I have already noted in part one of this series, that migration, immigration and emigration are emotive topics, about which many people feel strongly. One important contributing factor is xenophobia, literally ‘fear of strangers’.
Xenophobia: fear and contempt of strangers or foreigners or anything designated as foreign, or a conviction that certain foreign individuals and cultures represent a threat to the authentic identity of one’s own nation-state and cannot integrate into the local society peacefully.
Xenophobia was first mentioned a long time ago – traces of hieroglyphs in Ancient Egypt indicate belief in the inferiority of other races, some described as ‘vile’. (Ancient Greeks viewed foreigners as ‘barbarians’, fit only for slavery; the Romans reserved their profoundest contempt for Syrians and Asiatic Greeks, maintaining a frequently violent suspicion of Black Africans.
Human reaction to an implicit threat from ‘others’ may manifest as dislike or hatred of invaders, rivals, or potential carriers of disease. There may also be fear of economic disadvantage (immigrants taking jobs from the natives), or worry that social provision, housing, school systems, or healthcare structures might be overwhelmed.
Justifying hostility against the other
Attempts to justify hostility may rest on immigrants’ supposed ethnic, religious or political links with enemies in any conflict, whether cultural, financial or existential. Some people believe that foreigners threaten their traditions, character, culture or racial integrity. Alien traditions or behaviour patterns may be seen as insanitary, blasphemous or immoral.
Young men may display an aggressive proto-tribal warrior mindset, believing they must defend their societies, homes, families or social status, and spurred on by peer pressure, agitation, and excitement. Suggested terrorist affiliations may be particularly explosive during international unrest. At such times, a weak, indecisive national government may be swayed or subverted by populist, extreme shades of political opinion, intensifying a xenophobic climate. Whenever economic hardship and austerity are felt, these problems become understandably more acute.
Blood libel and other cultural slurs
Allegations against aliens are often exaggerated to the point where it becomes hard to imagine how anyone could reasonably believe them. One example is what has been called the ‘Blood Libel’, starting in the 12th century, when Jews were accused of eating the blood of Christian children in matzah flatbread during the Jewish feast of Passover. This rumour has been invoked in every century since then, to excite anti-Semitic violence.
Racial or cultural minorities have been targeted throughout history. In mid-19th-century Australia and New Zealand, Chinese labourers were so resented for their willingness to work for low wages that they were barred from entering both countries. Black people in the UK (eg Windrush immigrants, invited by the government in 1948 to boost the workforce) have met unrelenting hostility. The Irish have known English contempt since the middle of the 12th century, as did the 18th-century Scots. In our own time, discrimination against the LGBTQ+ minority is widespread.
Defining immigrants
It seems clear that several common misconceptions are hindering mutual comprehension of this complex topic. Racism, xenophobia and hatred of immigrants are commonly based on misunderstandings or denials of fact. In such situations, where feelings run high, truth and clarity become crucial. In order to establish the meanings of terms which frequently arise in the context of immigration, I checked the Refugee Council’s definitions.
The 1951 United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees (Article 1 A(2)) defines ‘refugee’ as:
“A person who owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence as a result of such events, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it.”
“In the UK, a person becomes a refugee when government agrees that an individual who has applied for asylum meets the definition in the Refugee Convention.” On this basis they will ‘recognise’ that person as a refugee and issue them with refugee status documentation. They are usually given five years leave to remain as a refugee. “They must then apply for further leave, although their status as a refugee is not limited to five years.”
A ‘person seeking asylum’ is described as:
“A person who has left their country of origin and formally applied for asylum in another country but whose application has not yet been concluded.”
A ‘migrant’ is:
“Someone who has moved to another country for other reasons, such as to find work.”
Finally, a ‘refused asylum applicant’ is:
“A person whose asylum application has been unsuccessful and who has no other claim for protection awaiting a decision. Some people who have their case refused voluntarily return home, others are forcibly returned.
“For some, it is not safe nor practical to return until conditions in their country change.”
The truth about asylum seekers and refugees
Immigrant refugees, then, are people forced to escape from their own countries under fear of persecution. As we regularly see in the news, persecution and enforced displacement are still frequent. It is therefore essential to remember that those whom we call asylum seekers have no choice about whether to stay in or return to their own countries.
According to UK government statistics, 108,138 people applied for asylum here in 2024. Around 5,100 of these were foreign national offenders (FNOs – people convicted of any criminal offence in the UK or a serious criminal offence in another country), whose claims for asylum are rejected (‘refused asylum applicant’). They represent just over 2% of the total number of asylum seekers.
Meanwhile, according to the UK Police National Computer, as many as 27% of the UK resident population have some form of criminal conviction. This suggests that working-age UK citizens would be nearly 14 times more likely to commit an offence than would asylum seekers. The widespread perception of criminality among asylum seekers is therefore incorrect, and the associated uproar is based on a false premise.
The takeaway? Not all asylum seekers are criminals.
Part three of this ‘Incomers’ series is available here.
