When a violent mob attacked the US capitol (the seat of the US Congress) in 2021, the violence had been provoked by Trump’s false claims of electoral fraud and by his unbalanced language.
Trump has so far escaped a trial only because the US Supreme Court ruled that the president is largely immune from criminal prosecutions, a conclusion reached by its 6-3 Republican majority which includes justices directly appointed by Trump.
As commented by Hugo Lowell (Guardian, 1 July 2024) this Supreme Court ruling effectively gives the US president the entitlement to commit crimes in the pursuit of his own interests.
The recent anti-migration riots in the UK are also the consequence of language used by right-wing politicians in relation to asylum seekers.
Illegal immigrants?
Asylum seekers have been incorrectly labelled as “illegal migrants” by Tory politicians, and this process culminated in the passing of the Illegal Migration Act in 2023.
According to international law asylum seekers are not “illegal migrants” and are not required to seek refuge in the first safe country they reach.
Asylum seekers are often individuals escaping persecution or conflict. Before the enactment of the Illegal Migration Act, small boat arrivals could apply for asylum and more than half were recognised as refugees by the UK authorities.
According to the UNHCR the Illegal Migration Act breaches the UK’s obligations under the Refugee Convention. Furthermore, the UK requirement that refugees stay in the “first safe country they reach” undermines the global refugee system that requires some degree of redistribution, as 73% are already hosted in countries neighbouring the refugees’ countries of origin.
The Illegal Migration Act has been a failure. New boat arrivals are no longer allowed to apply for asylum and start a life in which they can work and support themselves, which means they are hosted indefinitely at the taxpayers’ expense.
Furthermore, previously those whose asylum claim had been rejected could be returned to their country of origin, whereas under the Illegal Immigration Act nobody has been deported to Rwanda despite the exorbitant cost of this scheme.
The anti-migration language got worse with terms like “hostile environment” and with Suella Braverman’s description of asylum seekers as “invaders”, at a time when violence against migrant centres had started.
The charity Refugee Action criticised Suella Braverman, paradoxically the Conservative Home Secretary, for putting so many people at risk.
Suella Braverman was subsequently accused of justifying asylum seeker hotel attacks as she said that hotels providing refuge to asylum seekers were causing “understandable tensions” (Guardian, 5 March 2023).
Small proportion of total migration in UK
Asylum seekers represent a small proportion of total migration to the UK and some of the humanitarian crises displacing large numbers of refugees are the consequence of the UK actions (as our intervention in Afghanistan) or inactions.
Obviously, the best strategy would be to address those humanitarian crises and to help countries hosting much larger numbers of refugees, in order to reduce the number of asylum-seekers ending up in Europe.
When asylum-seekers reach the UK, accommodation in remote and inhospitable barges does not make sense. Assessing the validity of asylum applications should take place speedily in centres where refugees can start learning our language and integrating into our community.
Fast processing of asylum applications allows the refugees to start earning their living, whereas rejected applicants could be returned to their home countries.
The police have correctly responded to the recent violent riots by charging not just those responsible for the violence but also those who incited violence in social media.
However, politicians and social media moguls should also use language in a responsible way. When Elon Musk posted a comment saying that civil war in the UK is inevitable, he was encouraging violence.
The Conservative MP James Cleverly has criticised Nigel Farage for inflaming tensions during the riots and has argued that responsible politicians have a duty to think carefully about what they say.
Those who have encouraged violence, without explicitly calling for it, may not be chargeable in a court-of-law. However, if they are politicians they should face the judgment of the electorate.
