues that the share of the foreign born population in the EU is lower than most high income countries. So why is the question of immigration central to political argument in the EU.

Singapore tops the list for foreign born migrants with 43.1 percent of its population being born outside Singapore and then there are destinations that have encouraged migration, such as Australia (30.1%), Canada (21.3%) and New Zealand (28.7%), but this itself raises the question whether migration is determined by arguments put forward by someone like Suella Braverman that in Britain (13.8%) it is an “invasion” or Trumps rallying cry of “America First”, when there is very little difference to the UK at 15.3%. But a first tier nation with an indigenous population is Switzerland with a foreign born migrant population making up 28.8% of its citizens, so is there a Swiss version of Trump or Braverman distinguishing difference.

According to domestic and international institutions, there is racism in Switzerland, a Federal Council report stated that the high proportion of foreign citizens in Switzerland were integrated without problems, but the population that has reported being targeted by racism has seen an increase of 17%. A more recent study argued that full integration is “out of reach for non-European migrants.” The most affected areas of discrimination are in employment, housing, education and social activities. In 2021, the United Nations believed that Switzerland did not legislate to tackle racism, though it is a is a signatory to the International convention on the elimination of all forms of racial discrimination.

On 27 September 2020, a moderate immigration initiative aimed at ending free movement between the European Union and Switzerland, meant an end to the AFMP, a bilateral agreement between Switzerland and the EU, which was rejected by a vote of sixty two percent. Since 1992, there have been questions about immigration, the Federal Popular Initiative against mass immigration was accepted by 50.3% of voters. The referendum was designed to reduce immigration through quotas, but it was in 2002 that the peoples initiative on asylum was rejected by 50.1% in a national vote. The proposal aimed to make Switzerland less attractive to asylum seekers, while at the same time respecting the obligations of international law.

But Switzerland is not the only nation to bring into laws that challenge policies brought forward by the state to challenge migration, Britain itself has political arguments determined by racial division. One of the arguments of Brexit was free movement within the EU, but ultimately this itself led to questions of European migration into Britain. The question that Britain has today is the question of the immigrants arriving in Britain by boat and once again it has become a question of whether this is a political or an economic argument determined by identity politics.

Since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, Europe has received the largest number of people fleeing conflict since the second world war. There have been 4.4 million registrations for temporary protection in the EU, out of which 2.4 million are women. Put into context there have been 6.3 million displaced people internally in Ukraine, three million of that number are children who have had their education affected, their ability to live in a home and are witness to the absolute horrors of war.   

But is the question of immigration or migration something different, is it what differentiates Europeans from the rest of the world, which beggars the question of whether the determinants that have so far encompassed migration and the populism of the fringe who have entered mainstream politics, is actually determined by ethnicity, race, religion or is just a question of the unknown. The AfD in Germany, which at the last election solidified its voter base to the east of Germany and is representative of 10% of the national vote and argues that migrants […] are a “perceived threat to national identity” and in their brochure for the EU parliament they argue that Europe’s policy on immigration “is a danger to European civilization.” But the argument is always the same, an anti-Europe party at its inception has morphed into something that holds racial prejudice as a key element to their way of attracting voters.

Von Storch, a leading accolade of the AfB argues that the party accepts Muslims, but in her own words she doesn’t “want Germany to become a Muslim country,” then adds that “rising numbers of criminal rates within those (Muslim migrants) groups.” Which is the same argument of the Sweden Democrats, an argument that brought electoral success and a seat in the power sharing government in Sweden. Von Storch thought that Matteo Salvini, who’s law on immigration and security was a “successful policy of stability for Europe,” though heavily criticized by the UN refugee agency and the human rights commissioner. So what exactly do the AfD believe, they actually believe that “international cooperation [is needed] to provide refugees with protection in their own regions.”

Following the murder of German politician Walter Lubcke, who was known for his support of migrants, an AfD member of parliament argued that the murder should be blamed on the governments decision to take in a large number of immigrants. Martin Hohmann said “if not for the illegal opening of the borders by Chancellor Angelka Merkel with uncontrolled, continual mass arrival of migrants, Walter Lubcke would still be alive.”

In France the movement to the right has been in the ascension for the past fifty years. It is now the largest party in opposition the once Front National, is now the Rassemblement National. Initially a party comprising of anti-communists, veterans of France’s war with Algeria, Libertarians, monarchists and fascist sympathisers, in 1997 it became a party that opposed immigration and criticised Islam, polling 15% in parliamentary elections. In the 2015 elections members who excused World War 2 collaborators or downplayed the holocaust in public, were expelled from the party, this included Jean Marie-Le Pen. These members were replaced by younger more capable political operators, whereas today the party has a third of its members of Parliament under 40.  In 2021, Marine Le Pen handed its leadership to 27 year old Jordan Bardella. The party has twice reached the second round of France’s presidential elections and in 2022 Marine Le Pen reached 41% of the national vote.

An IPSOS poll argued that only 25% of French feel that France is not in decline. The main question was immigration where 64% of those who supported the Rassemblement National believe there are to many immigrants and that there needs to be a stronger leader to re-establish law and order. This is why Eric Zemmour took 7% of the national vote in the first round of the national vote in the election. Even Macron has moved right when he appointed hardline Conservative Gerald Darmanin as interior minister, who once accused Le Pen as softening when she did not think that Islam was a problem.   

The new immigration bill brought in by Gerald Darmain, has targeted immigrants and will speed up the expulsion of undocumented migrants while creating permits for some undocumented migrants who are already in France to make up short falls in sectors with labour shortages. The creation of the metiers en tension or skills in demand residence permit, argues that it is time to be “tough on the bad guys and kind to the rule-abiders.” Gregoire de Fournas, a newly elected member of the far-right anti-immigration National Rally shouted “go back to Africa.”when Carlos Martens-Bilongo of the far left France Unbowed party was asking a question about migration. Gregoire de Fournas argued that it was a problem of semantics but it demonstrated how divisive the argument concerning immigration and why it has become so polarising.

The movement to the right in Italian politics has been attributed to Matteo Salvini- Italy’s interior minister in 2018 . The new slogan “Italian’s first!” was a shout of defiance against the EU, the enemy no longer the Italian legislator but Brussels. The Lega’s populist radical-right wing message was clear, Salvini pledged to deport 500,000 illegal migrants, which pushed the party to the forefront of the right wing alliance and this in turn led to the Lega taking the most votes in the 2018 election. As interior Minister, Salvini made his name by turning away a boatload of more than 600 African refugees, which boosted Salvini’s standing in Italy, public opinion polls showed support had jumped from 18% to 30%, which gave Salvini the highest support among all Italian politicians. In 2015, at a rally in Rome Salvini argued that the biggest problem for him was “the thousand of illegal immigrants stealing, raping and dealing drugs,” and in 2016 Salvini declared that the Pope’s welcoming to immigrants would “encourage and fund an unprecedented invasion.”

Giorgia Meloni, Italy’s prime minister once argued that Rome should “repatriate migrants and sink the boats that rescued them”. This year in November, she allowed the disembarking of women, children and the sick, before demanding that the boat carrying male migrants rescued from the Mediterranean be refused the right to disembark them onto Italian soil. However, Italy as an economy is haemorrhaging its population, in 2017 there were 464,000 babies born, 100,000 of those were born to mixed couples, with one Italian parent and one foreign born. In 2017, 664,000 Italians died, if the country is going to maintain a population of 60 million and enough working people to maintain its pension system, then Italy needs to restore either the birth rate or a healthy immigration policy in order to keep the economy afloat. Tito Boeri, who heads Italy’s national pension system, argued that Italy’s pension system would collapse if there was not a steady flow of migration into the economy. Boeri believed that a reduction of legal immigration of 10% would lead to an increase of illegal immigration of anywhere between 3% and 5%. But the worst aspect of the immigration argument is that the Italians have been fed untruths at the real number of Immigrants who have entered Italy, Italians believe that 26% of the population is made up of immigrants, but in reality the figure is closer to 9% according to Tito Boeri.

There are different arguments about the value of immigration, but it is when there is no real argument put forward other than the alienation of immigrants from the ability to be accepted within a nation and its economy. There have been those who have accepted immigration, but with the rise of populist parties feeding off xenophobic arguments, the isolation of immigrants in poor housing and unemployment has been compounded by structures that ignore the values and needs of employers and society as a whole. Populists and political classes who have created arguments that isolates and determines difference through race, ethnicity and skin colour are becoming more prevalent with the votes that populist parties are receiving, and it is the argument of these parties that ultimately are growing in popularity right across Europe. There have been arguments that the problems lies in Brussels and the EU, who have not created a coherent policy that empowers a European response rather than a national, but unfortunately the argument has been magnified by an inability of Europe to have a policy that is European, rather than one determined by arguments of the port of entry.